/lit/ - Literature

>I guess what I’m asking is, what is “property” and “ownership”?
Read Locke. It's really not that complicated. You're simply uneducated.

>>22086018
Okay, you read Proudhon. It’s not really that complicated. You’re simply uneducated.

>>22086023
I have. He's wrong. YOU'RE the one who asked a question rather than just making your statement plain like you should have. I answered your question. You're welcome.

>>22085986
First, stable generational wealth is the exception and not the rule. Second, redistribution schemes do not address cultural factors that lead to remaining in the underclass and most of the policy concerning such is written by self-interested parties that consciously and unconsciously seek to maintain stability at the expense of the working-class.

Basically, the elite is static (and an extreme minority), upper middle class wealth is sticky but not stable over time (policy is usually directed to their benefit), the middle-class is in prolonged transition to upper-middle class (the true "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"), and the working-class is grouped in as part of the unthinking underclass instead of having its own voice.

It's silly to worry about forced redistribution through handing the control of economic resources to the state because the pattern above will simply continue only with more license for governmental coercion (including imprisonment and fostering resentment that leads to murder).

>>22085986
>Say I own a factory, and hire workers to run it. I then sit back and take all the profits for myself. How am I not just a parasite?
Because of a vast legal structure that protects your ability to get a return on that investment. Most factories/businesses are collectively owned by investors in disproportionate shares

>I understand the factory needs management, but why am I not simply a worker employed as a manager getting a salary. Why do I get to own the profits because I claim “ownership” of this factory?
Because owning stock and receiving a return requires different skills than management. The funnier aspect is shareholders aren't actually liable when things go wrong, large limited liability corporations are what makes capitalism work not small single owner firms

>once the investment has been paid back to me with interest, that should be it
Why should interest exist? Money having a price is even more absurd than property.

>I guess what I’m asking is, what is “property” and “ownership”?
Pure legal concepts. What you can own and how you can use it are extremely variable. Lolberts fall back to some mystical "natural rights" concept that G-d created supposedly

>>22086018
So you mix your labour with the land and then all of a sudden you get an eternal claim to the land… I mean, ok, this sounds noble when you think of a small family farm. But if you’re Bill Gates and you “own” 200k acres of land, which you never personally worked, and hire labourers to work it for you, and then take for yourself what the labourers produced based on this claim of “ownership”… it seems to me that somewhere in this process the honourable nature of the family farm is lost.

I mean, think of a mine. The workers do everything that is necessary to maintain and run the mine. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to sell the coal that they mine themselves, what is this claim of “ownership” that forces them to give over most of what they mined to the “owner”? Is it purely the ability to wield violence? Is there no further philosophical justification?

And again, you could say, the owner invested in this, and takes risks, which is true. But, say, after 10 years, when his investment has been payed back 100x, why does this claim to “ownership” still last.

I may be uneducated. In fact I am. These are just my pre-theoretic intuitions about the matter.

>>22086059
So ultimately it’s just purely the ability to wield violence and no real just reason stands behind it?

>>22085986
Well, if you own a factory, that means you either built the factory (something the specific workers you hired couldn't have done on their own) or inherited it. The second scenario may seem parasitic but you are really on the receiving end of someone else's consumption. If you have a kid, you want the best for them, and it's restricting freedom to prevent people from spending on their children.
The whole point of ownership (equity) is that upside return is unlimited. This compensates for the much higher risk. If you loan money to someone, then if they go bankrupt you get to take your loan's worth in assets from their assets. Owners get screwed until all the lenders have taken theirs. Interest rates are fundamentally based on this interaction. If returns from ownership were limited to some sort of interest rate, then no one would ever want to take ownership of anything. They'd just loan out their money instead. To avoid that, ownership must have a higher upside return. This upside return is based on a vast array of economic risks and relationships, so it ultimately is just a different kind of investment than loaning out money, not really a better one. If it was so much more profitable to own a factory than to loan out money, people would build factories until the prices of factory components rose to the point that it would be on balance just as profitable to loan money.
Does that answer your question?

>>22085986
>Say I own a factory, and hire workers to run it. I then sit back and take all the profits for myself. How am I not just a parasite?
Do pinkos really believe that business owners just sit on their asses like NEETs all day? How old are you that you believe this?

>>22086059
>Lolberts fall back to some mystical "natural rights" concept that G-d created supposedly
You don't need to appeal to God to appeal to natural rights but yes this was an angle for a long time and what Western civilization was built upon. But argumentation ethics can ground libertarian natural rights a priori without any appeal to supernatural.

>>22086079
You're confusing the issue of where property comes from originally (the mixing of labor with what already existed and was unclaimed) and property that was purchased from someone who already owned it.

In the OP, the example was a factory. If you're a rich person and you take action to bring a factory into existence (hire people to build it, set up the business, find customers, etc), that's where the rightful ownership of that factory initially comes from: the person who made it.

In the linked post, you're now talking about buying a farm, or a mine. The property is purchased from a previous owner: that's the source of the rightful ownership of the mine by the current owner. That people are hired to work the farm/mine is irrelevant as to who owns the mine.

You're also only focused on the benefits of ownership, and seemingly ignoring the liabilities. Suppose there's an accident at the factory and a third party is injured (say an I-beam goes flying through a wall and knocks over an old lady across the street). Who's liable for that? Who gets sued and brought into court? Is it the workers, or the legal owner? Of course it's the legal owner. Would you be okay with a worker-owned factory being in that situation, and all the workers having to go to court and possibly prison for negligence? My suspicion is that your reflexive thought was "no that's different because..." and you don't think the workers should be held liable in that situation, although you do think the workers are entitled to all the profits from the factory. And that's before getting into the problems of arranging maintenance, financing, marketing, distribution, arrangement of raw material delivery, etc.

You could save us both a lot of time if you'd just read Locke. It's not even that long.

>if I take risks I deserve money...because I deserve it...
>>22086099
Always has been.

>>22086079
If you're not trolling lolberts will give some sort of tragedy of the commons argument to justify private property, that doesn't actually justify any particular distribution of property of course. Essentially you're going to be debating economics and they'll make claims about efficiency and such, you're going to end up debating welfare economics and stuff like Pareto efficiency. Maurice Dobb's "Welfare Economics and the Economics of Socialism" is a good counter here:
http://bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/PoliticalEconomyOfSocialism/GeneralSocialistEconomicTheory/Dobb-WelfareEconomicsAndTheEconomicsOfSocialism-1969-OCR-sm.pdf

>>22086099
That would be "might makes rights".

>>22086113
The bulk of valuable businesses globally are owned by who? They're state run enterprises or publicly trade corporations owned largely by like pension funds and stuff lol

>>22086127
>a priori without any appeal to supernatural
What are you appealing to than? Logic doesn't have to correspond to "reality"

>>22086104
Not really. My problem is with this eternal claim to the factory. Sure, let’s say that for the risk owners take to build the factory they should be compensated higher than someone who simply lent money out since it’s a high risk investment. But is it really worth a theoretically infinite return?

It seems to me that at some point the justice of claiming that the workers must hand over the profits to the owner based on his initial investment dissolves.

This intuition of mine is even stronger when applied to a natural structure like a mine. At some point, after the owner has been paid back a certain amount for taking the risk to develop the mine, it seems to me that the miners should just be allowed to take the coal they mine for themselves and sell it for themselves instead of having to hand most of it over.

I mean, it is labour that is developing the mine, maintaining it, and getting coal out. So why should someone sitting on their ass, not contributing, be getting most of the coal? It makes no sense to me.

>>22086035
You did not answer OPs question as Rousseau and Proudhon throughly debunked Locke. Try again and read something non Anglo please

>>22086113
I have stock in Microsoft
All I do is sit back and make money every time they issue dividends or if the stock goes up
So yes.

>>22086079
No one would take the big risks if the payoff is capped at a reasonable amount. I would not want to run a software comoany but I like being a worker bee in its guts, less stress less pay that's how it has always been with men. The miners don't have to worry about selling the coal (don't be 10yo and imagine it just disappears from their hands with sparkles), they can just do their task and get out.

>>22085986
>How am I not just a parasite?
Because you produce commodities that are in demand and you supply lowly plebs with a job.

>>22086113
I believe I’ve addressed this. The company needs management. True. I have no problem with managers getting a salary for the labour they do in managing the company. What I don’t understand is this claim to “ownership”, and how that gives you the right to the fruits of the company produced by the labour of everybody labouring for it (including the owner when he acts in the capacity of a manager).
>>22086140
I think that whoever caused the accident should be liable. So if the owner ordered that the structure be built unstably he should be liable. But if the workers disobeyed him and built the structure unstably, causing an accident, they should be liable. This whole ownership concept is very nonsensical to me. If I “own” a mine and some worker acts irresponsibly and kills some old lady, how am I to blame?

I just don’t get what “ownership” even is. It seems to me that labour, if anything, justifies ownership. And Locke seems to agree that’s the initial cause of ownership. But why does it suddenly stop after the property has been acquired? If I neglect a piece of land I “own”, leaving it standing worthless for 50 years, why shouldn’t people just take it and start working it themselves?

>It's not adequate to describe how capital, the characteristic property relationship in modern society, operates and valorises itself. No theft is required in order for the capitalist to enrich himself. He purchases labour-power fair and square, at its value, and - in consuming its use-value - extracts more labour than was originally represented in that labour-power. He does not need to underpay or cheat the worker in order to obtain surplus-value; everything that takes place is in accordance with the laws of private property. To describe this process as 'theft' implies that it could be avoided simply by preventing said theft, i.e. by preventing violation of the very laws of property which give rise to the movement in the first place.

>>22086186
This begs the question of what ownership and property means, which I don’t understand. My intuition tells me ownership is justified by labour, not by some abstraction.

>>22085986
Are you OK with spending a few million building and fitting out a factory just to make $60k a year?

>>22086113
They literally do lmao. Its amazing how capitalist lolberts are also the least knowledgeable about how business and finance works. What work do the majority stakeholders do for a firm if they are not also employed in a management role?

>>22086203
They shit on the board of directors at the general assembly.

>>22086162
The way I see it, the miners would own the coal because they mined it. Then they would sell it to some coal-selling company at bulk for a discount, probably associated with the mine, and get the full value of their labour. The mine would then labour to sell it at a higher price to other people in smaller quantities.
What perplexes me is the idea that someone “owns” the mine and whoever works there has to pay a fee (which is most of what their labour produces), to the guy who owns it just for working there.

>>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.

>>22086218
Sorry I didn’t mean “the mine would…” I meant “the coal selling company would…”

>>22085986
>make something
>somebody steals it and you lose possession
>its no longer yours since there is no property
Anybody with an IQ of at least 80 can deduct this, my only explanation is that you have to be mentally ill to fall for this Marxism shit

>>22085986
>Grug go for walk
>see sharp pointy rock
>pick up sharp pointy rock
>Grug use pointy rock as tool to make other pointy rock for to kill Grugs who eat Grug family meat
>when meat be taken away, be fight with bad Grugs and people turn into bone house
>Grug go for walk and find many other pointy rocks in cave
>If Grug offer bad Grugs pointy rocks for more meat, bad Grugs fight other bad Grugs and Grug get more meat
>Grug now defender and meat master of village for giving away *his* pointy rocks

>>22086218
So who pays for all the equipment and red tape? Who banks the massive fund required for restoring the mine site after the mine is tapped out? Etc.

