Pain at the pump

@no1marauder said
The wealth created in capitalist countries was created by labor. Until progressive reforms were implemented, little of it went to its creators.

This is history, not opinion. It has been the main goal of right wingers ever since to return to a system where the wealthy hold all the cards - they have tried to abolish or at least severely limit all the progressive program ...[text shortened]... italism, but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS.

" but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS."

make this make sense

@Mott-The-Hoople said
" but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS."

make this make sense

What word was too big for you to understand? I'll try to explain it in a 3rd grade reading level you might be able to grasp though Smith's explanation I already quoted seems sufficient to me.

@no1marauder said
The wealth created in capitalist countries was created by labor. Until progressive reforms were implemented, little of it went to its creators.

This is history, not opinion. It has been the main goal of right wingers ever since to return to a system where the wealthy hold all the cards - they have tried to abolish or at least severely limit all the progressive program ...[text shortened]... italism, but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS.

Fast and loose with the word create/creators.
My father was very instrumental in the construction of a new church. Huge celebration in his honor. You suggest it was the bricklayers, etc. In fact, it was a combination of ideas, risk taking, investment, coordination. For all of the 'labor' to do their jobs, someone had to invent the bulldozer, finance the factory, organize the supply change, risk, bankruptcy, risk bankruptcy again, create the business model, and employ thousands of people before that labor becomes massively productive.
You have the ditch digger, the bulldozer guy, yes, all laboring. Being paid. The difference in productivity comes from capital, invention, organization, investment technology, and entrepreneurship, all of the things your argument leaves out.
Then there is philanthropy, to shoot down your silly argument (The ditch diggers built that!!). Much of the modern world, the hospitals, the libraries, the universities, research and museums., or funded not by socialist governments that US spouse, but by wealthy individuals created through capitalist systems.
Do you want to reduce the economy to workers versus the owners,\???? C'mon really economies are ecosystems of all of the above depending on one another. Remove any major piece and the wealth creation slows dramatically. You certainly must agree with that. So do you want wealth creation to slow dramatically, I think that is what you are saying. Everybody pick flowers and live off of everybody else's stuff.
What a laugh...Wealth created by Labor. geez. The 'laborers' did NOT create the church, They had a hand in it. XCome probablly did not knowwhat they were building.....they wer paid to dig a trench where the walls would stand 2 years out.

@no1marauder said
The wealth created in capitalist countries was created by labor. Until progressive reforms were implemented, little of it went to its creators.

This is history, not opinion. It has been the main goal of right wingers ever since to return to a system where the wealthy hold all the cards - they have tried to abolish or at least severely limit all the progressive program ...[text shortened]... italism, but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS.

Nationalize all production, split everything up....(after deciding who works harder than others....how you gonna do that!?!?)

Oh, then there was AOC on friday saying no can make a billion dollars. Taylor Swift has, by being a singing Barbie Doll. Makes people happy, SKreew her and all her celeb friends. Get her money.
Pitiful. So, no more allowing billionaires? Downer. We would have never had Amazon or Spacx. You Marauder could not be in a smaller group of losers. I bet the first thing to go will be Gluten-free Foods!!!! dammit

@no1marauder said
None of this is true. There's always an "incentive" to profit from the labor of others but that's what the institution of "private property" does; it's not meant to have "individuals keep the fruits of their labor - it's meant to make it mandatory that a relative few profit from others labor. "Secure property rights" just means the State will use force to maintain ...[text shortened]... standards, longest life expectancy" reforms that limited, not strongly protected, private property.

Now, to the meat of the day....
You said this,,,,"""None of this is true. There's always an "incentive" to profit from the labor of others but that's what the institution of "private property" does; it's not meant to have "individuals keep the fruits of their labor - it's meant to make it mandatory that a relative few profit from others labor. "Secure property rights" just means the State will use force to maintain the privileges of a few against the just claims of the many.""

