Derrick Jensen on violence and civilization (mirror)

[FotoKadr]

in an essence I agree that's the case. Even if you don't adjust your skills and become completely self-sufficient: diy cloths, house, growing your own food,etc. Still, someday there would come someone who is stronger and would claim everything you had worked for and this is part of the nature's laws–the strongest survives. And what we are living now is the overlap of two systems that basically fucks us up anyway whether you fuck with the society or nature.

[ylfetu]

@donyunger

Many hunter gatherer societies don't really have hierarchical structures as we understand them. Status is given to those that know the most, but resources tend to be shared out equally with sanctions against hoarding or trying to take more than one's fair share. Pecking orders kick in when these groups experience shortages.

You are right though, that there are too many humans for us all to switch to a hunter gatherer lifestyle.

[77adventa77]

"Step out of line, the men come and take you away" --

[dumpsterlove1982]

Im kinda feeling like anyone living in a 1st world country, without the know how to exist without the system, is going to be totally screwed... very soon. I really dont feel bad about that. Right on discordian!

[stett99]

dangerous world

[NatureLegalized]

Just wanted to say thanks for sharing.

[asperin]

The rent analogy is stupid and inaccurate.

How did you get in the house in the first place?

How was the house made?

Who made the house?

All of this costs money.

[discordian420]

@asperin A house is built once. If repairs are necessary, you pay the person repairing the thing that needs it. No rent necessary.

[asperin]

@discordian420

Someone is offering the house for rent, you can pay it, or not.

You don't pay because you're violently forced to do so, you pay because you agreed to pay rent.

Once you agreed, you continue to pay, the day you can't you need to get out.

.

Some people cannot buy or would not like to buy as they would be living in the area temporarily.

[discordian420]

@asperin Like in most cases, the landlord hires someone for taking care of maintenance. No rent necessary. The landlord does not provide any services. Allowing someone to live in a space you own is *NOT* a service.

[asperin]

@discordian420

By economic terms, rent is a service.

People agree to pay rent, not because they're forced. Nobody puts a gun at your head and says "live here and pay me monthly".

Rent is voluntary.

That said, you are trying to go into the philosophy of renting.

In a particular case, the owner can rent it at no cost and expect the house in the same situation as it was when he gave it to you so he might check twice a year how's the house doing and if you broke something you pay it.

_Continues_

[asperin]

@discordian420

This is permissible. Charging for rent should also be permissible.

Owning a property in today's world means you rent from the State, you don't really own it 100%.

The landlord needs rent money nevertheless. He also spent money building/buying that house, he invested, took advantage of the situation, and now he needs to profit from it.

If there was no profit from it he would have not done it.

We humans work for profit. Without profit there are no gains, without gains no progress.

[discordian420]

@asperin I discourage rent, but that does not mean I have a desire for it to be outlawed. If the landlord needs money, he should get an actual job. A landlord may have built a house but not necessarily. He may have bought a house that was already built. I reject investments such as the one we are describing for the same reason a mutualist would. Additionally, I reject (or simply don't understand) the idea that rent leads to progress.

[asperin]

@discordian420

Rent produces profit, this profit can be invested in other fields of the economy. That is why rent leads to progress.

What is the difference between hotels and house when it comes to rent?

They are both property of someone else. They both took money to make.

What is an "actual job"?

A job is an activity that produces monetary income.

There is a more serious issue here. Freeing the market from State intervention, when we do that people will then chose if rent is necessary or not.

[DaveDoggOwns]

The landlord doesn't necessarily provide services, but he provided the capital, land, etc needed so the home could be bulit.

Renting a house is A LOT cheaper then paying someone to construct a new one. You think your doing good to humanity abolishing rent, but your not.

[donyunger]

@DaveDoggOwns Fact of the matter is that the renters are the ones who ultimately pay the construction costs of the home they rent to live in. In the event they didn't, along with paying a landlord a profit on the landlord's investment, there wouldn't be any landlords. or very few of them. Just business sense.

[DaveDoggOwns]

All this shit is too simple man. Yes, someone is going to shoot you if you don't pay rent. The problem though is your assumeing there is no more fundamental reason why the violence is occuring. I think you made your point that civilization is inherently violent. What you don't make note of though is which violence is arbitrary and which isn't.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@DaveDoggOwns We must pay to live on the planet? Straw man. Instead of paying rent you COULD go out live in the woods, start a campire, pitch a tent, hunt deer, fish in the river, etc, but no. You want the conveniance and pleasure of civilized living. Unless of the course the state is providing some arbitrary reason why you can't live out in the woods. "This is publc property!"

[discordian420]

@DaveDoggOwns Well no, I can't just go out in the woods and avoid paying taxes because to my understanding, everything is "owned" regardless of whether it is being used or not. I am fairly sure I am right about that but not completely.

And if you're an ancap fellow, then you already understand that taxation is theft because it is not a voluntary exchange even if you do value some of the government services that you are paying for.

[DaveDoggOwns]

If the state was gone right now not everything would be owned. When all the alternatives are wasted as a result of the total privatization or collectivization of land, then limits on property should be established.

[discordian420]

@DaveDoggOwns Being a minor, I can't simply live wherever I want either. I have to live with my parents. However, I think one day I might live in the wilderness or partake in rewilding. But that's not going to happen the exact day I turn 18 lol.

[DaveDoggOwns]

@discordian420 Humans have been living without kings, without landlords, with wage work, etc for thousands of years in the wilderness. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be a possible option for you.

[donyunger]

@DaveDoggOwns Even when it was possible for humans to live off the wilderness chances, are the lived in bands that had a power structure & pecking order where some members would consolidate their power to coerce others in the band. The human population has long ago outgrown the planet's capability to provide the hunter gather survival model.