And you took advantage to make a quip in reply. You exploited the situation.
The problem I have always had with ancappers, and I think it is the same problem here between you all, is that, for all your talk about welfare mothers stealing capital, you seem to just forget that most of the capital in this country, and the world was stolen and then legitmized by the state from its legitimate owners.
I accept many of your general propositions, but when you start talking policy it seems like you have your head buried in the sand about the last 6000 years of statist oppression at the behest of the big economic interests. Many ancappers are admittedly no friend of JP Morgan, yet won’t come to admit that he used the state to thug people out of their property and wealth, and ergo is stolen.
I, personally, do not see it as theft at all for Columbians to take their land back from Maxwell House, and whatever capital was accumulated through use of said property.
So…
contractiors <—> entrepreneur <—> employer
is exploitation, but
contractors <—> enrepreneur —> proletariat
is not, even though you used the word expropriation before, which means theft. Theft is right when you’re using the resource.
So I could start renting an appartment, and by the second month stop paying anymore because it’s mine already. Hell never mind that, I could just walk in anyplace and claim ownership over it. I could walk into your house and steal your TV because I use it more.
Don’t you see a bit of a problem with this? Ninety percent of business would go bankrupt, and whatever remains would be stale with no further investment. People would be working to produce only those goods that can be immediately consumed, because everything else is prone to be taken over by some communist retard. No higher order capital goods would be made, because there’s little prospect to keeping them before someone screams “exploitation!” and steals it.
Think a little, jesus christ.
^ Epicurus if by the land you just mean the dirt with nothing on top of it, then I agree, it’s whoever builds something that can have a claim over the land. I don’t consider fencing around a spot and waiting for someone to be interested in it to sell it proper homesteading. But when that land is already occupied with buildings and infrastructure, those people that built or paid it to be built should be restituted.
Names please, or is this simply a hasty generalization?
Also:
“Many ancappers are admittedly no friend of JP Morgan, yet won’t come to admit that he used the state to thug people out of their property and wealth, and ergo is stolen.”
Really? Then why are those “ancappers” no friend of JP Morgan?
Names please, or is this simply a hasty generalization?
It is admittedly a generalization. This is why I said things like “Many ancappers.” I could name names I guess, but that would take days of going through hundreds of posts on this and other sites.
Really? Then why are those “ancappers” no friend of JP Morgan
Welfare, universal suffrage, and the Fed… He seems, in these circles by many people, to be portrayed as a thug of a politician and philanthropist, but not many (if any) will come to say/admit that his business dealings were thuggery as well.
That’s not how you began your post. Instead, this is how you began it:
" The problem I have always had with ancappers,"
Is the Fed not one example of how “[JP Morgan] used the state to thug people out of their property and wealth…” that “ancappers” use often?
Besides the examples where he used his political connections, please give examples of his business dealings that were thuggery that “many people in these circles” will not say/admit.
That’s not how you began your post. Instead, this is how you began it:
My apologies.
Besides the examples where he used his political connections, please give examples of his business dealings that were thuggery that “many people in these circles” will not say/admit.
The question you asked me, bolded part especially, sets my response up for failure. Why would I not include the deals where he used his political connections?
yuberries, you never read Mises, very less Marx. Marx said in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.”
Mises knew on this, therefore said (repetitively) that the liberalism if condensed into private ownership of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
Therefore, do not worry that none will confiscate your TV, or the your appartment purchased with the credit, already in default.
On the renting an appartment, is polemic, because the renter has not decision, is all decided by owner. If the owner decide sell the appartment, the purchaser/capitalist decide oust the renders to build luxury condominium to richs (because is more profitable), turn a social problem. Therefore that the Marx concluded that the “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population”.
- I thought we already agreed that Ancaps “say/‘admit’” JP Morgan used his political connections blah blah blah (The Fed).
- You made the distinction between his politically-connected thuggery and his non-politically connected thuggery.
I made no such distinction, that I am aware of. I said his business dealings were largely thuggery, and he was legitimzed in this by the state.
Either way, jumping on my comment about Morgan, and ignoring the rest of my post is… typical.
People bought native lands for scraps through trickery, throughout the Americas, east Asia, and Africa. Bankers directly causing panics and then buying up all the “worthless” stock at pennies on the dollar for later resale. And other such aggressive and shady business practices.
You still have not addressed the point that much of the capital in the world is illegitimately held by people other than its natural owners.
Typical of … ?
Not all land was acquired through fraud of coercion, if that is what you are implying.
Are you referring to the Rothschilds?
How do we seem to forget this?
yuberries, you never read Mises, very less Marx. Marx said in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Im starting to see a patern here, everytime your argument is debunked you resort to that childish claim.
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.”
Rethorical nonsense, Marx also said that the socialist state would “wither away” and that the value of a good was derived from the “socially necessary labor time” to produce it.
Marx may have been an interesting philosopher but he knew nothing of economics.
Mises knew on this, therefore said (repetitively) that the liberalism if condensed into private ownership of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
Please dont compare a giant like Mises to that ignorant and sad individual.