>>22086151
>Rousseau and Proudhon throughly debunked Locke
I strongly disagree.

>>22086193
Your "intuition" is wrong. Maybe don't get your intuition from communist propaganda in the future. Read Locke.

>>22086218
>and whoever works there has to pay a fee (which is most of what their labour produces), to the guy who owns it just for working there.
Workers are free to go work somewhere else, or even just not work at all. Nobody's forcing them (in this hypothetical scenario) to work there.

I really wish all the communists in this thread would just be frank that they have a problem with the current distribution of wealth and that they want to forcibly steal from the current owners and distribute it according to their liking. Instead we have to do this gay little song and dance where they pretend to be stupid and "just asking questions" and we have to pretend we're answering them like they're not making malicious rhetorical arguments while we politely fight over the the allegiance of the silent lurkers.

>>22086140
>The property is purchased from a previous owner: that's the source of the rightful ownership of the mine by the current owner
Dude imagine if we like put that on le blockchain

>You're also only focused on the benefits of ownership, and seemingly ignoring the liabilities
>Is it the workers, or the legal owner?
That's why limited liability exists, you can own a portion of a business and not be held fully liable for any of the costs. Only commies want to get rid of limited liability because they're retards

>>22086162
>No one would take the big risks if the payoff is capped at a reasonable amount.
It depends what you mean. People obviously do risky things all the time because they're retards and don't have normal impulse controls. Progressive taxation where in other places it doesn't... that's a sliding scale towards a "cap". You can wonder why Japanese CEO's aren't emigrating to America more since they're pay is basically "capped" there relative to what they could be making running American companies, etc, etc. There's a lot of "sociological" factors involved. The bigger point is owners don't run companies generally, maybe AI can cause some competition there and god knows what that means lol

>>22086195
Where do you think that $60k initially came from? Every dollar is a pure fiat liability spent into existence by the US government. It has no "real" value. If I could issue IOUs and force you to pay me taxes in it I'd be comfortable doing all kinds of strange things but I can't for better or worse.

>>22086219
>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).
I said the argument you'll get is the tragedy of the commons. That's used to justify the seizure of public assets and privatization of everything on the globe. Any system of private property requires seizing assets or liability doesn't exists and no one ever "owes" anyone anything. Courts can take everything from you for perhaps contentious reasons. Nowhere did I advocate "communism", I'm saying welfare economics is more important than "morality", brush up on it and the critics

>>22085986
Get a job nigger.

>>22086184
>I just don’t get what “ownership” even is.
Practically, in the real world, it's a social construct enforced by the government (which has a monopoly on the just use of force explicitly to protect property rights). THIS IS ALSO IN LOCKE.

>And Locke seems to agree that’s the initial cause of ownership. But why does it suddenly stop after the property has been acquired?
Because the concept of property is a social construct. Everyone collectively agrees who owns what, and property transfers are generally voluntary with very limited exceptions. There's a reason the saying is "property is nine tenths of the law".

>If I neglect a piece of land I “own”, leaving it standing worthless for 50 years, why shouldn’t people just take it and start working it themselves?
That's called abandonment and there are legal processes whereby squatters can (and do, in the real world) claim legal possession of abandoned land.

I'm going to say this again: all this is covered in Locke at a theoretical level. The practical reality depends on what government you're subject to, so without knowing that I can't really help you, but in most western countries it's similar (anglo originated countries follow Locke, not sure about continentals, Hobbes or the Napoleonic code or some shit?).

>>22086248
>workers are free to not work
No they aren’t this is the dumbest argument that gets repeated constantly. You are not really free to do something if doing that thing means you will starve and die

>>22086280
>if you lose your job you starve and die
College kid

>>22086035
I’m not OP.
Show me how Locke is right and Proudhon is wrong, please.
>>22086248
Same question. Strong disagreement based on what? I’m not in the habit of reading out of date churchly monarchist period stuff. Encapsulate.

>>22086280
Ohh?? What makes you entiteld to something for free without putting in or contributing any effort or any work at all? Yes, you deserve to starve to death if you dont work.

>>22086289
>spoon feed me cause I am a lazy fuck
No

>>22086280
>You are not really free to do something if doing that thing means you will starve and die
I dare you to find ONE example from the last five years of ONE person who died of starvation in either the EEA or the United States because they couldn't find work. This isn't the 1800s anymore, there's ZERO risk of death by starvation due to not working.

Yes, workers are free not to work. Tons of people choose not to work and beg or just live off welfare gibs. Unless someone has literally enslaved you and is using force or the threat of force to make you work, you are free to stop working at any time, or find another employer who'll pay you more or give you more benefits.

Stop getting all your "intuition" from communist propaganda.

>>22086219
Please stop posting images which inspire lust. “Whoever sins is a slave to sin” — Jesus Christ. Lust is not freedom or liberation, but slavery. I cannot stop you from looking at those images, but I do not wish to see them.

Now I think the painting of my house is a different matter. I live in the house, I work every day to maintain the house, to clean it, and to keep it in good order. I therefore legitimately own the house. Your added labour is but a minuscule fraction of what I do every day in the house. So the analogy is already shaky. More importantly, I do not pay you with the paint that you apply to my house. Your labour here does not produce your wage. Instead, I have to pay you from my own pocket.

In the case of a mine, the owner invests in it in the beginning, so he has a legitimate claim to take some of what the labourers produce. He also deserves pay for the labour he carries out by managing the mine. However, once the investment has been paid back with interest, it is hard to see why the profits still go to him. The other labourers mix their labour with the mine just as much as he does. And they produce the value that he pays them with.

>>22086293
Changing the argument. I am not saying you shouldn’t work to survive. I am saying that the workers are entitled to a fair share of the profits they generate. You are arguing “they can just not work” if they have a problem with capitalism which, again, is a retarded claim.

>>22086272
So it’s purely the ability to wield violence

>>22086304
I know its hard to believe for people like you, but most people have a spiritual longing to work and be a part of a community. Death would be a preferable option for many compared to permanent NEET status.
Stop repeating the same phrases over and over again too lmao I never said anything about intuition but I have seen you repeat that meme phrase like 3 times now.

>>22086248
>Workers are free to go work somewhere else, or even just not work at all. Nobody's forcing them (in this hypothetical scenario) to work there.
What do you mean by free? Are you assuming a uniform cost of living/transportation which is zero?
>I really wish all the communists in this thread would just be frank that they have a problem with the current distribution of wealth and that they want to forcibly steal from the current owners and distribute it according to their liking.
The core problem is wealth can't be redistributed like that and only turbobrained berniebro retards think it can. How do you increase overall welfare by redistributing a couple yachts? The problems are more over investment. You don't even need to "seize" anything to redirect investment, increasing spending like that can be done by fiat but that's where the theoretical problems are and competition with existing vested interests, McDonalds doesn't want their labour force poached by any other economic sector

>>22086304
>Yes, workers are free not to work. Tons of people choose not to work and beg or just live off welfare gibs. Unless someone has literally enslaved you and is using force or the threat of force to make you work, you are free to stop working at any time, or find another employer who'll pay you more or give you more benefits.
None of that is "free", it all involves redistribution and costs and the key thing you said is people can work where ever which is obviously not true.

>>22086301
The most hilarious thing about this post is that I'm the guy who posted the smug slurp, and this post wasn't me. But it could have been because that's my view exactly.

To elaborate: just because you say that someone disproves someone else, doesn't mean that I have to show how you're wrong. That's being asked to prove a negative, which is impossible. Instead, the person making the claim is supposed to provide evidence. So in this case, the Proudhon cocksucker needs to take the dick out of their mouth long enough to type up how Proudhon disproves Locke, ideally with textual citations.

>>22086312
>Fair
And that is exatly where u theory seems to fail over and over again. By what definition would you say is a fair share? The person that invested the most amount of money and founded the idea in to the company/industry? Or something else? Finish highschool or college and get a job before u argue these things and u will realize its not really the capitalist that are keeping u poor but the state that rapes u in taxes and regulations.

>>22086320
Just find another job

>>22086326
>The fruits of the earth belong equally to us all - Rousseau
There, Locke has been disproven. Stealing the common fruits and “mixing your labor” does not mean you own it. Now, make an actual argument. I doubt you have even read Locke.

>>22086340
>The fruits of the earth don't belong equally to us all - Anon
I have thus disproven Rousseau

>>22086330
>The person that invested the most amount of money and founded the idea in to the company/industry?
This has been answered so many times in this thread.

Of course, if you take risks and invest in the beginning, you deserve to get that money back and extra on top for your investment.

However, the "ownership" structure means that for a finite investment you get a theoretically infinite return. Your initial investment entitles you to the profits of the company forever, until the end of the world. Your children will have the profits. Their children will have them. And so on.

At what point does the initial investment become justly repaid such that the owner no longer deserves the fruits of the labour?

>By what definition would you say is a fair share?
I would say that everybody should be paid only insofar as they labour, not merely for ownership. You shouldn't be able to "own" a company, meaning you have other people producing things and you taking what they produce and paying them only a miniscule fraction.

Obviously there's no exact formula for this.

>make a million dollars playing poker
>government takes half of it
>lose a million dollars playing poker

>>22086326
No, it’s literally asking you to share what you know.
Apparently you know nothing about Locke or the rest of them, you’re just a market fundie liberal getting puffy with us like a pissy pigeon.
>>22086340
You’re probably right.

>>22086346
By what right? Have you even read Stirner? How do you cope with that fact?

>>22086350
I think the libertarian guy is just retarded. The irony is that for all the hate of taxes and government, it is the government alone that creates the property “rights” they pretend exist in nature.

>>22086356
>Not everything is le spook - Anon
Deboonked

>>22086246
The initial investor does that, and then he is entitled to the profits of the company, but not forever. It would just be like a loan, but with better returns because you not only provided the money you also laboured to make the project happen.

>>22086305
It's amazing that you typed all that out about you living in and maintaining "the house" and then completely glossed over the work an owner does with their mine. Even the bit about painters not being paid in paint, but then you claim that miners are paid in ore... An incredible example of doublethink, bravo.

>>22086315
>purely
No, there's a lot of widespread consent and recordkeeping and so on, but it is ENFORCED by violence, yes, once all other avenues of recourse have failed. When the squatter refuses to leave after being lawfully evicted, it's typically the sheriff who shows up to FORCE them out of someone else's property.

>>22086312
>the workers are entitled to a fair share of the profits they generate
>entitled
Why, exactly? It depends on the terms of their employment contract/agreement. Why shouldn't non workers be entitled to a share of the profits other people generate? What's the reasoning here?

>You are arguing “they can just not work” if they have a problem with capitalism which, again, is a retarded claim.
Oh, are we talking about problems with capitalism now? Can we dispense with the tired pretense that you're just an idiot asking questions? The REALITY is that anyone with a "problem with capitalism" can very easily choose not to work, and they will survive on the kindness of strangers and the gibs from the government. There's zero risk of starvation. We live in a time, right now, where the indolent are utterly shielded from the consequences of their sloth, and you're unhappy about it for some reason. Why?

