Slavery was a practiced by a small amount of people (6% of whites in the south at its peak) that required changes in the law made by a state, and changes in attitude to end, a lot more simple for this 'unprecedented event' to happen, than holding out the naive, unrealistic hope that the billions of people of humanity, 7.25 billion now, who knows how many billion in the future, are going to go all non-aggression and decide to only occupy one 7 billionth of the earth each and all voluntarily cede a little bit more of their land when one more child is born, which happens hundreds of times every of minute of the day... I'm not even going to ask what your anarchist method of 'distributing' the land equally is, because it is absolutely implausible in the extreme.
I consider that a myth. If you have the police state that violently exploits workers but remove basic services- aka "minarchism" -you still have all the tyranny & removal of freedom. Just without services.
I consider it a myth that the violent confiscation of peoples time, energy and fruits of their labor to provide a government monopolized 'service' constitutes 'freedom'. This activity is a large, the largest part of the tyranny in my opinion. To think that services wouldn't exist if they weren't violence/tax funded reflects an inner distrust of humanity and a belief that if government doesn't provide a 'service', the private sector won't, and how does that jive with your hope that humanity is going to become cooperative enough to distribute land to your pleasing without a state one day? Leftists say they trust humans to eventually all get along and agree with each other but they don't even trust them to start charities.
I suspect somehow you misunderstood my position and thus decided to rant at me, constantly accusing me of things I didn't endorse ("north korea", "central planning", etc.)
[go to North Korea]
I should not have to leave the country of my birth to be free from violent exploiters.
Who cares about 'should'? It's rational to flee and escape oppression. Someone comes up to your bar stool and punches you repeated in the face you 'shouldn't have to move from your bar stool' but you do. And why do you place any value on the 'country of your birth'? The land of your birth? It's almost like you're saying that because a baby is born on a particular patch of land that he has some stake in it or something, the people of the earth did not consent to that, they weren't asked if there was some country where you'd be born that you'd be reluctant to leave, it's almost like you're refusing to budge from the place you occupy, kind of sounds slightly like someone standing their ground, but is it your ground? who said?
I did not endorse NK, Cuba, etc.
The disgusting results of people running countries who were inspired by Marx are clear to all, Pol Pot, etc., may those inspired by Marx never get their hands on the machinery of state ever again to such an extent, a harrowing thing.
Your standard talking points here could be used against anyone living in an oppressive state. You could pick any victims of racism & bigotry and say "Instead of opposing such, you could just leave & flee to some other part of the earth."
Yes, I'm proud to say they indeed could, I think that enhances my point, it doesn't detract from it. I think people should flee, I have massive respect for people who are refugees and go to find more freedom somewhere else. No, people can still oppose such, they just are more impressive when they rearrange their lives as best as humanly possible in the current circumstances. And yes, if you're so against capitalism, if you went to a place without it, or with the least of it, even if you don't 'endorse' the Marxist inspired states such as Cuba etc., you'd at least be presumably traveling to a place where you could be happiest, if it is trespassing laws and the current land regime which irk you the most. If you find the fact that the cops can be called to haul you off a private lot of land more vulgar than the fact that a landless person is violently forced to hand over a third or a half of their working life's waking hours in literal temporal slavery to pay for welfare families and useless bureaucrats etc., I agree to a large extent about the imperfection of the land system but it doesn't alarm me as much as the disgusting time violence of tax, which robs irreplaceable hours, years, decades, of even the little man's life, most of the violence a state does is the re-distributive violence, the time slavery, not the land slavery. People who aren't wealthy by any means, any means, have a gun put to their head for years, a third, half, of their working life's hours, to pay involuntarily for activities you're choosing to call 'services'... that's far more alarming to me than the fact I need to work years to get some land. The landless, have their time, and hence their ability to save to buy land, violently stolen by big statists, to fund things government supporters have monopolized.... that in no way need to be or ought to be funded by the state's violence.
Instead of quotes from heinous 'thinkers' who were responsible for horrors, why don't you tell me how in your anarchist utopia where everyone has agreed any government is immoral and has to go, how the land will be 'distributed'... I'll tell you how, by warlords and violence... because its the only way, ever, that large groups of people have ever lived on land. And using the abolition of slavery analogy doesn't wash, as I opened with.