StrayCatFrump

Definitely! If you want nutritional food, focus on the stuff that's really cheap and easy to grow and makes the best use of land anyway, whether you're doing it or consuming it after other people have done so: fresh veggies. Greens, squashes, tomatoes, various tubers, etc. (varies depending on your region, of course).

I was just talking about the focus on protein. It is absolutely not the thing to worry about if you're interested in "nutritious". You're being completely counter-productive if you do that. It leads opposite to the goal you just described.

Just grow and eat veggies and grains. If you're worried about protein, you're worried about the wrong thing (you should instead be worried about getting vitamins, minerals, and a generally varied diet). Everything that made people worried about protein on vegetarian or vegan diets is based on a study purposefully misinterpreted by the meat-and-dairy industry, where that misinterpretation was parroted for decades and disowned by the original author of the study. Just because you can fulfill the same protein profile as meat using plant proteins doesn't mean you need to. The human body evolved to allow us to eat meat opportunistically, not to require it.

Unless you're on an all-fruit diet, you're getting enough protein if you're getting enough calories (literally no matter your exercise regimen). And if you're not getting enough calories, you're starving and protein is one of the last of your concerns anyway.

No. I agree that liberal "democracy" is a sham. But the so-called "ratchet effect" is a useless meme. Democrats push us into reactionary politics too; they don't just "keep us from going left". The current head of the Democratic Party, occupying the most powerful political position in the world—more powerful than any king throughout the history of human kind—is the one of the most devout supporters of zionist genocide you'll find, chose to crush the rialroad strike, largely architected our system of mass incarceration and mass surveillance (he boasts of having authored the Patriot Act, and he actually pushed Ronald Reagan to go harder on the "Drug War" than the latter was inclined to do on his own), led the charge on indebting generations of college students, and is now on the brink of starting WW3 in the Middle East (after risking it in Ukraine).

Genocide is a non-starter, period. It is not, and can never seriously be construed as, harm reduction. Don't vote for fascists. Those actively enabling genocide against Palestine are fascists. Thankfully, there's no debating the genocide now if you have any honesty whatsoever. Liberals advocating for voting for genocidal candidates of either/any party can fuck right off and [redacted].

So you're just like, quadrupling down or so on the fact that you have no idea what private property is now. And want to project onto other people confident incorrectness.

Clearly there's no point continuing this with an ignorant liberal troll. GFYS.

You are just trying to posture and distract from the fact that you asserted one idiot with a gun can protect private property (thus demonstrating that fact that no: you don't even know what private property is.), you ignorant, liberal moron.

OK liberal.

You have no clue what private property even is, dude. It's not simply some kind of thing someone claims for their own. Private property is literally property which is used to exploit other people's labor and material needs. Your toothbrush is not private property. Your car is not private property. The house you live in is not private property. That land you rent to someone else just so they can live is private property. That factory you force people to work in so they can put food in their mouths because they have no access to land or other sources of sustenance...those are private property.

So yeah: good fucking luck protecting land and infrastructure you don't have the capacity to even use on your own with a gun. Again, NO: the capacity to do violence, alone, is NOT sufficient to protect private property. You need a lot more than that. Your ability to beat your wife doesn't make you able to patrol a large swath of agricultural land and make sure nobody encroaches on it. Your ability to shoot someone doesn't make you capable of keeping workers out of a factory that is rightfully their collective property by virtue of the value of the blood, sweat, and tears they used to build and run that factory, especially when they have the capacity to do violence themselves and there's no state to keep them from exercising it in self-defense.

You fucking ignorant dope.

Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.

I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.

It's not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don't realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.

You're really bad at logic. "You can be violent without a government" does not imply you can necessarily protect private property without a government. Because being violent isn't enough to protect private property. Only certain forms of violence are (forms which you haven't done anything to show can be performed without a government).

As already pointed out, it absolutely will stop you. Also, try doing any of those things on land claimed by private entities such as capitalists, and watch how quickly the state's goons arrest and/or shoot you.

It's only "expected" to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.

Not all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property.

You refuse to do the labor needed for their hoarding. You should really learn about models of ownership-by-use. People just aren't capable of protecting/maintaining/using that much personally.