>>22086320
If you're a different anon my apologies. The OP falls back on "muh intuition" when he's been refuted and wants to keep the charade going.

>>22086321
>and the key thing you said is people can work where ever which is obviously not true.
Actually you are correct, there are government regulations regarding licensing that make people unable to work where otherwise a voluntary agreement between employee and employer would suffice. We truly do not live in a free market. >mfw

>>22086350
If u are that confident why dont u create a company with this exact system? What gives u the right to leech and decide for someone else like a parasite? The truth is that u and many other marxist mongrels are just blinded by envy if u look up more than half of fortune 500 companies that were founded and made billions by guys who started out as bums in their own garage.
>Your children will have the profits
If my family wont get the profits there would be no incentive to work or start a company in the first place, do you really think the company was started for your benefit? The company was made to create and produce profit and nothing more.
>>22086381
Than what would be a incentive to start the company in the first place if some faggot parasite can just take it from u later?

>>22086386
>Even the bit about painters not being paid in paint, but then you claim that miners are paid in ore
My point was that the miners produce the value that the owner pays them with.

So if I hire you to paint my house, the painting of my house does not produce the value I pay you with. Instead, my labour produces the value, and I pay you with that value.

With the mine, the miners produce the value, but the owner takes it and pays them with the very value that they produced.

Of course, the owner also co-ordinates the sale of the coal. But he carries out the same scam for the people employed in selling the coal that he does for the people mining it.

In short, it just seems like a pyramid scam.

>>22086397
The incentive is that you would get a return on your investment. I am asking what justifies the ownership structure, which is a theoretically infinite return for a finite investment.

>>22086340
Locke's premise is that nature is owned by no-one. Your statement is an axiomatic statement that nature is owned by everyone. That's not an argument, it's just a different axiom. btw I'm vetoing your use of the atmosphere, tough luck kiddo.

>>22086356
I've been applying Locke's views on property consistently throughout this thread. Only one poster has even attempted to apply Rousseau, however poorly.

>>22086350
>>22086381
So if you buy a car, how long do you get to "own" it before it gets confiscated by the government? (Because to implement your stupid idea, the government would have to confiscate property from property owners). Cars are property, no? How about houses? You get to own a house for a certain number of years, then the government kicks you out and you have to buy a new one? Is that just?

You are motivated by a spirit of resentment. Seek help.

>>22086406
>The incentive is that you would get a return on your investment.
Nope i want 100x return on it.
>I am asking what justifies the ownership structure
It was my idea and my foundation that i built, dont like it fuck off and get another job.

>>22085986
>I own a factory
>an entire fucking factory
Did the factory magically appear? Then there's an argument to be made that it's some kind of vital natural resource or divine gift that belongs to the nation.
If the factory did not magically appear and you want factories to appear then you have to set up mechanisms that set up factories. If you had any clue how to begin to do that you would set up your own factories instead of trying to intellectually justify your resentment against those that do.

>>22086146
The thing is, while the risk of ownership is frontloaded, it's not necessarily limited to the front. All businesses have certain fixed costs, and it's the ownership's responsibility to pay for those.
Take the example of the mine. Coal prices go up and down. If they go down enough, then you have a situation where the owner is actually losing money as time goes on, because his gross profits from paying the miners and selling the coal won't pay for his non-miner expenses, like keeping accountants or paying property taxes or paying the interest on the loans he took for mining equipment or whatever.
The worker does not carry that risk; they only get laid off if the price of coal gets so low that they can't physically mine enough coal to pay their salary. If the coal price got that low under your desired arrangement, the workers would walk away from the mine anyway and try to look for a different job. So when a worker works for an owner, what he is really doing is transferring the risk that fixed costs will exceed gross profit to the owner, and the owner is taking compensation for that risk. It's a fair arrangement.
If you think that owning a mature coal mine is an infinite riskless return, then I suggest you buy stock in mining companies!

>>22086413
Try reading Rousseau

>>22086423
I love loser NEETs that think capital owners did anything other than leverage their inheritance to start their business.

>>22086248
> Your "intuition" is wrong. Maybe don't get your intuition from communist propaganda in the future. Read Locke.
Actually >>22086193 intuition is correct. Labor is what grants title to unowned resources. He’s just confused in thinking actually existing property titles reflect this.

>>22086402
>So if I hire you to paint my house, the painting of my house does not produce the value I pay you with. Instead, my labour produces the value, and I pay you with that value.
Smallminded. By painting the house, the value of the house increases. When you sell the house, you'll get more money for it because of the wonderful paintjob I did. You also get the benefits of the wonderful paint job for however long you live there, perhaps forever. Maybe you should pay me royalties until you sell the house, at which point you should pay me the amount the value of the house increased due to the paint job.

Look, I'm making a really stupid argument. It's ridiculous. But you can't refute it using the logic you've been using about the surplus value of labor.

There's a LOT of books about the surplus value of labor, how that works in a supply and demand labor market, etc. We've already established in this thread that as long as the employment agreement is voluntary, the worker is NOT entitled to the surplus value of their labor.

Go read Locke already.

>>22086406
Why don't you start a company and see just how theoretically infinite the return on investment really is :^)

>>22086413
>Because to implement your stupid idea, the government would have to confiscate property from property owners).
Nobody would have to confiscate anything. I would simply go into the mine and take out coal, put it in a wheelbarrow and wheel it out. Then I would sell it contractually. It is the owner here who would start chimping out and trying to get the government to shoot me for peacefully mining some coal and wishing to sell it for myself instead of giving it to him.
>>22086415
I am asking for a philosophical justification for property, not emotion. I never said anything about equity.

>>22086435
The Marshall aid bootstrapped the dominant industry here. The men that got grants were competent enough to deploy that money in a way that led to 70 years of growth, paid for my education and employed me when I was young. You don't grasp how anything works on any level. You've never visited the real world.

>>22086386
>Actually you are correct, there are government regulations regarding licensing that make people unable to work where otherwise a voluntary agreement between employee and employer would suffice. We truly do not live in a free market.
I said costs generally. If a government didn't regulate things as much expect a lot more litigation, letting people do things without a license pretty much guarantees that. People can only move freely because of highways and such at public expense. I know you're playing dumb but you're ignoring the point capital is more liquid than labour

>>22086425
> I suggest you buy stock in mining companies!
If that's not logical investment plan what is?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3451462
>This paper argues that it is impossible to achieve the following objectives simultaneously: (i) portfolio diversification, (ii) shareholder representation, and (iii) competition. In an economy where everyone holds the market portfolio, all the companies have the same shareholders. If, in addition, firms act in the interest of their shareholders (i.e., if the agency problem is solved), the equilibrium outcome is equivalent to an economy-wide monopoly. When managers are entrenched, however, the anti-competitive effects of common ownership are mitigated, yet they only disappear completely in the extreme case that managers are fully insulated from shareholder dissent. The trilemma highlights a fundamental systemic problem in stock market economies: their inherent tendency towards common ownership, and therefore away from market competition.

>>22086435
If you're better than a capital owner, why aren't you rich?

>>22086441
I see you've envisioned a dispute between the free-as-in-beer minerchad and the former-mine-owner soivirgin. Who will resolve this dispute other than the government, which has a monopoly on the just use of force? In the past it was the mine owner who owned the mine, but I suppose today it is Sunday so he no longer owns the mine, who will confiscate the mine from him if not the government? He's throwing a tantrum right now, blocking the free-as-in-freedom movement of the minerchad!

Serious question, if the government doesn't step in to resolve the dispute, who will?

>>22086441
Exactly right. It is the owner class that NEEDS the government because otherwise the masses would just take back the common goods. The capitalist "free market" can only be maintained by state force and a network of institutions that manipulate the commoners.

>>22086439
>Why don't you start a company and see just how theoretically infinite the return on investment really is :^)
It is theoretically infinite because under the ownership structure it doesn't matter if your investment has been paid back 10x, or 100x, or 10,000x, or 100,000 times, or even 1 trillion times. You still are entitled to more.
Look at Jeff Bezos for example. He started Amazon, which was an admirable thing. He put his money into it, and he laboured to get it going. Both admirable things. He deserved to get his investment back and then some. He also deserved a salary for being the director of the company and making tough decisions.
But the truth is, most of Jeff Bezos' money was gained parasitically. His initial investment, given to him by his parents, was 300k. Let's say he deserved to get back 30 million from that, which is 100x, plus salary for managing the company (say 300k a year). Instead, he has 140 billion, and buys incredibly wasteful, silly, and stupid things like pic related: a mega-yacht which has its own yacht inside the yacht.

>>22086472
I never said I was better than the capital owner. I said that they are not better than anyone else.

>>22086040
>It's silly to worry about forced redistribution through handing the control of economic resources to the state
You're assuming that all socialist projects are centralized and run by the state like in the Soviet Union. It doesn't have to be that way. Simply make the workers shareholders of a cooperative. Basically, the union would own the company.

>>22086466
>I know you're playing dumb but you're ignoring the point capital is more liquid than labour
That wasn't even the issue at hand. It's irrelevant to the point of discussion. We've already determined that actions having consequences isn't the same thing as slavery, so yes workers can find other work if they're unsatisfied with their remuneration.

>>22086484
>muh boutique worker managed reactionary anarco-fascist microstate

>>22086113
>Do pinkos really believe that business owners just sit on their asses
Most owners are stockholders, who literally do nothing but hold stock and collect dividends. Capital gains are not the same as a CEO's income for doing a job.

>>22086472
Assuming we have the government, then the government would step in. But that's not confiscation of property. It's stopping him from attacking me for no reason. It's just putting someone in jail for attempted murder.

>>22086478
>But the truth is, most of Jeff Bezos' money was gained parasitically.
Not really, billions of people still use ''his'' system and idea that he created and thought of. If you dont like it why dont u use an alternative system or create one of ur own? Whats that you cant do it? Who gives a shit if he buys a yacht to satisfy himself. Are you saying that people should live like hermits and are not allowed to enjoy their own wealth? Again ur just envious.

>>22086474
There are plenty of examples both from history and the third world how things really work. Why ignore reality completely in your arguments?
Without regulated ownership people swarm the common goods and start dying even before the fighting breaks out, like through unregulated mining shafts collapsing on them. Inevitably some kind of militia forms to maintain order and that militia now controls the goods.

>>22086492
>We've already determined that actions having consequences isn't the same thing as slavery, so yes workers can find other work if they're unsatisfied with their remuneration.

I said finding work has costs. Would you agree money has a natural rate of return called interest? That's the juxtaposition. Why do you think capital rents labour instead of vice versa? There's no formal reason in any model that'd make that obviously the rule. If finding work was actually "free" and owning money had a cost we'd be living in a topsy turvy situation.

>>22086480
>I said that they are not better than anyone else.
Other than having more money and managing not to spend it all on hookers and blow, I suppose.

>>22086478
You've conflated two separate issues: that Jeff Bezos has a high net worth (he doesn't "have" $140billion in cash) and that he spent it on something you disapprove of. You sound like a real busy-body anon, why do you care so much what Jeff does with his money? Why do you feel so entitled to decide how other people spend their money?