You keep describing private property, as if it's only purpose is exploitation, but you ignore its actual function in human society. It is what allows people to safely build, save invest improve land. Create businesses, invent products, and pass something on their children, without fearing it will simply be taken from them by whoever is stronger. YOU, YOU, want to take it. YOu want to take it.
And I reject your idea that profit itself is exploitation. If I start a company and risk my savings and work 80/hr a week and build something valuable and hire people who voluntarily agree to work there for wages that they accepted, that is cooperation… That is not theft. Workers benefit from the arrangement, or they would leave. Owners benefit too. That mutual benefit is precisely why capitalist economies produce wealth at levels no other system has ever matched on this planet.
I am correct , you are wrong, you need to admit that, or let it go. Entertain us instead with Natural Law. Our country needs to consider natural law.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
" but he knew your claims of equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists was BS."

make this make sense

He won’t
He will condescendingly cast aspersions . Here’s a question to ask him. Did labor create Amazon.?
Watch him dance.

@AverageJoe1 said
He won’t
He will condescendingly cast aspersions . Here’s a question to ask him. Did labor create Amazon.?
Watch him dance.

The name "Amazon" was created by ancient Greeks. It means "Without a boobie".

@AverageJoe1 said
Now, to the meat of the day....
You said this,,,,"""None of this is true. There's always an "incentive" to profit from the labor of others but that's what the institution of "private property" does; it's not meant to have "individuals keep the fruits of their labor - it's meant to make it mandatory that a relative few profit from others labor. "Secure property rig ...[text shortened]... , or let it go. Entertain us instead with Natural Law. Our country needs to consider natural law.

Again not true. There's nothing inherent in the concept of private property that makes it the only vehicle to "safely build, save invest improve land. Create businesses, invent products, and pass something on their children, without fearing it will simply be taken from them by whoever is stronger." That's a fairy tale you've fallen for. All of those things could and were done in societies without the concept of private property and taking things from the People are routinely done in capitalist countries. And I do not feel the need to explain to you for the hundredth time the difference between "private property" and "personal property".

Apparently you didn't read the Adam Smith quote. Try to do so this time. Workers can't just "leave" since every scrap of dirt in a capitalist country is owned by someone or something that insists on being paid for you to exist there.

Our country considered Natural Law and put it in our founding document which you've apparently never read. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/us_doi.pdf

@AverageJoe1 said
He won’t
He will condescendingly cast aspersions . Here’s a question to ask him. Did labor create Amazon.?
Watch him dance.

Labor made Amazon profitable. A guy getting a quarter of a million dollars from his parents created Amazon though it took almost a decade for it to be profitable.

And even at that, it would hardly have been profitable without the use of infrastructure created by public funds.

@no1marauder said
What word was too big for you to understand? I'll try to explain it in a 3rd grade reading level you might be able to grasp though Smith's explanation I already quoted seems sufficient to me.

well i could do like you do and tell you what you meant.

Just gave you a chance to clarify... too bad you have to head straight to the gutter

I will narrow it down a bit. What does this mean?

" equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists"

@no1marauder said
Again not true. There's nothing inherent in the concept of private property that makes it the only vehicle to "safely build, save invest improve land. Create businesses, invent products, and pass something on their children, without fearing it will simply be taken from them by whoever is stronger." That's a fairy tale you've fallen for. All of those things could and were ...[text shortened]... ding document which you've apparently never read. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/us_doi.pdf

Hmmmm..you say societies existed 'without private property". Marauder, be honest, be ingenuous, be sincere, please.
None of the advanced, prosperous, technologically, innovative societies in human history, functioned, long-term, without stable property rights. Get real. Tribes, feudal systems, commune, monarchy all of it, some concept of control ,ownership, inheritance, territory, even hierarchy. Humans naturally would organize around possession, stewardship, and exchange. I love the word exchange. Capitalism simply formalized and expanded that reality into market and investment.
As to your distinction between private and personal property, let's say I start a farm, own a few tools, hire workers, expand operations, and eventually own a factory..... PLEASE , get, and answer this question, it is important....
Question::: AT WHAT POINT does my personal property suddenly become ILLEGITIMATE private property (in your eyes), subject to redistribution??
After you answer, I would like to answer your other comments in this post.

