> but has among the lowest life expectancies because the political culture would sooner let poor people die than give them healthcare and welfare.
We die younger because of lifestyle and other factors (basically we are relatively fat and lazy).
On anarchist policing:
> They focus on protecting people rather than property
Property is essentially to human flourishing (not to mention survival). If someone burns down your business, steals your car, or burglarizes your home that harm is felt directly. Only people swimming in luxury can take lightly the theft and destruction of property.
There's a (not so) subtle difference between property and possession. You are in possession of your home, car, and business because these are things you actively make use of, and need for a decent life. This is fully compatible with anarchist principles.
What many anarchists disagree with is the idea of property. Of owning more than you can use. Of accumulating things through inheritance until you have no chance to use it all on your own, so you rent it out to others.
It's basically the difference between using a seat on the train and defending your right to sit there (possession), and picking up your gun to prevent other people from using the 12 seats neighbouring yours (property).
> You are in possession of your home, car, and business because these are things you actively make use of, and need for a decent life.
I don't actively make use of the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, does that mean I do not possess it and can be taken from me at will? On the other hand, most of a billionaire's money is not lying around in some vault, it is actively being put to work in the form of investments into businesses that allow other people to make their livelihoods and add to the material prosperity of our society. Does he not "possess" that money (in the sense that he is using it?)
I am probably coming off as pedantic, but I am skeptical of the distinction you make.
> What many anarchists disagree with is the idea of property. Of owning more than you can use.
Many socalist/anarchists seemed quite content with the destruction of "possessions", peoples homes and livelihoods, during the 2020 riots. Maybe you were not OK with such destruction (and if so, good!)
> It's basically the difference between using a seat on the train and defending your right to sit there (possession), and picking up your gun to prevent other people from using the 12 seats neighbouring yours (property).
I certainly feel that way, but my feelings of safety do not strike me as a very principled way to distinguish between so-called "possession" and "property".
The point of property as it extends beyond straightforward possession is that even things I cannot use today, I might want to use in the future. Property is simply the acknowledged right to pick the "highest and best use" for some asset, balancing the needs of today wrt. those of the future.
Sure, that's true. Maybe you want an aisle seat on the train now because you might go to the bathroom soon, but then when you have you'll want a window seat, until it's nearing nighttime when you'll want a seat in the quiet section. Why not pick up a gun to ensure all those three seats are empty throughout the train ride?
What an anarchist would think is that the rights of the propertied to choose at some point in the future to use something is less important than the right of someone in need to make use of that very same thing right now when they need it.
> Why not pick up a gun to ensure all those three seats are empty throughout the train ride?
This is such a ridiculous caricature and an example of why argument from analogy is so fraught with problems.
I might argue that the more likely scenario in a socialist society (i.e. anti-private property) is that a man who paid for three seat tickets would be forced at gunpoint to hand those seats over to people who didn't buy any tickets.
“Gun” here is a metaphor for capital, which is the instrument of might and right. In capitalism, individuals rarely need guns, because the system has in place necessary measures for what an individual could achieve by resorting to a gun.
> I might argue that the more likely scenario in a socialist society (i.e. anti-private property) is that a man who paid for three seat tickets would be forced at gunpoint to hand those seats over to people who didn't buy any tickets.
Why would a society that has allowed freedom to purchase three tickets would allow others to violate that freedom? Anarchism is not disorder.
On healthcare:
> but has among the lowest life expectancies because the political culture would sooner let poor people die than give them healthcare and welfare.
We die younger because of lifestyle and other factors (basically we are relatively fat and lazy).
On anarchist policing:
> They focus on protecting people rather than property
Property is essentially to human flourishing (not to mention survival). If someone burns down your business, steals your car, or burglarizes your home that harm is felt directly. Only people swimming in luxury can take lightly the theft and destruction of property.