>>22085986
>I guess what I’m asking is, what is “property” and “ownership”?
Whatever claim you can make and defend.
>Does it just mean I have the ability to call up manpower to kill anyone who tries to take it from me?
The first one is just regular old power. Yeah.
>Is there an actual philosophical justification for this?
Go into some wilderness to be feasted upon some wild beast and while the lion is eating your entrails ask him what his philosophical justification is for doing so.

>>22086504
> tax breaks
> tax write-offs
> grants
> socialized transportation costs
> intellectual property
> not parasitic

>>22086466
>If that's not logical investment plan what is?
That was a joke. Mining companies are pretty infamously risky as investments.
One thing I'd say against that paper is that no one actually tries to hold a stake in every single company, because the risk avoided from diversification declines with every single addition to the portfolio. It takes about 24 stocks to basically completely destroy non-systematic risk, and I've heard from experienced people that 7 is really good enough. In addition, not everyone is playing the "capture returns of market portfolio" game. Some people want to hedge against recession, some want to be exposed to certain factors they think will do well, some like certain stocks, some prefer dividends to growth, etc.. So I really don't see the problem.

>>22086509
So why isn't it possible to have a regulated mine ran by competent people who nevertheless do not privately own it. Or say the shares are distributed amongst the workers and the workers are paid in dividends.
Of course there should be a process for training and hiring, not everyone should be allowed to go in the mine because it's dangerous. But at the end of the day each worker should be allowed to reap the entire fruits of his own labour.

>>22086544
>So why isn't it possible to have a regulated mine ran by competent people who nevertheless do not privately own it.
How about you urself practice what you preach instead of demanding others to do it for you? See how it goes.

>>22085986
Say you go to an ice cream shop and see the ice creams there are cheap. You ask for an ice cream, sit down and take the ice cream some worker made for you. Are you a parasite? What's the difference if you decide to resell it instead of eating it?

>>22086544
>a regulated mine ran by competent people who nevertheless do not privately own it
Yeah its called a corporation

>>22086544
That's a matter of how you structure the ownership but it's still ownership defended by some regulator like militia or government. There are "anarcho-syndicalist" corporations with that kind of ownership structure and company towns. They're even more corrupt than most corporations. The most distinct difference is ironically the lack of social mobility. If you get hired by them (which you never will) you'll likely be there for life. The leadership class tends to be inherited.

>>22086517
>I said finding work has costs.
Everything has costs, anon, that's not an argument. Try framing your point as a syllogism, it might help.
>Would you agree money has a natural rate of return called interest?
No, I wouldn't. There's nothing natural about a rate of return from money. What's natural is wealth being squandered and deteriorating to nothing.
>Why do you think capital rents labour instead of vice versa?
Vice versa is called a loan. Turns out you can rent money. Crazy, I know. It's like a credit card but with more zeros on the end.
>If finding work was actually "free" and owning money had a cost we'd be living in a topsy turvy situation.
I'm left without words. Absolutely gobsmacked. I had no idea non-Locke-readers were so... this. Just this.

>>22086502
Imagine he wasn't attempting to murder you, he's just chained the gate leading into the mine shut. Now what? He's also non-violently chained himself to the gate to make anyone attempting to open the gate an aggressor against him.

We've stretched this hypothetical out far enough, don't you think? It would have been less effort if you'd just read Locke when I recommended it in the first post (best post).

>>22086518
My point was that Jeff Bezos gained his money parasitically. He did not gain it through labour (since that would've entitled him to about 300-800k salary a year at most). And he did not gain it through investment (since that would have entitled him to about 100x his investment, which was 300k, which his parents gave him, so he deserves 30 million).
The rest of his money he gained simply through leeching off the labour of others.
The reason I pointed out his yacht is because it is absurd. Nobody needs a half-billion dollar yacht, which has its own yacht inside the yacht. That is simply a wasteful use of resources, and society should not stand for it.

>>22086544
Haven't workers suffered enough without having to make them their own managers, too? As a part-owner the worker no longer sells his time and when the shift ends he goes home to be free for some little time but if he becomes part owner, entitled to his dividend and share of profit, the corporations at once becomes his own affair and its burdens likewise become his own. This is economic protestantism and represents only a deeper and more whole form of subjugation to economic concerns.

>>22086556
Any books on this topic?

>>22086532
You have access to these institutions too

>>22086561
Say the owner's initial investment has been payed back 100x what he put in and the workers decide enough is enough, we have paid him back what he deserves, it is time to take control of the company ourselves.
The worker produces X amount of value in a day. He should get X amount of value for himself. He will be richer, happier, and freer.
Under capitalism, the worker produces X amount of value, but the owner pays him X-Y amount of value, and keeps Y for himself. That's parasitism.

>>22086560
His own parents worked and invested in their own child whats the problem here? Ur jelous because ur parents never saved their money and invested it in you? Again who the fuck cares about his yacht, u fucking envious loser.

I enjoy modelling complex things using simple elements like thinking of economies as small towns. The huge minecraft experiment videos are an interesting development in these kinds of simple models.
It's interesting that strong leaders, tyrants, democracies, federations and republics all emerge in some form but anything like Communism can't really emerge. Pure cooperation works with a few people but anything more requires organization with hierarchies.
When they achieve world peace it's always through the classic methods of diplomacy, speak softly with a big stick and don't try to control everything.

>>22086560
>parasitically
Wrong. Who made you the king to decide how much money people are allowed to have?
>wasteful
Anon he spent $500 million on a physical good that required hundreds of people working high paid jobs to put together, and because it's a boat he's probably paying $50 million a year to maintain it, all that money going to pay lots of people for their work. Would you rather he just bought a ton of gold bullion and buried it in his backyard? Would you rather the IRS came over and put a gun to his head and then called you up and asked how YOU'D like it to be spent?
>society
You mean you. You've made zero attempt to find out what society thinks about rich people existing. You may be shocked to learn that society is quite alright with rich people existing, since every society that decides they don't like rich people existing goes to shit until those societies change their minds (eg, communist occupied China).

>>22086572
Yeah cause you dont need to reinvest, record deterioration, pay for R&D or account for provisions, all the income is automatically turned into profit that goes into a cliche fatcats (conveniently not Jewish) hand to spend on the oppression of the proletariat

>>22086566
Then we’ve moved beyond homesteader property to artificial property, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Hodgskins. At best, moral claims to property can only be granted in utilitarian grounds cemetery on efficiency, tradition, or expediency. Not very Lockean, imo

>>22086293
>Yes, you deserve to starve to death if you dont work.
So do bankers and stock owners deserve to starve to death?

>>22086589
So if I spent £500 billion every year on digging a massive hole and paid everybody extremely high salaries it would be a valuable project?

The point is, I agree he should've got a return on his investment, and I agree he should've gotten a salary for being company director. So his net worth should be around £50 million, not 140 billion.
>>22086591
I don't get what you're saying. Any investment deserves to get more than what was put in because of time-preference and risk.

>>22086518
This reveals the consumerist and hedonistic mindset that underlies your economics. Why play defense for the elite trust fund kids that do drugs and bang whores all day while collecting their ownership profits?

>>22086599
> At best, moral claims to property can only be granted on utilitarian grounds centered*
Sorry, my eyes are dry from hot yoga this morning lol

>>22086599
I dont what you are brabbling abount retard but if you are butthurt about billionaires not paying more tax than check the law and see how you can dodge taxes yourself.
Not paying taxes is a virtue not a sin.

>>22086601
"surplus value" is needed to keep a company financially liquid, it has nothing to do with le exploitation

>>22086563
I got most of my ideas about what I consider the more reasonable side of "commies" from Chomsky online. It sounded good at first but when I try to translate the ideas into reality the real examples tend to be worse than what they're trying to counter.
The best examples of real cooperation between equals are in organizations that have to do with thing like search and rescue. When it's not about getting resources but deploying them in a way we all value.

>>22086413
>>>22086356 (You)
>I've been applying Locke's views on property consistently throughout this thread.
>just not to you and your question
Rude
>Only one poster has even attempted to apply Rousseau, however poorly.
Which you still couldn’t “refute”. Face the fact. You are just a market fundamentist liberal. It’s just a faith with you. Get fucked

>>22086608
This is either a Fed or a soulless bugman

>>22086600
In most countries if not all it is a rquirement to have capital to back ur bank and most of them have a formal education in accounting im guessing. In order to be a stock owner you would have to work get the capital so you can buy one in the first place.

>>22086621
This is an AI generated response

>>22086572
Surplus value of labor being "stolen" has been debunked about a billion times. It's not parasitical, as has been explained at lest three times above and likely more.

Ultimately anyone who argues like that is just trying to stir up resentment to cause social chaos so that they can seize control of things by force (like the Bolsheviks did).

https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc05/index.html
>§ 170. Dividends; payment; wasting asset corporations.
>(a) The directors of every corporation, subject to any restrictions contained in its certificate of incorporation, may declare and pay dividends upon the shares of its capital stock either:
>(1) Out of its surplus, as defined in and computed in accordance with §§154 and 244 of this title; or
>(2) In case there shall be no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year.
Leftypol discovers corporate law.

>>22086572
>That's parasitism.
So? What's wrong with that? If I plant a tree, an act I do once, I likewise enjoy its peaches for many years to come with near nothing in the way of effort. This is parasitism. I do not even pay the bees for pollinating the flowers, such an evil capitalist am I, and they have no choice to live on what meager nectar they can gather in the doing.

>>22086632
Debunked how? The owners get the money for themselves without labouring. The best paid CEO in the world only gets about 800k a year for a salary for his labour. The rest of the money he gets as capital gains, thus parasitically leeching off the labour of others. The 800k a year is not parastical; the capital gains are (unless they're being paid to him from the company like a loan, to pay back his investment).

>>22086620
I didn't see your question on review of the linked post. What is it? I'll respond.

I made it clear that there was a difference of fundamental axioms, and humorously exercised my right, by Rousseau, to deny an anon access to the atmosphere for breathing purposes.

>>22086646
Off yourself, gook toon troon

>>22086641
Human beings have symbiotic relationships with fruit trees, not parasitical ones. We plant them and take care of them. From the point of view of the host, a parasite is bad, and should be thrown off.

>>22086608
> Not paying taxes is a virtue not a sin.
I agree. Speaking pragmatically, most people do not have the time to research the voluminous tax codes our dear governments foist upon us. Those who do have the time are either too stupid to understand any of it or too poor to hire someone who is competent. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to scrap the whole institution entirely. These tax breaks act as an unfair subsidies and encourage rent seeking. Furthermore, normal people are forced to subsidize the costs of transportation as it is delivery vehicles which cause a disproportionate share of the damage on high ways. Privatized roads would cause these costs to be incurred by the distributor. Lastly, Bezos should have no right to use the judicial system to go after people using his intellectual properties. IP is a cancer

>>22086653
>These tax breaks act as an unfair subsidies and encourage rent seeking.
Progressive taxation is a leftist thing, there should be a 10% flat tax for everybody and thats it. But then libs cant pay for nigger gibs so thats not an option I guess.
>IP is a cancer
Yes

>>22086653
>IP is a cancer
The battlecry of the brainlet.
>ITS NOT FAIR THAT HE WAS SMART ENOUGH TO THINK OF IT FIRST AND ACTUALLY CREATE IT!!
You only think that IP is a cancer because you have never thought or created anything useful urself that can generate proft.

