Nothing, but as they aggregate "things for trade" then their "possessions" become "used solely for the purpose of trade," and they don't look like possessions to me. As I said before, if I didn't respect mutualists on grounds that they're "better than capitalists," I would happily take these supposed "mutualists possessions." But because I do respect them, I wouldn't do it.
The point still stands that if I did you would bust me over the head with a stick, just like a fucking capitalist.
I wouldnt consider self defnce to be force, rather the negation of force, and i dont think thats a capitalist act. I think i understand you a little better now though.
I just explained that it is just not. When you have aggregated capital for the purpose of monetary exchange, then you have to use force to keep that capital, even though you are not using it yourself.
You have a store of TVs, are you watching them all at any one time? No. Tucker says you possess the store. I can respect that, OK, you have a store. It would be no different, of course, from a capitalist having the same store full of TVs, except for presumbably the wage and trade relationship that exists.
You have to use force, in your definition, to do almost anything though. You cant keep your house if your not gonna force invaders out of it, but that surely doesnt make it immoral. So why does it apply when its stuff you plan on trading with?
First off, no one wants to use money, they have to use money. People prefer having things for free, as established in the other thread I had with you. This is a fact of nature.
Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to gift to those who use money, the problem is that gifting is not easily done when the force of money is constantly hanging over our heads. It is not in my interests to give things away if I first have to earn money to be able to have access to the resources to give things away.
No one wants to pay, but people do want to sell. This is why there is money. To consider demanding monetary payments force you would have to believe that individual possession is wrong which you dont which is why i think this is a little self contradictory.
Not for the vast majority of indivuduals, it most certainly is not. Money is *required by society* thus people must find a way to *acquire* that money. This is why I am against mutualism or market anarchism as a primary form of societial function, because it does not give me any other choice. If it was a secondary or otherwise marginal form of society, then the mutualists would not be bothering me, because I would be getting the things I want because no one would be stopping me.
But society consists of individuals. If they all happen to want, legitimately, to keep their possessions then there isnt any aggressive force being used, though it is unfortunate that people arent gifting.
This is why I will happily leave mutualists (and even capitalists) alone, and I must make for myself, because I don't need to be seen as an authoritarian, even though it is obviously you who would be the first aggressor if I were to take things from the environment.
You have a pile of scrap metal that is rusting away, if I were to go and grab some of it to make tools, you would stop me with force, because there's an opportunity there for a monetary transaction. "Sure you can have that rusting scrap metal, but only if pay me."
Basically if you were to initiate force i would respond with force, but isnt that whats always going to happen?
You and your friend probably have no problem with it. But what if I wanted something you were not yourself using (except for the explicit purpose to trade), would you let me have it?
No you fucking wouldn't.
Well, using the above example, i worked harded for my scrap metal so yeah im gonna hang onto it. However you can take my unused land, or my abandoned buildings, if you like.