“The similarity is also smaller and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.”
Why and why? I think the similarity is equivalent, if not greater. At any rate, this would bring out the question of whether or not socialism is A. Possible in a meaningful sense and B. If the same workers would be better off under capitalism.
“He “owned” it by getting it from a king who “owned” it by killing everyone who objected, including the people who lived there”
So you are not contesting individual property rights as such? Merely the historical context of much modern property?
“If a bank can just make money out of nothing and loan it to me, the moment I start spending, everyone else’s money is worth less which is the same as taking a percentage of their money and giving it to me.”
Inflation and the INDIRECT affects that it brings are not things which could be called theft. To give an imperfect example, if I am mooching off of a village, and convince them that they should give me materials to live, and you come along and convince them not to, then have you stolen from me? No, not at all, you have merely convinced people to act in a different way. Meanwhile inflation is not only caused by changes in the money supply, but also changes in the demand for goods. If people in general start increasing their consumption levels then the same process which you are talking about takes place. Would you claim then that every collective increase in consumption patterns are acts of theft?
I am glad that we agree that credit undue expansion should be prohibited, but the theft is on the side of the bank originally issuing the extra money when it is indeed not money at all and NOT the indirect effects which this has upon the economy.
“If people in a capitalist society would not care then why do you support the notion of private property?”
Because in some cases they would care, and in others they would not. Just as how in a socialist system they would sometimes care and sometimes wouldn’t. Under an individualist system there is a much greater possibility for prosperity as well as a better chance for any one individual to attain happiness. I would like to know exactly why you oppose private property when, if you are right, the pure capitalistic system puts you in a better position to achieve your ultimate end than the current system.
“Or they could get killed or intimidated into silence… Or the people who are supposed to take its money out of the bank. Or the bank. Or the corporation will hide its tracks. Or they will find a scapegoat. Or they will use propaganda, infiltrate unions etc and make it look as if it was self-defense.”
This could happen today, but it doesn’t exactly because of what happens to the corporations if they are found out, and people would feel VERY concerned if this had a possibility of happening. The very shock value you intended this to have is evidence of this. People do not like corporations, my guess is that in the anarchist society they would like them even less and be even more weary of them.
“Or courts can get a share of the profit to side with the corporation.”
If the courts were found out then they would lose all reputation. How exactly do you intend to keep mass-killings behind closed doors?
“Or maybe all the rest of us will make a profit out of their misery because we like cheap tantalum and lithium for our electronic gadgets so we will not do anything about it. We certainly are not very concerned today so what makes you think it would be different in a free market?”
People have very definite feelings about killing and using force against people when nations aren’t in the way of people’s sanity.