Private property is a perfectly natural concept

Communists are opposed to the idea of private property. Yet private property is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Because: the default mode in nature is to constantly be on the verge of starvation, because energy (food) is scarce, and even requires energy to acquire. (Hunting or forraging) So, once acquired, the creature will want to reap the benefits itself, and eat that food – replenish the energy lost in acquiring it, and satiate the hunger that prompted the attempt at acquiring the food in the first place.
Which is why Cheetahs drag their catch into a tree, lions fight off hyenas/other lyons. Any creature that continues to let others steal its food, forcing the creature to make another attempt, invest more energy, and then risk having that prey stolen once more.

The same holds true for nests, though not edible; it costs energy to build one, so a bird will not want another bird to steal its nest.

Of course, offspring is very costly in terms of energy investment, so the parental instinct to protect offspring is another manifeststion of the instinct to protect private property.

Anarcho-communists are both opposed to private property, and political rule. Of course, one cannot expect that an entire society full of people will voluntarily choose to fight their own natural instincts and abolish private property. Therefore, commnism requires a political ruler, a despot to enforce non-ownership on his (if communism wouldn’t have claimed 200 million casualties, I’d call it a delightful irony) subjects.
Ancoms are typically agressive people, because:

  • Leftism attracts violent characters, due to its nature
  • The mental gymnastics needed to try to unite such opposite concepts inevitably results in mental fatigue/spraining of the mind.

Right to property (ownership)

The state claims the right to steal from you (tax you) to do with that money what it pleases; buy guns, give to others it finds more worthy.
As some people unthinkingly claim:

The right to your money has been granted by the state.

Fanciful nonsense. Just because the state has expropriated the right to issue money (which originated in the population, anyway¹) does not give it any claims to lthe money once it has been earned by others.
Because the state printed/struck thre money for the benefit of the people, ince it gets in the hands of the people, the state (which is subservient to the people²) loses any claims to popular property.

The most one could say that the state has to do with my money, is that it hasn’t yet stolen everything, not for lack of trying, mind you.

In what manner does that give the state any right to my property? (Restraint does not grant rights). Because the state (inferior) issues money only to the use/benefit of the (superior) people (not a racist remark, obviously: ALL people are superior to the state²). Taxation is the inverted world: money is only useful for the people, therefore it should be in the hands of the people.

¹)As an outgrowth of/replacement for barter. Example: in the Gulag camps in Siberia, it was very important, when forced to chop wood in the snow, to have footwear. Lack of footwear did not excuse the victim from their patriotic duty.
Actual boots were a scare commodity and were likely stolen by bootless fellow inmates that were desperate for footwear. Some made improvised sandals from bark with string.

To alleviate the hunger, some slaves made soup from leaves. Those with footwear used them as currency to buy favors/soup. Because footwear was a desirable good, in the frozen hell of the Gulag, that got used just like gold in the non-hellish, non-prison campish world, ie the free (capitalistic) world, where people could trade because they chose to do so. Since people liked the look of gold, it served an aesthetic purpose, and it also now serves an industrial purpose.
It is an easily shaped (i.e. soft) metal, that conducts electricity. Making it a very useful material in electronics.

Back to money: it originated in the population. Because gold and silver are scarce (and highly valued), easily divisible and portable (not to forget non-perishable) it was much easier to give that in exchange for food, services (“I’ll build you a shack, if you give me two fish”), goods (if you need wood for a shack, some wood chopper who specialized in carpentry could better spend his time chopping wood, building shacks, …, than catching/gathering food). That was the origin of specialization causing an increase of productivity. So the development of money was a huge economic boom.
Regrettably, it also enabled those that specialized in theft by levying taxation.

²) without the state, the people are still awesome. And without the people, a state is literally nothing. So the state might consider showing gratitude for that the people allow it to exist.

The 4 roles

John Locke, summed up the only 4 reasons a people might have to accept a government. Protection of:

  1. Life,
  2. Health,
  3. Property
  4. and liberty.

1 & 3. Given that these protections are funded through taxation (theft) and governments are the main killers of citizens (I refer you to Vincent Bugliosi’s book on charging GWB with murder: 100,000 Iraqis were killed, and several tens of thousands of US citizens-turned-soldiers died in that unjustifiable war.) That still leaves out the many Texans governor Bush signed off to be executed. And the many deaths that resulted from actions by/against IS (founded in an American POW camp in Iraq)
Apart from executions, there are many that are locked up for victimless crimes. That is just in the free west alone: communists had/still have a regrettable tendency to shoot at people trying to escape from the worker’s paradise. The eastern block was one big open-air prison.
2. Agricultural subsidies are not only paid for with stolen money, but also harmful to the population – it has long been established (listen to Vinnie Tortorich’s podcast America’s Angriest Trainer for more information) that Sugar and Grains are not that good for you: fat is a better source of energy. And modified foods are even worse.
4.Since protection of popular liberty would harm the interests of government, which considers itself a biological entity in and of itself, having rights such as no citizen ever had, it is not a role government is in any way able (willing to try) to perform.

So, there are no reasons left. Regrettable, statists.

The best #politicians are parasites

This may come as a shock to some people, but it is true: stuff (#healthcare, the #economy) works best when politicians don’t touch it. Sure, they may lean back, looking at how nice the country runs, but the reason the #country runs so smoothly is, that you didn’t touch it. So, during elections they may boast about their “wise #management” of the economy, but the only wise thing they did to it, was: nothing. So any boasting about that, is at best empty. Meaning that they try to leach (claim as their own) on the smart behaviours of others (merchants), that they had no part in. In that way, parasitism is the best the people could hope for in government policy. A #government that just sits there, consuning tax #loot and not contributing the least to anything, is the best government. What does that tell you?