Therefore, do not worry that none will confiscate your TV, or the your appartment purchased with the credit, already in default.
Unless the state declares them tools of class exploitation!
If the owner decide sell the appartment, the purchaser/capitalist decide oust the renders to build luxury condominium to richs (because is more profitable), turn a social problem.
Really? is that easy to build condominiums for the “rich”? then every landowner in the world should build one and retire!.. XD
Therefore that the Marx concluded that the “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population”.
More rethorical nonsense and a zero sum fallacy on top of that, private property is created all the time.
But why is the appartment considered a means of production when the TV or the computer isn’t?Is food not a means of production, if it enables me to live, work, and therefore produce? Is a pencil not a means of production either? It enables me to write off a check, to write a novel, memos, contracts.
Aren’t you therefore depriving me of the ability to produce, when you deny me your pencil? Lol, imagine a kid in school who forgot his pencil home making that argument to a classmate. “You greedy bourgeois!”
Marx’s distinction of what is considered capital of the order that one is allowed to keep, and capital of the order that they can only keep if allowed to by the commune, is completely arbitrary, and could be changed anytime to fit whatever good. It doesn’t matter in what stage of production the good is used, because if it is used, it is used by and for working man; and because working man produce, whatever else it consumes or is used to produce what he consumes, can be said to be a means of production.
So I hope this answers that.
“Rethorical nonsense, Marx also said that the socialist state would “wither away” and that the value of a good was derived from the “socially necessary labor time” to produce it.” - The value of a commodity, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.
Mises said in “Liberalism” that the comunists know distinguish private property of means of production and consumer goods. You that never read Mises very less Marx.
The capitalists are all suckers. I know on many cases on purchaser/capitalists that preferred oust the renders to build luxury appartments to wealthy, because is more profitable.
Zero sum? The americans that live in huts to ensure the profit of bankers/capitalists are a zero sum fallacy?
“But why is the appartment considered a means of production when the TV or the computer isn’t?Is food not a means of production, if it enables me to live, work, and therefore produce? Is a pencil not a means of production either? It enables me to write off a check, to write a novel, memos, contracts.”
Means of Production is not the same thing as owning physical property, nor is it equal to owning money. Private property of means of production refers to a cultural practice in which a few individuals within a LARGE CORPORATION control and decide what is done with the entire profit created by that corporation. Thus, if you live in appartment, the appartment play single the role of use value. But if you rent the situation is different, now your objective is not live, is increase the revenue and the profit.
The value of a commodity, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.,
As I said its nonsense, labour doesnt add value and even more Marx never defined what “socially necessary labour time” really is.
Mises said in “Liberalism” that the comunists know distinguish private property of means of production and consumer goods.
Every sane person would know but the socialist state has the funny way of deciding that issue by shooting the ones that disagree with its position.
You that never read Mises very less Marx.
You are just like a broken record LOL
The capitalists are all suckers.
Do I detect certain inferiority complex there?
I know on many cases on purchaser/capitalists that preferred oust the renders to build luxury appartments to wealthy, because is more profitable.
Oh well that certainly sounds like rock solid evidence of your claim.
Zero sum? The americans that live in huts to ensure the profit of bankers/capitalists are a zero sum fallacy?
Those americans live there because of failed policies and the lack of economic freedom to create and save more capital.
You are just like Marx, looking at certain social variables and drawing conclussions arbitrarialy without understanding the process of capital accumulation.
How large? Anything worth more than one million dollars? One hundred thousand?
Is it ok if I build a wooden shack next to my house, and rent it or sell it then, because it’s small and inexpensive?
How is that not stupidly arbitrary? Next year the marxists can say anything over ten thousand dollars is evil capital, so all new cars are considered means of production, and are expropriated for what they think are more productive uses.
Means of Production is not the same thing as owning physical property, nor is it equal to owning money. Private property of means of production refers to a cultural practice in which a few individuals within a larger corporation (or company) control and decide what is done with the entire profit created by that corporation. Thus, if you live in appartment, the appartment play the role of use value. But if you rent the situation is different, now your objective is not live, is increase the revenue and the profit.
Marlen this is getting patethic.
I’ll make it simple, a mean of production is anything that can be used to create new capital.
Felipe, you really never read Marx, nor Bohm-Bawerk, nor Mises, and never studied History and Economy.
The increase of productiveness of labor reduce the time labor to the production of commodity, what reduce the price of commodities.
Capital is a SOCIAL RELATION. On this, Bohm-Bawerk knew.
“Every sane person would know but the socialist state has the funny way of deciding that issue by shooting the ones that disagree with its position.” - Silliness by who never read Marx and Engels. Answer what is the name of dictator of Paris Commune. At contrary at your “brilliant man”, we never advocate a “dictatorship”.
Inferiority complex? Not. I live very well. You asked: “is that easy to build condominiums for the “rich”?”. I know on capitalist that oust the renders to build luxury appartments to wealthy, I asked him: “The capitalists are all suckers.” You miseinterpreted again.
The lived live in huts because of failed policies, but is not for reasons cited by you. Economic fredom to the capital in this country there much, but to the worker that there not.