All this does is guarantee a Trump win. The right aren't staying home. They're voting.

Ffs grow a backbone.

The Tories are going to attack you. They're your opposition, it's their job.

Decide your position and then defend it. Everyone hates this weasely politics.

Greys. Sports. Almanac.

It's not renewable but it is fossil free.

Americans make the worst tea. Cold and salty.

Fair enough, thanks.

Thanks for these thoughts.

How are Microsoft and CNN part of the state? Aren't they just providing a service in exchange for money, in the same way a farmer, an actor or a mechanic does?

Your landlord example is interesting, and does illustrate how a state may be necessary to enforce private ownership, which is something I hadn't considered about capitalism before. I suppose the landlord could pay private militia to enforce their ownership claims over the land, but at that point the landlord is basically a warlord and realistically wouldn't need to pay for the land in the first place. The libertarian idea that everyone would voluntarily respect private property rights now seems as absurd as the communist idea that everyone would voluntarily share all property.

I don't quite see how hoarding property could be considered violent, assuming it was acquired peacefully. Using what you've acquired to gain materially is not necessarily exploitative if those gains come from voluntary exchange of goods and labour. If someone wants to clean my windows in exchange for some money, I don't see how it can be violent to enable that transaction. No one's being forced to do anything in that scenario.

Definitely some interesting ideas though.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I hadn't considered the difference between money and currency before. Maybe I still don't fully understand it because I still think there would be an advantage to hoarding currency in any system where others are prepared to exchange goods or labour for that currency.

Trade would surely still occur, and it would be possible to profit from said trade. That profit would enable the trader to live a more luxurious life than those who make less or no profit, because he would be able to acquire more goods and have more work done for him by spending the profit. Consumerism would happen.

Even in a post-scarciry world I think we'd still have Ferengi.

I appreciate the reading recommendations. These are some fascinating ideas to understand for sure.

I actually do have seven bins.

1. Cans and plastic
2. Paper and cardboard
3. Glass
4. Food waste
5. Garden waste
6. Black bags "normal" waste
7. Yellow bags hygiene waste (nappies etc.)

Monmouthshire.

How can you have communism without a state forcing everyone to surrender their property?

If private property exists, that's not communism. But to enforce communism you need a state so that's not anarchy.

I believe anarchy and communism are polar opposites, and cannot co-exist. You're either for anarchy (which ultimately leads to individualism and capitalism) or communism, which requires a huge controlling state to exist.

Yes, this is vitally important. Switching from petrol to EVs will be a net negative for the environment if all that energy comes from burning coal.

They have to clean up their grid, which unfortunately isn't happening at the moment. They're building new coal plants.

Well, that's not ideal, but the oil and gas platforms have to be powered by something. They'll exist either way, but without these turbines they'd be powered by oil and gas.

Power demand is power demand. If we get all precious about who can use our wind power, they're not just gonna go "ok, I guess we'll shut down these oil rigs" 🤷‍♂️