PS< Maruader: Foound Fathers absolutely believed in Natural Law, and a right that they emphasized ws the right to own property. You dare to distinguish what KIND of property?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
well i could do like you do and tell you what you meant.

Just gave you a chance to clarify... too bad you have to head straight to the gutter

I will narrow it down a bit. What does this mean?

" equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists"

I'm sorry, Marauder, I myself do not know what that means.
Keep in mind your penchant for reducing 'wealth creation' to labor alone. I hate to break it to you, but labor alone explains NOTHING about why some economies become rich, and others remain poor. See how you omit points such as this. I got this Mott. Jesus.
I could go on with these concepts, bring it Marauder.

@AverageJoe1 said
Hmmmm..you say societies existed 'without private property". Marauder, be honest, be ingenuous, be sincere, please.
None of the advanced, prosperous, technologically, innovative societies in human history, functioned, long-term, without stable property rights. Get real. Tribes, feudal systems, commune, monarchy all of it, some concept of control ,ownership, inherit ...[text shortened]... t that they emphasized ws the right to own property. You dare to distinguish what KIND of property?

"Possession" doesn't equal "private property".

"Investment" occurs without private property.

"Personal property" is what you can use, "private property" is what you must have others labor for you to make it profitable.:

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property."

https://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31

Unless you can grasp this distinction (and you show no signs of doing so), this discussion is pointless.

There's been plenty of advanced societies without what you call "stable property rights". In the 1930s when most advanced capitalist societies economically collapsed, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union experienced strong economic growth. Neither possessed any kind of "strong property rights" as you have defined them.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
well i could do like you do and tell you what you meant.

Just gave you a chance to clarify... too bad you have to head straight to the gutter

I will narrow it down a bit. What does this mean?

" equal voluntary exchange between workers and capitalists"

It's a fantasy that Average Joe believes in. In reality, in capitalist societies the owners of capital have a permanent advantage that forces labor to accept an inferior bargain (though, of course, progressive reforms in the US and other capitalist countries somewhat mitigate that reality). I guess you didn't bother to read the Adam Smith quote, so I'll repeat it:

"" In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.” (Smith 1776, Book 1, Chapter 8 “Of the Wages of Labour“ )

@no1marauder said
"Possession" doesn't equal "private property".

"Investment" occurs without private property.

"Personal property" is what you can use, "private property" is what you must have others labor for you to make it profitable.:

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are us ...[text shortened]... ng economic growth. Neither possessed any kind of "strong property rights" as you have defined them.

Hey….

You are redefining “private property” so narrowly that virtually every productive civilization in history suddenly becomes “anti-property.” That is not how economists, historians, or ordinary people use the term.
And you can ‘rename’ property with possession if you want, but civilization itself has always depended on stable ownership rights. It is crazy that you suggest that ownership should be so nebulous, like no one should own anything. Are you saying no one should own anything ? tell us what they cannot own then we can continue.

If a farmer owns land, a craftsman owns tools, a merchant owns a shop, or a family owns and passes down a business, that is private property. If others trade or profit, even rent from those assets does not mean it transforms ownership into exploitation. You are nuts.


And your historical examples actually undermine your point. Nazi Germany did not abolish private property — major industrial firms remained privately owned, profits existed .The Soviet Union DID abolish most private ownership, crashed away. Could it be in a society like that that there is no incentive? I bet you hate the word incentive .

You know societies with durable property rights consistently outperform societies that weaken or abolish them. People innovate, invest, build, maintain, and plan for the future when they can securely own the fruits of their labor and capital. Why be foolish debater with Average Joe?
And does it irk you when I suggest that people should be allowed to own the fruits of their labor and capital. You never tell us what you would do with the fruits of their labor, which is more than someone who does not work as hard as they do ……and you will never deal with that question