this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
217 points (92.2% liked)
Technology
70298 readers
4504 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At some point I could allow that Proudhon can be right in that quote, in something accordingly built.
Then I realized that property is unavoidable, even not in our current specific sense, any resource attachment to a consumer is property.
Sides in which should be responsible for their actions, for a society to be self-regulating in any way.
And only a human can be responsible, a real human, not a construct like a group or a company. And responsibility can't be passed on.
Initially I thought this is right-wing thought, until I also realized that, 1) today's financial mechanisms can't exist with these rules, they involve plenty of responsibility sharing and shifting, 2) the right-left arguments remaining after adopting these rules are limited to the status of gifts and inheritance, as in - can you possibly inherit what another person, even your parent, made, and can one gift a property without the tail of responsibility, which would be all of their personal responsibilities.
I guess the typical marxist idea of separation of personal and private property (the former is fine, the latter is not) is in practice good enough to be combined with these for some clear set of rules. The border is arbitrary (just like dividing people into classes and calling some instruments means of production and some not), but so is every border.
Anyway, what I meant was that you referred to authority. You could have quoted an explanation why everyone should be armed, instead you quoted a direction.