>>24699999
Marxism being incapable of saying how the "working class" would actually rule itself and thus defaulting to workers absolutely being subservient to a ruling class every single and each time it has ever been tried is not the philosophical win you think it is
>Marx didn't advocate for equality
You can't argue for involuntary wealth appropriation without collectivism. You can't be a collectivist if you don't operate on the pretense the ingroup is in someway equal to each other.
In effect, the more collectivist you are, more you value equality.
Of course no one can be truly collectivist or individualist without logically advocating for death, this doesn't mean they can't be more collectivist or individualist than any given opposition, just that they can't hold it as an absolute value.
Marx comes pretty close to regarding equality as an absolute good with his entire world view based on basically the one metric of economic class. As he collectivises every other dividing factor to be equal in his assessment.
>I think property rights are based on legal positivism
Try natural rights, legal Fiat is a means to an end and can be wholly disregarded on a whim,this is traditionally done by states collapsing and is the reason why no dtate has ever conwuered all of man.
Whether an authority thinks a crime has been commited or not has no bearing on if that crime has actually been commited, if anything it is the authority that has to ultimately abide by natural law like a dinky house being built in a flood zone being given permission to built there despite the fact it will assuredly abide by nature to be demolished in the next flood
>>24700003
Kek