ART, ANARCHY AND ADHD w/ artist KIM HOLM / Agitators Anonymous Episode 202

[@IRONHORSE_666]

Excellent Alan! We need more of these types of episodes no matter the subject or guest.

[@ScottKnick]

Really interesting conversation! The bit about drawing blood from a band to paint with was 👀

[@bcek007]

Up!

[@jonzaremba]

Alin came to the crux of all our problems around 1:00:00, although he probably didn't intend it as I prefer. Childbirth. These concerns over the isms are a matter of scale. If our population was a reasonable size, we wouldn't have much to gripe about and a utopian commune would be an actual possibility.

[@jonzaremba]

Doug Stanhope was particularly insightful on this topic about 15 years ago.

[@hkrug666]

That ending was priceless.... hahahahaha

[@jonzaremba]

I don't follow Kim's train of thought that private property is necessarily authoritarian. Interacting with others' private property is optional, not mandatory, and therefore not authoritarian. What am i missing here?

[@DenUngeHerrHolm]

How would a person today survive without interacting with others private property, legally or illegally. Where is the land they can live on, farm, and shape their fate on? Every single piece of land in the world is owned either by the private or the state. There are several countries now where there are more empty houses than homeless people. The only reason that's possible is because anyone trying to live in them, fix them up, etc, will be subjected to state violence.

[@jonzaremba]

@DenUngeHerrHolm Maybe he was describing a European problem. Here in the USA, it is easy to buy undeveloped land. Sure, everything is more expensive than it was 5 years ago, but it's certainly doable. But he was describing the problem from a technological problem with the assumption that things like smartphones and social media are requirements for survival. They certainly are not.

[@DenUngeHerrHolm]

​@jonzaremba So now you're just confirming the same thing as me. There is unused, undeveloped land. There are people who don't have a home. Yet if those people move unto that empty land, develop it, build a home, plant and take care of the soil, that would be illegal. That is authoritarian, just like kings forbidding peasantta to hunt in their forest was authoritarian.

[@jonzaremba]

@DenUngeHerrHolm if they do so without buying the land, yes of course it would be illegal. But there's nothing stopping proficient people from buying, developing, and thriving on their own property.

[@DenUngeHerrHolm]

@@jonzaremba So in other words, if you don't interact with the system in the exact way the system wants you to, you have the choice between prison or starvation. That's authoritarian. If you live in a country where there are more empty houses than there are homeless, and people are dying in the streets because they have no home, then the only thing stopping them from taking over an empty house is the police. Which means the police are violently protecting this imaginary property system at the cost of the people. There is no good justification for a system of "private property", because all the land property was originally stolen with methods that today are illegal. Some of the land was conquered. Some was stolen. Some was taken with illegal contracts or trickery. So in this system of "private property" there is no way of creating or finding any new property, which means the rich own everything that can be owned, and the only way to not be targeted by the police is for the poor to pay the rich. That isn't just authoritarian, it is insane.