/lit/ - Literature

>>22086143
> that doesn't actually justify any particular distribution of property of course
Why should it? You're being very unclear and disingenuous about what you want to argue for. You're asking theoretical questions while attempting to argue for (apparently) the real world implementation of communism by the forced seizure of assets (eg, bolshevism).

>>22086146
>the workers must hand over the profits to the owner
That's not how it works. It's a voluntary, limited relationship where the workers receive wages in exchange for providing labor. The workers are not entitled to profits in the same way they're not responsible for losses of the enterprise as a whole.

>the miners should just be allowed to take the coal they mine for themselves
Mineral rights are a thing. Before the mine is even developed, that coal/ore/whatever is owned by whoever owns the mineral rights. Theoretically, originally, the ownership of those minerals would initiate with the first miner or whoever first worked the land.

Here's a counterexample you might relate to: say you own a home (let's even say you built it yourself on unclaimed land, and everyone on the planet agrees that you own that house without question). And you hire me to come in and paint it. Well you've had that house for a while, and I worked on it for a period of time, mixing my labor into your home, so I think I own it. Maybe not the whole thing, since I only painted it, but I think I should get a room and rights to use the kitchen and bathroom. Is that just? I suspect your intuition is no.

>>14735930
>watching 3D shit
ISHYGDDT

how about a spoiler tag you ultimate faggot

>>10567016
Maids.