>>22086643
The 800k has no relationship to performance. That's parasitical and can start impacting the health of the company if it already has health problams.
Getting capital gains means he risked his own money on the bet that the company would do well. That's what drives everything that happens, it's the trunk of the tree not a parasite on it.

>>22086666
Wasted

>>22086651
He's a lolbertarian. Just because he's posting time ON 4CHAN, doesn't mean he's a tranny. Get some help.

>>22086646
Do the fucking work, tard

>>22086666
Checked and based.

>>22086499

>>22086672
>lobertarian
>not a tranny
All these early 2010s ideologues trooned out bro

>>22086666
IP is not equivalent to physical property. Property reflects the nature of the world but to enforce IP you have to pretend you can reshape that natural law. It's an insane form of mind control that results in banning children from drawing a particular type of cartoon mouse.

ITT: What Is The Most Moral Method of Dividing the Work and Produce of a Death Machine?

I suppose we no longer have angels to dance on pin heads.

>>22086668
Yep, and he deserves to get his investment back plus extra. But it is impossible to justify theoretically infinite returns on a finite investment.

>>22086666
I think IP is cancer because it has no theoretical basis beyond grug-tier “me no let you use it” without any basis in resolving scarcity issues, because it impedes technological progress, curtails free expression, and because it’s annoying as fuck lol. You want to reward inventors? Have a state create a fund for rewarding useful inventions with a flat fee, not this monopoly bullshit. IP worship is a cuck king position

>>22086561
>Haven't peasants suffered enough without having to make them their own aristocrats, too? As a serf, the worker no longer donates his grains and when the day ends he goes home to be free for some little time, but if he becomes part aristocrat, entitled to his dividend and share of profit, the estate at once becomes his own affair and its burdens likewise become his own. This is literal protestantism and represents only a deeper and more whole form of subjugation to worldly concerns.

>>22086697
>the feudalism meme
Do you realise that peasants didn't have to fight in wars, but the nobles did? The nobles also protected the peasants in exchange for their grain. So it was pretty much the exact same thing the state does today except at a local level and the peasants weren't conscripted to fight in wars like the nobles were lol.

>>22086690
>>22086683
You are looking at this from your own perspective only, have you considered being on the opposite side? I can assure u you would sue any nigger trying to make a copy of ur shit and make a profit from it.
>with a flat fee,
This is the most retarded thing in this thread, congratulations. Would you be payed in gold? Silver? Or some worthless paper money when inflation has hit like its doing today?

>>22086616
>"surplus value" is needed to keep a company financially liquid, it has nothing to do with le exploitation
So how do the dividends and capital gains profits end up in their pockets lmao.

>>22086651
No.

>>22086672
Okay, this is a response. I've noted your unwillingness to just restate your question.

>>22086602
Because it's abundantly clear what kind of society comes of retards running around stealing other peoples' property for """moral reasons""". I'd rather have cartels running around chopping heads off than communists in charge trying to "help me".

>>22086684
To be fair someone could have just posted /thread after the first reply. But I'm having a lot of fun anyway.

>>22086685
The beauty of respecting property rights (after reading Locke) is that you don't have to justify anything about what you DO with your property, so long as it doesn't infringe directly on the rights of others. It's up to the plaintiff to show that someone infringed on their rights in front of a judge, not just to feel like "man, Jeff Bezos has like waaaaay too much money man, he should only have like $30 million max."

>>22086641
It's fine if you do it to a tree. When you do that to a human, it's slavery.

>>22086711
https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc05/index.html

>>22086715
If you are allowed to quit ur job and find another one then its not slavery, learn what the word actually means.

>>22086711
You know, you can also become a capitalist by simply opening up an investment account and buying some stocks. You too can get "dividends" and "capital gains" for doing "no labor".

Just beware of bears.

>>22086714
>Okay, this is a response.
>I am a lazy market fundy that chooses to believe in laws that support my world cleptocracy and (limited!) state violence

>>22086714
>The beauty of respecting property rights (after reading Locke) is that you don't have to justify anything about what you DO with your property, so long as it doesn't infringe directly on the rights of others. It's up to the plaintiff to show that someone infringed on their rights in front of a judge, not just to feel like "man, Jeff Bezos has like waaaaay too much money man, he should only have like $30 million max."
Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense. Bezos put in 300k into Amazon, which his parents gave him. Did he deserve to get that money back? Absolutely. Did he deserve to get more back on top of that for the risk he took? Absolutely. Does he deserve to get a theoretically infinite return, such that 20 generations down the line the Bezos clan will still be entitled to the profits of Amazon? No. Not even a GAMBLER expects an infinite return for a finite bet. If I won the lottery, I wouldn't get an infinite return.

So, let's say he was entitled to 100x his investment, or even 1000x. Then he should have £30 mil, or £300 mil respectively. He was also entitled to a salary for being CEO, which is about £300-800k. OK, so he should have about £50 mil to £320 mil, not 140 billion.

The only other alternative is to say that theoretically infinite returns are justifiable. Which is insane.

The workers have to be utter idiots to fall for this. Unfortunately it seems like they are, or they would have taken what they deserve already.

>>22086714
>so long as it doesn't infringe directly on the rights of others.
But they do infringe on our rights by lobbying politicians, funding PACs, and capturing parts of government. Democracy is basically a joke when the super wealthy can bribe everyone in power.

>>22086723
ik, so what? Justify this philosophically.

>>22086707
Why should I care about my intellectual property enforcement if I stand to gain more from the abolition of IP generally? We’re all stuck in this rat race
> This is the most retarded thing in this thread, congratulations. Would you be payed in gold? Silver? Or some worthless paper money when inflation has hit like it’s doing today?
Is your only issue with the lump sum reward scheme the currency? Because even if it’s fiat money, anyone worried about inflation could simply use it to buy gold, silver, crypto, or whatever

>>22086723
>It's okay to have a society built on rape, because there's a path for you to become a rapist instead of a victim.

>>22086739
Go back to your shithole femcel

>>22086743
I could substitute murder for rape, if you're triggered.

>>22086738
>Why should I care about my intellectual property enforcement if I stand to gain more from the abolition of IP generally? We’re all stuck in this rat race
Why should I care about my actual property if I stand to gain more from the abolition of private property generally. We're all stuck in this rat race.

>>22086113
It is believable now but back then I doubt it. Early bourgeois propaganda was all about how aristocrats are lazy and the bourgeoisie is working all day.

>>22086734
>Justify this philosophically.
I actually cannot, the terms and conditions of signing up for an online broker are pretty sketchy. Sure, you can make money, but they farm your data, front run your trades, can close your account for any reason, report to the IRS automatically, etc. Being a capitalist ain't all it's cracked up to be. XMR is better.

>>22086733
>Democracy is basically a joke
Yeah. I've been toying with the idea of writing up my thoughts on why democracy is shit but it's been done so many times I'm worried it'll come off as repetitive. One such issue is the culpability electorates (voters specifically) have for electing corruptible people to rule over them. By all rights the USA should have descended into outright wild west anarchy a million times by now.

>>22086731
>The only other alternative is to say that theoretically infinite returns are justifiable.
They are justifiable, based on property rights. Read Locke and open your eyes. (Also the "Bezos clan" isn't going to be the sole owners of Amazon for eternity. Do you even know what a publicly traded company is?)
>The workers have to be utter idiots to fall for this
Awesome, I can mark "typical communist disdain for the working class" off my bingo card.

>>22086751
Because private property is useful in resolving disputes about scarcity. How the property should be dispersed to where labor homesteading comes in. You won’t stand to gain from its abolition. Intellectual property does not have a scarcity issue.

>>22086707
>I can assure u you would sue any nigger trying to make a copy of ur shit and make a profit from it.
How can you assure me of that? I like being copied. If you can implement my idea better you deserve the fruits of that.

>>22086739
No, it's more like you want to institute sharia law because no girl will accept marrying you, never leaving the house, and wearing a niqqab 24/7 while you treat her like a baby factory and housemaid.

It's voluntary so it's fine.

In fact, if you're not okay with it, you're free to move to one of several communist* countries around the world, such as North Korea, Venezuela, and China.

*please note China allows rich people and so is not a total shithole anymore

>>22086771
How can you assure me of that? I like being copied. If you can implement my idea better you deserve the fruits of that.

>>22086764
>They are justifiable, based on property rights.
Then you've completely lost all your rights to make the "risk" argument. (Which, if you CTRL + F, has been mentioned here 26 times). A gambler takes a much greater risk than an entrepreneur, and yet his reward is about 100x-1000x what he put in. An entrepreneur takes a risk, and yet is entitled to theoretically infinite returns, for himself and for all his descendants, forever.
>Awesome, I can mark "typical communist disdain for the working class" off my bingo card.
It's a literal scam and they're falling for it. Why wouldn't you disdain such people? At first you pity them, and then you see them repeatedly falling for the same literal pyramid scam, where the whole premise is I and my descendants get to leech off you and your descendants forever. God will not help those who do not help themselves, so if they refuse to help themselves it gets the point they deserve to be scammed.

>>22086801
The descendants retain ownership by continuing to extract value out of the position they have. There's a finite amount of value to be extracted and the established company is more efficient at it than you. In the end by focusing on something else you have access to more coal, in reality you have more coal than you know what to do with thanks to this system.

>>22086801
Dang man everything would just be better if you were in charge, huh? Like I mean really, it just makes sense... whoa.

I'm not going to reread the entire thread but there's been 26 unique posters. Has a single one agreed with your views on property? I don't recall any. Have you read Locke yet? No.

You have a whole lot of vague feelings that something's wrong and the root of it is that rich people exist and you're envious. You want to deprive them of what they have and you're trying to rationalize it rather than trying to figure out how to make your life better.

What were you even expecting from this thread?

>>22086559
>Everything has costs, anon, that's not an argument. Try framing your point as a syllogism, it might help.
You said it was "free" i.e. no cost

>No, I wouldn't. There's nothing natural about a rate of return from money. What's natural is wealth being squandered and deteriorating to nothing.
The idea of a natural rate of return underlies all orthodox/austrian econ... I don't think you understand what you're conceding

>Vice versa is called a loan.
A loan is a monetary operation, I'm talking about who's issuing credit and how.

>>22086766
There's no actual "resolution" to scarcity, just regulating it differently. Property is just one way of rationing things. Intellectual property creates scarcity, it makes a return on investment possible and introduces incentives where otherwise it wouldn't be. Without IP some things wouldn't exist and some things no one wants would be in abundance.

>>22086840
No, I have pretty clear thoughts about this now.

Since Adam and Eve, man has searched for a way to escape labour, which is a curse to all.

Some became warlords, gangsters, and military men. These took over areas and started demanding taxes from the local farmers, no different than what the mafia does today, and thus evolved into the state.

Certain women became sluts and trophy wives, to get in with these men and live without labour, which is why Pharaoh, eg., was able to accrue over 400 wives.

Some became slave-masters, and by direct intimidation and violence managed to escape labour.

Others became bankers and money-lenders, hoping by this means to gain an income without doing anything other than occasionally sending enforcers to crack some heads.

Then, we had "businessmen", who managed to trick the workers into believing that their initial investment means they are entitled to infinite returns, thus giving them an escape from labour.

