To contracycle:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Capitalism makes value subjective; I think this is a faulty analysis. The criteria I apply is exploitation, and the capacity to exploit.
Ahhhhhh....interesting concept. Comments further down.
Exactly so. Property rights are social structures; property does not carry an inherent moral quality. Which is exactly why it is NOT evident that theft is morally wrong. The moral wrongness of theft is a device our society uses to persuade people not to steal.
Alright. Granted, I can see things from your perspective, and even gems of practicality in your argument too. I still see problems, though that may be because I don't know your theory well enough. Comments further down.
IMO, yes. Not least because the gap between riuch and poor is expanding in most OECD states, and so this strategy is clearly failing.
Well, there could be other factors - such as education and the wealth inheritance cycle. It has been prostulated, for example, that the rich are more knowledgable in how to make their money grow (or in avoiding taxes).
No. I am saying that a field is not possessed by a person merely because they put a stake in it. Either the field is under the plow, in use, and the person working it is befitting from it, or it is not in use, and should be freely available for use by those who need it and are willing to work. I assert actual exploitation crtiteria are more sensible than abstract property criteria for allocating social resources to users.
Ok, there is sense in this. May I ask what resources (aside from land) would be considered "public"? And also, what happens when this resource (or any other) is being used at maximum capacity?
And yes, this is very much Communism, as long as you don;t stoop to cheap lies like "everything is owned by the coercive state".
I don't care what it is as long as it works.
This is an elderly and gross lie. Anyone who had read Capital would know how to answer this; it circulates in the West only as propaganda.
So I have been taught a lie. Hmmmmm....reminescence of my Anglican primary school days.
The reason is, because I can gain benefit from a shitload of stuff. A house, a TV, a video player... and as technology improves, I stand to benefit even more. I am using all of this stuff, and therefore have the right to claim it be socially protected.
So there ARE property rights, but only stuff that you are using, right?
Question:
1) Can you build your house as big as you want it? (How much is exploit-able?)
2) Can you buy a TV for every room in your 200-room mansion?
3) Does this mean you can own as much money as you can earn but you can't buy more things than you can use?
it is in fact in capitalism that there is no motivation to work beyond the miniumum: the things I create through my efforts are owned by the boss, not by me, so there is no incentive for me to do more than the minimum.
But you can create your own company under Capitalism.
Also, your ability to make money for the company increases your worth to it, and thus increases your income. (If this does not happen, you can change over to another company that recognises your worth)
So under your system, all the companies would be state owned, and your wages would be performance-tagged? (Everyone owns everything + direct incentives to work harder)
Charity. But in an induatrialised society, we can easily feed and house everyone, so the issue is largely moot. Modern property owning socities treat their disabled and elderly much worse than most primitive communisms.
I won't buy into the idea of charity supporting the elderly and disabled on the grounds that charity is not guaranteed to generate sufficient funds. If you say taxes, then the issue is moot, yes.
As for the latter point, my knowledge in primitive societies and their treatment of the disabled and elderly is limited and prevents me from making any constructive comments, though I have reasons to believe you're probably right.
Its the old concept of the commons...but they do not have exclusiove property rights over the grazing lands because the land does not exist as a result of that persons efforts.
Again, I must ask:
So it doesn't matter how many cows/TVs/cars/boats/jets/shoes etc. you can own, but land is common? What else is common?
Is it ok if I come over to your house and take your Porsche out for a spin while you are watching TV, and so obviously not exploiting it?
Patiently awaiting your reply.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
In this scenario, that is not the case.
™ Version 4.2