• irmoz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Mine’s the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.

    Okay, i respect not raising the tone along with me. I got a bit flustered there but I’ve had some sleep since then so I can chat mote sanely.

    Yes, I’ve been working under the Marxist definition - I believe it makes more sense. It delineates the class divide we are living within. Those without private property are working class, and those with it are largely capitalist, with some grey area where small business owners are concerned.

    Capitalists are able to leverage their assets and wealth to exert untold influence on politics, and have done so across centuries to establish the world we are currently living in.

    So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?

    That’s their distinct purpose, yes.

    • Spuddaccino
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So why do traffic stops exist? Vehicles are personal property, police shouldn’t care at all about what happens to or in them.

      • irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Social control. Y’know, i actually thought we were having a conversation for a second, there… Just like in the original image, I didn’t say protecting private property is their only function. And you haven’t really pointed out a contradiction - yes, cars are personal property, but traffic stops aren’t protecting the car…

        Social control is keeping people in line.