It is a long, long history of those who actually do labour and actually produce something being parasitically leeched off by taxation, inflation, exploitation, slavery, and violence.

This is the history of the world. The exploitation of the producers by the parasites.

Am I envious? No. I wouldn't accept Bezos £500 million yacht if he offered me it for free. I want nothing of these wordly riches, which are revolting to me. I want freedom from parasitism, a small piece of land, and friendly neighbours.

Ultimately, none of us will be happy until our hearts rest in Jesus Christ and we are illumined by his Holy Ghost.

>>22086895
The plebs considered Pharaohs life-giving gods but you know better. We have records from the free and valued people that made the Pyramids but Marxist pop media knows better.

>>22086484
You're assuming such an organization wouldn't be susceptible to the same rot as labour unions.

>>22086858
> There's no actual "resolution" to scarcity, just regulating it differently.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you saying claims are potentially infinite? If so, I agree int he abstract. But in lived experience this clearly does not happen. An individual is not sued everyday over his possessions. Any filed claim is eventually resolved through the legal system.

> Intellectual property creates scarcity
Right, that's what I take issue with. I don't find the justifications compelling and I find the notion of artificially creating scarcity repugnant.

> it makes a return on investment possible and introduces incentives where otherwise it wouldn't be.
My state lump sum payment scheme also introduces incentives. Even private people can come together and formulate a bounty promising to pay inventors for new inventions. Hell, the wealthy used to patronize inventors for status, let's bring that back. Simply being involved in a free market will spur people to continue innovating to out compete the copy-cats.

> Without IP some things wouldn't exist
The same could be said for implementing IP. IP prevents things people want from existing. Scientists are often forced to turn over the rights to their inventions to the corporation and may decide not to contract, in effect preventing their potential inventions from reaching the public. Also IP prevents further research to be built off the intellectual monopoly for X number of years by third-parties.

> and some things no one wants would be in abundance.
They would be driven out of the market due to not being bought.

>>22086720
Slaves have always been allowed to run away and escape, they will just most likely be killed if they try to do that. Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean you are truly free to do it. What is so hard to understand about this?

>>22086993
If any power discrepancy is slavery then pretty people are slavers.

>>22085986

>>22087047
>He doesn't understand that firms set their price based on marginal costs
Learn basic economics

>>22086989
>I find the notion of artificially creating scarcity repugnant
Everything's about demand management, however you want to demarcate "real" and "artificial" is questionable.

>>22087080
IRL most firms are using markup pricing and markets tend to be oligopolistic and not competitive

>>22087102
I agree about the oligopolistic pricing. I am just pointing out that even using neoclassical economic theory, that comic makes no sense as the business owner is bitching about having to pay for rent and capital upkeep when they really bake that into the price of the good they sell.

>>22087110
The cartoon says it's baked into the price.

>>22085986
You are the capitalist, the one that built the factory. Factories don’t just spawn out of thin earth with an evil capitalist included. They are a huge risk that require a lot of setup that you were in charge of, probably gambling your life on it. As a result of your blood sweat and tears something useful is being made and you are rewarded for that.

>>22087131
Where does it say that?

>>22087158
Idk, probably that entire rant about how he doesn't pocket 75$ from the price but pays for all that stuff with it.

>>22086142
Think about this for another minute or two and see if you can find why this is a midwit take.

>>22086186
>obtains surplus value
>not cheating the worker
Lmao, so much bullshit but the above is just hilarious.

>>22086246
The owner subsidizes the cost at the tax payers expense, lol!

There are two types of apologists in regard to capitalism. One individual already benefits from the system through preexisting capital. The other is what you would call a useful idiot, one who believes the capital owners when they promise he will get to join their club one day.

>>22085986
Coops only work when you actively root out commies and anarchists. I worked at one once and they were some of the most judgemental fucks in our industry but were making money over fist.

>>22088088
There are two types of people that are anti-capitalist. Lazy people and lazy people that are envious.. Get a job nigger.

>>22086140
Your smug anime girl tea pictographs won’t save you from the fact that Locke was objectively wrong about everything and made it all up

The problem is in truth not who owns the factory nor who profits from it, but rather that a factory can exist at all.

>>22088179
>if you don’t want to be leeched off you’re lazy, resentful, envious, and inferior
No. Every single animal hates parasites. When a cat gets flees, it tries to groom itself and get them out of its fur. One of the reasons cows and horses evolved the whip-like tails they have is to smack away mosquitoes which suck their blood. If the workers realise that they are the ones doing all the work and being leeched off by the owners, and decide to do something about it, they aren’t being lazy or resentful, they’re simply no longer falling for the scam.
Is an old lady “resentful” or “lazy” when the Indian scammers call her and try to get her to give them all of her money and she refuses? No, she’s doing what literally any smart person would do.
What an extreme level of gaslighting to say someone is lazy or envious for not wanting to be scammed….
And how utterly materialistic and soulless do you have to be to be envious of Bezos mansion or £500 million yacht. I wouldn’t even want something like that.

>>22088185
>wrong
Incorrect
>made it all up
It's a hypothetical and he wrote what he wrote, so for some meaning of "made it all up" yes he did. He's still right. What's your bench 1RM?

>>22088318
Nobody here is calling "the workers" resentful and lazy. "Workers" consistently reject communism because they're not stupid enough to fall for that shit again, after a century of evidence. We're calling YOU resentful and lazy. You're an unemployed loser trying to foment social chaos because you think it'll give you a chance to seize power like Lenin and Mao did. You're also incredibly stupid, because you think that all would be a good thing, and that you're a moral person for attempting to do so. The most dangerous kind of stupid.

>>22086908
An illiterate peasant from ancient Egypt believing that the pharaoh is a living God and thus giving him the fruits of his labour as some divinely mandated tithe, doesn't make his actions morally virtuous. If you are exploited but you wear your chains proudly and dont consider yourself a slave, again it doesn't change anything about your morals.

Even if a person makes a willing decision to support a system that exploits him, the system is still immoral and the person is at the best case a fool that thinks he will one day be a part of the ruling class.

>>22088587
>a century of evidence
Ok, I respect anyone who says: Yes, capitalism is inherently parasitic, but all alternatives fail.

But that doesn't negate that it's parasitic.

Maybe parasitism is necessary just because of the human condition. It seems wrong to say that but perhaps it's true.

But you can't justify this as if it's morally good. It's perhaps the best of bad options.

That's a different argument than trying to justify it on principle.

>>22088587
>UNLESS we give Bezos a £500 million yacht, society will COLLAPSE!
You want to fuck my wife too? Just tell me civilisation will literally collapse if you don't get to

>>22085986
>Does it just mean I have the ability to call up manpower to kill anyone who tries to take it from me?
All I'm saying is if you try to take my property I will call on the manpower available to me (which is me) and do my utmost to stop you.
Hate capitalists.
Hate anarchists.
Hate communists.
Simple as.

>>22088603
If you need a system of morals beyond your feelings, I recommend starting with the Greeks, specifically Aristotle.

>>22088605
>UNLESS we give
>we
>give
Your rhetorical tricks are as transparent as they are pathetic.

>>22086018
Doesn't Locke explicitly say that if you gather more resources than you can specifically use, you are in effect robbing your neighbors?

>>22088620
Yes, we give, because after Bezos' initial investment was paid back one hundredfold, and he had £30 million from £300k, the risk that he took in the beginning was completely compensated. Too little? Make it one-thousandfold and give him £300 million.

After that, the risk that he took in the beginning and the initial investment he made no longer justifies his ability to extract money out of the company. Otherwise, gamblers, who take even higher risk, also deserve to get a theoretically infinite return for their winnings.

So, adding the salary he got for his labour as the CEO, he should be worth £50-320 million.

All money he gained outside of that is pure parasitism. It is extracting the labour of others for himself.

Poor man, he would have to live in a £100 million house, and have a yacht worth £10 million instead of £500 million. And yet he would be the richer for it, because he would not have tainted his soul by committing theft and parasitism.

>>22088621
I'm pretty sure he did, specifically talking about gathering from nature. Accumulating wealth from voluntary transactions with other people is not gathering from nature.

>>22088629
I'm no longer going to entertain this line of argument. We've already gone over, repeatedly, that you don't make the rules on what people deserve in regards to anything, let alone investment returns, and that making a lot of money from your investments isn't theft. You're making a vague appeal to a sense of "fairness" that simply won't work on anyone who's ever cracked open a book on this subject.
If you're just here to recruit for your discord server, please take it to >>>/pol/. This is the literature board and you've repeatedly rejected recommendations to read a book.

>>22088318
>N-NO IM N-NOT ENVIOUS!
>LOOK AT HIS MILLION DOLLAR MANSION AND YACHT!
U sure convinced me faggot. Fucking kek, u might wanna reflect on ur replies before u posts them.

>>22088635
You are in the position of defending an infinite return for a finite investment, which not even a gambler gets. Your risk argument has been destroyed.

What Bezos essentially did is he loaned the company some money and he put labour into it.

The loan should've been paid back with interest, and it was. The labour should have been compensated with a salary, and it was.

ALL THE REST IS A PARASITICAL SCAM, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

>>22088639
I feel sorry for you if you actually want a £500 million yacht and a massive mansion. This clearly argues a lack in your own self. You won't make yourself happy by accruing meaningless things.
The reason I point out his yacht and mansion is to show how ridiculous the system is. Capitalism is meant to be "efficient", but it leads to spending on £500 million yachts, something nobody ever needs, a total waste of resources.

>>22085986
Being hired means they receive funds for their labor contribution. You own your ability to work. I persuade you to work for me (using money), and you agree by working on my factory. The deal is pay for labor.

Ownership means I can take something away whenever I want. No amount of money says I have to let you use my stuff. You persuade me to let you use my stuff (using money), otherwise, fuck off.

Our property, our rules. You keep your unemployment, I keep my money, lmao.

>>22088647
That is because ur an oblivious moron who have missed the entire point of the argument in the first place. Whether i want a mansion/yacht doesnt really matter but who the fuck are you to decide in the first place what a person should want or get? If u havent realized in ur tiny peabrain this is one of the reasons why ur idelology keeps failing over and over again causing nothing but massive famine and economic collapse and being stuck in the stone age.

>>22088652
Yes, but the question is what justifies ownership. Is it some abstraction or is it based on labour and the social good.

Consider a thought experiment. Imagine a small island on which a few families live. One of those families builds a fence around most of the land, and claims to "own" it on that basis.

On what grounds is this ownership justified? Why should the community recognise this claim to ownership?

If that family decides not to produce anything with this land they claim to "own", or to produce it and not sell it to anyone else, leaving everybody to starve, should the community starve to death or accept this negligence because the owners "own" it?

No, what justifies ownership is you mixing your labour and resources with the good and taking good care of it.

If I "own" loads of land, but leave it for 50 years to stand worthless, never once even visiting it, or using it for anything, there is no reason why the community should recognise my rights to that land.

Similar with businesses. The owners, in the beginning, mix their labour with the business, and invest in it, so they deserve to be compensated. But why should this claim of ownership last forever, if the workers also mix their own labour with it? And if the owner is really bad at managing the company, and leads it into destruction, why should the workers recognise his "ownership" title over it.

