1) not property 2) wolves delineate territories using pheromones, which humans can’t do because we lost the use of our Jacobson’s organ tens of millions of years ago, possibly because it was superfluous once our ancestors developed rudimentary politics.
1) not property 2) wolves delineate territories using pheromones, which humans can’t do because we lost the use of our Jacobson’s organ tens of millions of years ago, possibly because it was superfluous once our ancestors developed rudimentary politics.
3) Wolves are soyboy cucks with remarkably low levels of infanticide compared to other social predators like lions or chimpanzees. if they found out about libertarian baby markets they’d eat you alive.
@butleriano @SAMOYEDCORE 1) that which I recognise as mine, and will defend as mine, is property. Let's not split metaphorical hairs. 2) CRISPR.
@butleriano What’s the rebuttal? That socialism can be achieved without a state? Because that’s pretty laughable.
@butleriano Also, do socialists say that?
@butleriano 1) Property is a claim of exclusivity. Nothing more. 2) This is simply how property is marked by wolves, irrelevant to the claim of whether it is property.
@butleriano Speak for yourself my Jacobson’s organ is enormous
@butleriano And any day now we aim to move beyond rudimentary politics.
@butleriano Territoriality exists without the state. Deleuze and Guattari talk about it in "The Refrain" chapter of 1000 Plateaus. The differentiation between territoriality, property, and the liberal conception of private property is a definitional matter.
@butleriano And Even the "border" thing Is not really that becouse that boder would MOVE with the wolves moverment, it's just "oh i SEE You are living there right now, i would not brother You"
@butleriano Humans, are prehaps surprisingly, not wolves. Thus they should not model themselves on wolves' (or other animals') social structures.