ewl

It depends what you are doing with your savings. If by saving, you are investing the money in stocks or bonds, you are contributing to the economy while you accumulate enough value to trade for something that you want or need in the future. Otherwise, stuffing money in a mattress just means you are deferring growth to the future. It could be because you need a "buffer" to ride out economic turmoil, or that you're saving up for a downpayment on a home. In either of these cases, growing comes from trading something you value less compared to something you value more. Suppose you can do the Scrooge McDuck thing and not spend anything you save, in which case there is no growth. Edit: Now that I think about it, the act of saving itself is not growing. It's the spending that comes on the back-end. It's the spending of my money sitting in a savings or investing account that the bank or investment broker does. It's the spending that comes in the future when I transact to buy that house, or whatever.

When I think of the term "structural violence" it seems like a cop-out-- it removes culpability from being placed squarely on those it belongs, and invites entire groups to be punished for the indiscretions of individuals. If violence is being committed, someone is responsible. Name names, and describe what they did.

What is the difference between property and possession? Am I allowed to charge "rent" on a hammer, if a hammer, thanks to entropy, has limited use? Could this rent compensate me for the time I would normally spend using it on something else that will give me value? I would want to make sure I recover the opportunity costs that are lost if I were to just give it away.How about a carpenter's lathe, or my entire shop for a period of time? How about a car for transporting people? Am I allowed to charge "rent" on that? How about a truck for transporting stuff? What if I own several trucks that I want to rent? A house? Several houses? In a capitalist/free-market world, one is rewarded for finding ways to meet demand of others. Demand is dictated by circumstance. I can even turn a toothbrush into a rent-charging, profit making "personal possession"if I am the only one with it in a village that wants to keep their teeth clean. Is that toothbrush now subject to collectivized/socialized ownership? I know this is ridiculous, but I would hate to have to be the one in a socialist system, to take away that toothbrush and dictate who gets second-use of it. Where is the line drawn, and how does an anarcho-socialist system do that without violating the NAP? If I am charging rent, you can just not use my possession/property and find someone else who is giving it away free, right? Perhaps you can make one yourself, but only if you have the time, resources, and knowledge. Good luck finding help, since people will be asked to lend their limited time, talents and tools for your sake when they have their own priorities. Telling them that they are being selfish for having other priorities than helping you (or "society"), would be a selfish act in and of itself. Also, it may not be a violation of the NAP if you don't pull the guy's arm, but in a free world, your private insurance company could require you to lend assistance to others if you are in a position to do so. This could be a condition of membership, and in return, they lower their rates. If you were found to be at a time, place, and circumstance where you willfully neglected help and could have, then the insurance company may find you at-fault and you could be subject to paying for damages. But you would be okay with that, since you voluntarily signed up for this insurance company over another one that may not have a "good samaritan" clause.