The whole debate is about the nature and justification of property. What gives ownership its rights? Why is it justified? How is it justified?

>>22088659
>the weak should fear the strong
But owners by definition are the weak. The workers are much greater in number, and need only to rise up, to deprive the owners of their claims to ownership. The owner is not like a lion, proudly defending his property, he is more like a fox, conniving and convincing the workers that they should give him most of what they produce. It is just a psychological trick, a scam, nothing more.

>>22088671
>ignoring the argument because he cant refute or argue it so he attacks the meme instead
Behold the eternal leftoid, Listen kid get a job and stop hanging with ur cocksucking discord friends because they really dont know anything.

>>22088677
Your argument is that communism doesn't work.

But that doesn't mean capitalism isn't parasitical.

For that to follow, you would have to establish that whatever works is not parasitical.

Why can't it be that it is parasitical but, given human nature, no other arrangement is possible?

Of course, it's intuitively hard to maintain this, but that is one option you could go for.

Your argument is:
1. Capitalism works, but communism doesn't.
Conclusion. Therefore, capitalism is not parasitical.

The only way for this to follow is if you add the intermediary proposition:
2. Whatever works, is not parasitical

Which seems contestable. I mean, mosquitoes are parasitical, and yet the cow survives despite being attacked by them. So the system works even though it's parasitical.

>>22085986
>Why do I and my descendants get a perpetual claim to the fruits of this factory?
You are thinking passively like a woman. You claim the benefits because you have power, not because someone allowed you to do it.

>>22088667
The community doesn't recognize the "claim to" ownership, they recognize the "right to claim". It's built upon a substrate of civil agreements that extends down to the physiology of the individual.

For instance, the need for organ transplants and the cost of transplant procedures suggests an economical value for healthy organs in the individual. The reason why people don't sow crops of children to make billions from transplants, is purported to be the exact same as the reason people are allowed to own things like land or consumer-end products. We've drawn the line, and because the line is drawn, it can only be disputed in a single direction.

"right to claim" is an abstraction, "claim to" is a fact. Welcome to warfare, where we take things that aren't ours violently and often. Communities can decide on abstractions and justifications to manipulate the "claim to" land for their benefit either through settlements or disputes, but the fact is that the only thing that upholds the "right to claim" is an agreement upon the boundaries of the individual. It's not real, and exists only as some kind of honored/enforced linguistic demarcation, if that.

>>22085986
Anon name 1 (one) type of factory that isn't constantly retooled. Do you drive a lada? Name 1 (one) company that produces finished products with a sole private owner.

>>22088701
You’re the third capitalist in this thread that has admitted it has no philosophical justification beyond power.
Seems absurd to me. Presumably the aim of politics and statecraft is to subject power to justice.

>>22088706
In my view, an investment into a company should be treated like a loan. You deserve interest back for what you put in. CEOs also deserve salaries for the labour they perform in managing the company (the highest paid CEO gets about 800k/yr). But anything beyond this is simply theft.

What is the reason for this? Well, the only thing that produces value in this world is labour. If I want to get an apple, I have to labour to pick it. If I want to get many apples, I have to labour to plant and maintain the trees. If I want to read a nice book someone has to labour to write it, and print it, and deliver it to me. Anything that improves anyones life, adds value to it, necessarily falls under the category of labour.

So since labour is the only thing that can produce value, getting value without labour is necessarily parasitical.

Of course, with a loan, you’re using the value that you accumulated with your own labour to invest in something, and you want to get more back when you’re repaid, since you forego using the money during that time. So you’re justified in charging interest.

But the idea of claiming unlimited access to a company’s profits merely because you invested in it, forever, until the end of time, is equivalent to an infinite interest rate, which is absurd.

>>22088710
Correct, justice engenders ownership, where nature enables power, but power isn't philosophical, it's physical. There's exists a physical basis to all power. And justice essentially agrees to submit power to itself for the duration of its continuance, which is why civilians agree to serve the state in the form of things like labor exchange and ownership.

>>22085986
>How am I not just a parasite?
You are, but that doesn't mean you aren't entitled to what your factory produces. This isn't so much about the actual outcome or practice as it is an agreement with the workers you employ.
You buy the factory. You own the physical building. You buy the tools and machinery it takes to get that factory into working order. You own all of that. You buy the material needed to create your product. You own the material. All of this ownership is under the agreement that in exchange for paying its original owner a certain sum of money, you are now the owner of that thing, and it is yours to do with as you see fit.
Now you hire workers. When you hire them, you hire them under the premise that they will provide the labor to turn your material into your product, utilizing the tools and machinery and building which you have paid for, and therefore own. You will pay them for this labor, and in exchange, you own the product to sell and make a profit off of. Through this profit, you may continue to pay the worker.
As the worker, all you provide is the labor. The owner provides everything else under the agreement that you will do labor, and in exchange, you are paid. In no part of this exchange do you own anything besides your labor (I.E. your time) and the money they give you for it.
The owner does not do the work. He simply processes payment for all of his workers from his own pockets, which he gets from the products he sells. He profits off of his worker's labor, in agreement that they receive a portion of those profits as compensation for the labor. He is, inarguably, a parasite, taking money and providing nothing but goods he has purchased with that money so that his workers can make him more money, but this is all based on the agreement that this is how things are. If you do not like that agreement, you can leave the factory, but that is the agreement the owner is presenting to you.
As to your more general questions regarding "property", "ownership", and philosophy, it's generally based on concepts of a social contract. That this is somebody's property, that they own it, is an agreement between members of a society based on money (or time (or labor (or something else))) he has earned and spent to now have rights to use and do with a thing as he sees fit. It is an inherent notion within most ethical systems which utilize property, as property rights are an inextricable concept to most popular notions of human rights.
>Does it just mean I have the ability to call up the manpower to kill anyone who tries to take it from me?
Close. It's more like you have the right to do whatever in your power to prevent someone from taking it from you. In most societies this involves getting the police involved.

I guess an easier way of framing this that pokes holes in your ideas is: Why would the workers in the factory get any of the profits either? Why should they own any of that money? Is it because they "earned it"?

>>22088724
Anon what produces value is the engineers, chemists, mathmaticians, computer scientists, physicists, and they do get paid $300k a year. The guy who those engineers made me mcdonalds picture button cash register for does not because he isn't smart enough to have his labor matter. Human labor is inflatable and there are 8 billion people.

>>22088744
??????
I don’t understand what you’re saying…
All those you listed do labour.
Salaries for people who do labour are justified. Money gained from dividends/stock pump and dumps is not labour, it is parasitism.

>>22088775
If you think thats bad wait until you find out about the federal reserve and artifical interest rates and zombie corporations.

>>22085986
>Is there an actual philosophical justification for this?
The closest one I've come to that isn't just might makes right is Locke's, which is ramshackle and not particularly tenuous in itself, but seems like a popular one as even Nozick incurs it in his much later work on libertarianism, in which private property needs a philosophical justification beyond might is right.
I'm not sure if there are any more sophisticated defences of it.
In reality, it just is might makes right, and always has been, we're just in a lucky point in history where the state will use its might to mostly defend the property of its citizens.

This thread was created by a kid who has never paid a bill, let alone tried to create a new business.

>>22088671
>The workers are much greater in number, and need only to rise up
Ah, yes.
Rise up, lose their job and fucking starve along with their families?
Also, you do know that when the workers "rise up", it's not them that will "seize the means of production", right? You do know it's the goverment, right?
As it is, you are "enslaved" by whatever big company but you get to go home and spend your money the way you want.
That's not what happens once the "workers" take the means of production. What happens then is you are not "enslaved" by a big company, but you are actually enslaved by the government, and you get fuck all in return.
Want to spend your salary? Guess what, you go to the supermarket and there is no water, no meat, no toilet paper to buy. Why not, you ask? Because the government is a greedy fucking pig controlling all the industry, once it takes over supply and demand has left the chat and you are left with a big fucking crysis and people start wiping their asses with their currency bills because there is fuck all to buy.
And while the people are fucked in the ass like that, the leader which speaks for all the workers is in the fucking Caribbean paying U$5k for each night in a hotel, wearing a U$20k watch, paying U$1k to eat lobster.
How fucking ironic isn't it? You are preeching workers are slave when in reality your goal is turning them into actual fucking slaves

>>22086140
Except pretty much all the land in ownership right now can trace it's ownership not via the ones who initially worked it, but to some faggot king who claimed it was all his because God told him so (i.e., the faggot king who could gather the most goons to kill people who disagreed.)
This is the inherent groundlessness of the modern Lockean conception of property. It works as a thought experiment, but does not describe reality. Even Nozick acknowledges this, and, in a testament to his intellectual honestly, realizes that it completely destroys any credibility in the justness of the current distribution of property, and renders his entire libertarian project a pibe dream and a drawing-board exercise with no application to reality.

>>22088783
One of the reasons the Catholic Church forbade usury was because it was a lazy, dishonest way to earn an income. You sit on your ass doing nothing and get interest handed back to you.

With stock dividends, it’s even worse, because the “ownership” structure means your loan is never actually paid back and you forever get a claim to the company’s profits, even if your investment has been returned 1000 times over.

Central banking is the exact same scam, just more direct. They print money, spend it while the value of money hasn’t adjusted for inflation, and then everybody else has to pay for it.

>>22088803
Ok well you aren't fixing this so do you want me to tell you how to minimize your tax burden and avoid paying as much as possible while doing as little as possible extra yourself?

>>22085986
>I own a factory
>Mt workers realise I am stealing it and the profit
>they take my shit and make it theirs
>I come back with some goons
>I tell them "property is theft" and I kill them and take their property
Sounds pretty based

>>22085986
I dont like it either, but property rights are a foundation of western societies success. If anyone with enough might could just go, kill me and take whats mine, there would be 0 incentive for innovation and productivity as it could all just disappear on someones whim. Why build a factory if it will just be handed over to the workers working in it?

Im all for workers rights and unions and shit, but saying that the workers should just own the factory is pretty stupid

>>22088620
>>22088635
>all this just to defend rent seeking
Spiritually and intellectually cuckolded

>>22085986
It's called capital
The economic system we use is capitalism
Capitalism rewards those who own capital

>>22088599
>those poor people in Egypt were deluded but I know better because I appeal to modern propaganda with no thought of my own
The Pharaoh was a life-giving god because he actually gave life, not because the people were dumb. You're dumber, more brainwashed and more exploited than any of them. Not just physically a slave but your mind is completely owned.
>the person is at the best case a fool that thinks he will one day be a part of the ruling class
This just reveals how fucked in the head, selfish and power hungry you are. People don't think like this, you do. If the nation is more prosperous under a king you support the king, it's not because you're a retard that thinks one day you'll become the king. That's your disgusting and evil perspective that has nothing to do with history.

>>22088603
The word parasitic can be used in the technical sense or to bring up negative associations. Capitalism is not technically parasitic so you're just trying to control perception, like a Marxist or someone brainwashed by similar ideas would.

>>22086632
>Surplus value of labor being "stolen" has been debunked about a billion times
By thieves. Your perspective is not objectively right. That’s all it is. It is demonstrably parasitical.

