• Smk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even in nature there is property. A lion will defend its territory from other motherfuckers. They will even kill. There is “property” in nature and it’s fucking brutal. The butterfly example is ridiculous. You can’t compare 1 butterfly with 1 human. A butterfly does not need a lot of resource but human does.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Property is what you’re able to keep without having to defend it constantly. There is no property in nature.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right nature is brutal. Do we want our lives to be like that? If a homeless person sees a billionaire should they kill them and take over their mansion?

      No. The point of society is that we can all have better lives working together than by living as animals.

      • Smk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What I’m saying is that we are not the only species that “pay” to exist. Money is the abstraction of work. That first sentence is a joke, it’s ridiculous, it’s infuriating. It’s not an argument to anything.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m with you on this. I get where they’re coming from and we are being taken advantage of but the argument being used is lacking in cognative thoroughness, it’s like a surface or second layer thought being mistaken as deep thinking. I think there’s enough automation in the world that we all could be living much freer lives with more time for building connections, learning and creating rather than having to spend all available waking hours repeating soul crushing tasks to simply pay for food, shelter and some basic future security. Trying to push this idea with flawed arguments is dumb because there are so many flawless ones available.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If a homeless person sees a billionaire should they kill them and take over their mansion?

        Honestly, there is probably a good justification to be made that they should. Billionaires hoarding money are a big part of why the homeless exist.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can compare a “butterfly just doing its thing” to a human though you are right in that don’t need anywhere near as much resource even when factoring in size and lifespan. Even still it follows the same idea, take the plants around it for example. You could argue for many insects and animals this is a limited renewable resource (property albeit unclaimed). The butterfly must work to acquire the nectar. If another animal comes and eats those plants the butterfly must now work harder to acquire the same amount of resources.