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.

Poor people can’t afford to lend money when they’re struggling just to eat and make rent. It’s not a viable way for them to “keep up” with inflation.

But in a sense you’re right: inflation (by itself) isn’t the problem. The problem is that wages don’t keep up with it. Because the labor movement has been failing not only to make gains, but to prevent failures (e.g. keep our effective wages from going down). Most forms of capitalist passive income keep up with inflation by design, which is no accident.

Generally you should do what:

1. Maximizes your personal well-being (though note I’m not saying “wealth”, because they two are not always the same), and
2. Satisfies your personal and ideological principles as well as possible, at least to the point where you can live with yourself.

Just because we have systemic critiques doesn’t mean we should go live in a cave and eat bugs. To the degree possible we should prefigure the society we want to build, but torturing ourselves individually to do it is both unproductive and likely takes away from our focus on more important things like organizing and taking direct action that impacts the system. We do tend to make personal sacrifices to further our ideological goals, but there’s both a practical limit and one where we shouldn’t be cruel to each other in our expectations.

Many of us are vegans. Most of us probably avoid buying shares in oil companies. But all of our circumstances are different. Perhaps people salting Chevron to radicalize union organizing there will wind up with its stocks in their retirement accounts that are difficult to divest from without harming their ability to retire, due to their particular circumstances. It seems pretty shitty to expect someone to just get rid of them without us having some kind of dependable (e.g. mutual aid) infrastructure in place to take care of each other in our old age.

TL;Dr: Yet you participate in society. Curious!

I mean, we’ll never do it under capitalism, Gore. So you good with dismantling capitalism?

(Crickets, I’m sure.)

Nice. I gotta wonder why a flying schoolbus which lands in meadows needs a pop-out “kids loading/unloading; do not pass” stop sign on the side, though. LOL. 😉

Only thing I’m going to (have to, unfortunately) buy today is a round in a couple dryers at the laundromat, because I’ve put it off too long already and the clothes line is currently a no-go due to weather. sigh

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.

Unending storms of propaganda do a lot to influence how ignorant people react in a situation. And it serves to keep them ignorant as well.

(Not the person you were responding to, but that’s my take on how people often react regarding Palestine.)

I’d say that’s a meaningless distinction, and that actions speak louder than words. But as you will.

First, you are a very unpleasant person

You being wrong makes me unpleasant now. LOL. Okay. I’d say that fuckers who jump into to defend ignorant liberals in arnarchist forums are unpleasant, personally.

Second, that’s a weirdly specific definition of private property.

It’s the definition that’s been used by leftists since the advent of capitalism, and perhaps before. Yes, liberals’ attempts to disarm our language by using to mean anything that’s not owned by the state has done a number on your brain, making it sound “weird” to ignorant, propagandized fools. Can’t argue with that.

Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we’re using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.

Yes, capitalism is wage slavery. Correct. It has somewhat different characteristics from chattel slavery (which capitalism still uses when convenient, such as in the U.S. prison-industrial complex), but slavery it is nonetheless.

I was going to make a funny or meaningful comment, but fuck: look at this shithole full of liberals. Place is getting worse than Beehaw, TBH. Might as well be back on Reddit.

Yeah. Totally fair.

That’s not what private property is. You can read my other comment if you care, or you can just go on feeling confident that you were right in swooping in and backing up the ignorant raving of some idiot liberal. I don’t really care. 🤷

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.

A liberal who waves a red flag and pretends they aren’t liberal. Often they call everyone else (including us) liberal. 😂 😉

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.