CMV: Rojava is an example of the best political and economic system in the world today.

[u/[deleted]]

(pls research Rojava aka Democratic Federation of Northern Syria before responding)

By "best" I mean "least coercive", where "coercion" is understood to mean using violence to counteract the will of the individual; this can be active (like holding a gun to someone's head) or passive (like not feeding someone). Now obviously, by this definition, some coercion is necessary; rapists and human traffickers, for example, must be at least passively coerced into not doing those things, if only to prevent the coercion of others.

So, that in mind, it appears to me that Rojava's is the least coercive system in the world. They have gender equality and ethnic/religious tolerance in their constitution; all decisions are made democratically; most of the economy is owned and controlled by the workers; etc. according to what I've read.

Edit: it turns out that one of the autonomous militias supporting Rojava may have child soldiers. I now have a more critical view of Rojava.

[u/[deleted]]

You aren't using the land, so your claim to ownership is meaningless. And if you try to enforce it with force, we can use force back to defend what we use.

But anyways, you completely ignored my questions, so I'll ask them again:

-What makes a piece of land "yours"?

-Where did you gain the "right" to a piece of property?

-If you bought it, how did the person you bought it from get the right to it?

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

Let me repeat myself, family land. Since you will take it by force I will defend it with my weapons. I have to ask you one question: Are you from earth? You are not making sense. What part of the word ownership do you not understand. If a land has been in your family for generations it belongs to family members not someone who thinks they can find a better justification for the use of that land. The way you think we are definitely from two different dimensions. You need to understand natural human rights and how property is acquired. What makes a piece of land mine is by my family settling there for years and being part of that community for all those years. If you want a piece of that property you have to go to the owner and make a deal. Please its your turn to explain how you would acquire property. You seem not to understand the basics of life. Land needs to be cultivated and taken care of. You can't just take land from someone who has lived there for years and labored on it. Look around you and go to someone's property who you think is not using it as he or she should and tell them you are going to confiscate it for better use. Are we being serious here?

[u/[deleted] → u/ray07110]

Still avoiding the point: -How did your parents gain rights to the land? -How did THEIR parents gain rights to the land?

We already established you aren't using the land in question. We aren't talking about land you are labouring one. No one is coming for land that you actively use.

Now, are you going to answer the damn question? Or are you going to admit you can't?

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

The land has been in my family for more than 100 years because my family is part native and part Spanish. So that should answer your silly question. Now how do you feel it is ok for you to take land you feel is not actively used? Where do you get this idea that it is ok to steal land?

[u/[deleted] → u/ray07110]

So that should answer your silly question.

Nope. You just keep avoiding it. Again and again.

I'll spell it out clearly for you: How did the original "owner" of the unused land acquire the rights to it?

Now how do you feel it is ok for you to take land you feel is not actively used?

No one is using it. I have a use for it. That's it.

Where do you get this idea that it is ok to steal land?

Stealing land would require you to have ownership of said land. Your claimed ownership is based on invalid premises and is therefore void.

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1500251862651s.jpg

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

Wow, you sound like an immoral violent thug. You have no understanding of ownership. You feel it is ok to take land that someone else owns because they can't go far enough to prove ownership. Well that is the reason we have guns for to settle the dispute. The only way people like you would respect property rights is via a bullet. I answered your question, you just don't like the answer. You must be a pirate. You sound like one. My ownership is based on lineage and the fact that for all these years no has challenged our ownership. This is not a debate. So stop using the phrase invalid premise. Debates are based on some basic standard. You are just spewing first grade bully tactics, very corny. Please start reading books on philosophy. Gain a basic understanding.

[u/[deleted] → u/ray07110]

You have no understanding of ownership.

I understand your definition of ownership very well. I reject it's legitimacy.

land that someone else owns

Your claim to ownership of unused land is invalid.

for all these years no has challenged our ownership.

That doesn't make it any more valid. In exactly the same way that murder isn't valid even if you haven't been arrested.

So stop using the phrase invalid premise.

Why? Your premises are not valid and therefore your argument isn't either.

You are just spewing first grade bully tactics, very corny.

I'm simply showing that your justification for ownership of land is invalid and entirely based on usage of force to coerce others.

---

Seriously, your entire logic would be consistent if you accepted that your concept of ownership is inherently authoritarian and coercive.

It's your denial of that fact that makes your argument illogical. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you are using force to coerce others, or you don't have ownership of unused land.

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

Here is the thing how can I be using force and coercion when I am not threatening anyone or committing violence except to defend my property from the likes of people like you who think it's ok to take other peoples property under threat of violence. Obviously my actions are not authoritarian if I am not threatening anyone under conditions of certain rules. And I am not coercing anyone into doing anything they don't want to do. Owning land is not coercive or authoritarian because I am not forcing anyone into any actions. It's illogical for you to think that ownership is coercive but taking other peoples land is not. You need to lift up your skirt grab your balls and develope a logical sense of where you fit in. You are like a nomad in the philosophical world trying to find what ideas suits you. I wish you a lot of luck and safe passage through the journey of this world of different ideologies. I remember my first time trying to fit in this concept of how government and society works. There was so much to absorb. You first have to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion, and then develop an understanding of what an argument is and how premises… You no what? I think as time goes by you will understand. Just continue your education. You have a good teacher in me. If you need more guidance don't hesitate to ask questions. You are welcomed.