>>22089624
It's demonstrably productive. Creating value is the opposite of parasitism. You have no reason or logic, just demands that words mean the exact opposite because you feel like it.

>>22089633
>It's demonstrably productive
>just look at that beautiful yacht >>22086478
Don’t forget his trip to space, and the Ukraine war. That’ll pay off in the long run with nuclear fallout killing off all those Russians and the spoils going to the mightiest nation. So so productive!

>>22086504
>that picture
Once again we see how pol doesn’t understand a thing. Do I need to explain it?

>>22089666
Once again r*dditnigger thinks anyone here cares about his opinion, either get a job or fuck off to r/socialism or whatever echochamber most u jobless losershangout in.

>>22089663
So you really don't care about the truth at all on any level? All that matters is finding ways to frame things so your pathetic resentment feels justified?
>>22089666
Say something if you can retard.

>>22085986
Theft from whom?

>>22085986
> I understand the factory needs management, but why am I not simply a worker employed as a manager getting a salary.
Isn’t that literally what CEOs are though? They get a salary, they don’t get the entirety of the company’s profits in their pockets otherwise that’s embezzlement and that’s illegal.

> Why do I and my descendants get a perpetual claim to the fruits of this factory?
As the owner of the company, you can do what you want with it when you die, you don’t HAVE to give it to your descendants, and if you do the state will get a part of it anyways, that’s inheritance tax.

Why does it always feel like commies live in an alternate dimension?

>>22089720
>muh capitalism! Pro tect mu cappitalism!!!
Stupid liberal poster.

>>22089729
True enough we have “left liberals” playing a role of faux-liberator, but we are all born into this prison world you have a Stockholm syndrome sympathy for. We are all subject to its rules. Kicking at a person for having a cellphone and calling them hypocrite is an ass-head’s take. The same ass-head will cry about some socialist who doesn’t have a cellphone as a jobless bum.
The argument in the original still stands, but your strawman is knocked over.
Eat your own shit, literally.

>>22089777
>prison world
This is how you frame reality and "oppressive rules" like logic.
You like the cartoon blame processes you don't understand that gave you everything you value for problems you don't understand and don't try to solve. You could reject these processes and not enjoy their fruits like cell phones, it's easy but instead you preach to others about rejecting a system you embrace. You have nothing to say on any subject, there's nothing going on in your mind.

>>22088635
>Accumulating wealth from voluntary transactions
If a person requires to make a transaction in order to feed himself because all of nature has been claimed by property owners, can it really be said that it's a voluntary transaction? If there is no where in nature to go and build a log cabin by oneself, does that not amount to a forced choice to "transact", and not very voluntarily?

>>22088587
You genuinely think it's because workers are not stupid that they don't "fall" for capitalism. Go touch grass you fucking idiot, you will find many birds of a feather. Leave it to an apologist of capitalism that whenever their holy system is criticized they project the communist bug bear onto their opponent. Goddamn, the world will never be able to recover precisely because your ilk is so commonplace.

>>22088686
Except that capitalism obviously doesn't work unless if you think what we have right now "works".
>inb4 what we have isn't "real" capitalism

>>22090770
It works. The real problems that can be summed up as selfish cheating are common to all systems. If we really want to minimize these problems we should look to academic studies on cheating and cooperation in biological systems. They tell us lots about in what situations cheating is adaptive and in what situations it's not. The most important thing for a cheater is to be able to move on to different areas, he doesn't contribute so each area grows sick of his shit and excludes him which is fine for him if he can always just move on.
These basics of cheating alone predict the biggest contributor to corruption is globalism. This would apply to all forms of globalism including any imagined global communist utopia.
Then free flow of labour, open markets, allowing foreign investment etc all contributes to corruption. Free flow of ideas and information does not, historically academia was international even before the bronze age collapse.

>>22085986
This is not a proposition that Proudhon proposed. Retarded anarchists failed to understand what he was getting it. He said this as part of a number of antinomies similar to Kant's antinomies with the goal of proving the meaninglessness of property.

>>22090770
>capitalism doesn't work
I can get pretty much anything I want from anywhere in the world if I have the cash
It's true my quality of life is not what I think it should be. The United States has massive debt, high taxes, tyrannous officials, and dumb laws
But there's absolutely nothing that I see today that tells me that the system of capitalism and property itself is what's failing us and not some other cause.

>>22089525
>The Pharaoh was a life-giving god because he actually gave life, not because the people were dumb. You're dumber, more brainwashed and more exploited than any of them. Not just physically a slave but your mind is completely owned.
The Pharaoh was a glorified warlord that kept an administrative system designed to prevent any other warlord from pillaging his lands. Yes you can argue that creating an administration leads to a reduction in famines due to state funded and operated granaries, as well as increased safety for the average person, and creating different classes that dont need to work the fields and can lead administrative and intellectual labor which advances technologies. This then leads to a better life for the average person. But it still doesn't explain the original premise, how can a peasent see the luxurious life of the nobility and not consider that they take more from him then needed. People are upset at overindulgence from their ruling class, not the fact that it exists.

>This just reveals how fucked in the head, selfish and power hungry you are. People don't think like this, you do. If the nation is more prosperous under a king you support the king, it's not because you're a retard that thinks one day you'll become the king. That's your disgusting and evil perspective that has nothing to do with history.
Most wageslaves only labor because they think they will become masters. It's the mentality of temporary embarrassed millionaires.

>>22092326
>how can a peasent see the luxurious life of the nobility and not consider that they take more from him then needed
Your premise is completely insane. That everyone is as deranged and resentful as you is axiomatic in your formulation.
In a world of nomads a powerful family emerges that organizes enough to maintain grain stores your first thought is resentment that someone is more capable than you. What pops into your mind isn't that people should be grateful or even that it would be smart to imitate the precedent, your mind always goes straight to subhuman destructive resentment. Historically that's not how people responded because they weren't deranged brainwashed idiots.

>Most wageslaves only labor because they think they will become masters. It's the mentality of temporary embarrassed millionaires.
Because you say so? You repeat these braindead propaganda memes over and over as if they're holy dogma and trump cards that counter any actual point made but there's no evidence for any of it. You simply think it sounds good, that's the level of critical thinking you operate on.

>>22092218
>I can consume, therefore capitalism works
Will libtards ever learn?

>>22088617
Only one of those groups concurs with your idea of property. Simple as.

>>22085986
First of all the idea that work entitles you to anything is laughable, it simply doesn't and it shouldn't be hard to understand it because there's practically no single society on earth that didn't know the institution of slavery.
Slavery by itself couldn't have been enforced by all encompassing state especially in times of contraction of statehood(think early medieval period) which hints that it is in fact enforced by force and it was usually a force of a small warrior elite over the slavish mass. However, because of the drive to consolidation of power these low level strongmen who would normally keep the order around were replaced by the state which instead started enforcing laws and those laws were meant to introduce a compromise between people. This is the sole reason why wage labour exists, otherwise all you get is slavery. Now you come into this arrangement and say that this purely political arrangement is somehow bad and you have totally real and honest ideology telling you it should be changed.

>>22093280
First of all, the idea that claiming ownership entitles you to anything is laughable.

>>22085986
"Theft" is a forceful violation of legal property but that is not what normally occurs in capitalist production. There is no need for the capitalist to underpay his workers in order to realize surplus value.

>>22093295
Force entitles you to ownership. The entitlement of the owner that is present in legal system is just a legal construction present because as I've said, the states wanted to centralise and it couldn't have possibly done it while also allowing the local warlords to exert their laws. So what you have is that they can disarm themselves while the state uses its own force to guarantee their ownership*. As it had to present itself as benevolent it also phased out serfdom and slavery in various forms and replaced it with wage labour. All the philosophical justifications about entitlements coming from ownership are just post-facto echoes of the compromise that have been made long time before and it is pointless to appeal to them(and I don't if you read carefully), but the idea of work entitling to anything is a philosophical construction coming out of critique of that justification, making your politics revolve around that is an obvious sign of brain damage probably resulting from miscegenation.
You believe the owner is the tyrant? Try to appeal to the state telling it that if it only takes away the owner's power and wields it itself you'll support it if they do so and if you look at it historically this is something that has happened multiple times so your chances are high.

*and if you take away the state all that will happen is some restructuring of property ownership and return to warlordism with again, the slavish mass becoming slaves as is their place

>>22093391
I actually agree that force is the only justification behind property rights. That, however, proves that property "rights" are not rights at all and only exist because the state uses violence to maintain them. Also, who even said work entitles you to property? The non-libtards in this thread are just pointing out that property rights are a sham and the masses should not be afraid to use their force and violence to seize their piece of the stolen goods.

>>22093391
> All the philosophical justifications about entitlements coming from ownership are just post-facto echoes of the compromise that have been made long time before and it is pointless to appeal to them(and I don't if you read carefully), but the idea of work entitling to anything is a philosophical construction coming out of critique of that justification, making your politics revolve around that is an obvious sign of brain damage probably resulting from miscegenation.
Am I correct in reading that you believe that the current arrangement of property is just merely by virtue of existing? How can you implement a property scheme without a basis for resolving disputes?
>>22093721
> the masses should not be afraid to use their force and violence to seize their piece of the stolen goods.
How can you steal something if the “victim” never had ownership of it?

>>22093818
Everyone collectively has ownership of the goods of the earth. By claiming you personally own something you are stealing from everyone.

>>22093818
By basis for resolving disputes, I mean a philosophic justification, how should a judge go about ruling

>>22093836
Do I need the assent of the whole of humanity to eat an apple for lunch?

>>22093854
Yes. You cannot claim that you have a right to that apple.

>>22092882
>Because you say so? You repeat these braindead propaganda memes over and over as if they're holy dogma and trump cards that counter any actual point made but there's no evidence for any of it. You simply think it sounds good, that's the level of critical thinking you operate on.

How are you any different. You dont make any arguments and just repeat the same thing over and over, like some mantra. Instead of dismissing everything I say without any reason, just a simple "I know better then you, no I won't explain why your wrong I'll just call you stupid " , maybe have a coherent reason why material overindulgence is actually a good thing since that was my main point.

My argument was that people have a disgust for overindulgence and decadence. When you see a caricature of a wealthy aristocrat it's always a depiction of a fat, lecherous buffoon. Personally I believe in living a life closer to God in renouncing worldly wealth, but still helping your fellow man. Pay your share and help you neighbors instead of engaging in rent seeking behavior and parasitism.

Parasite implies you bring no resources to the table but only take, thus someone who brings resources to the table is not a parasite

>>22093836
>Everyone collectively has ownership of the goods of the earth.
According to what?

>>22093152
>I have stable access to food and shelter and amenities therefore capitalism works
Yes?

>>22094426
Plenty of non-capitalist countries have this too (China). Plenty of capitalist countries also do not have stable access to food or shelter (Africa, post-CIA Latin America).

>>22094473
Lol yea call me when chaicoms stop LARPing and actually move away from capitalist economics and abolish both private property and the state. The Chinese economy gets to work because they abandoned communism ages ago and they engage in capitalistic practices will continue to do so. Meanwhile back when the actual collectivism was happening in communist countries the production and distribution of goods utterly collapsed

>>22094493
I knew that was going to be the response but it is such cope that it is not worth discussing. China is 100% a command economy and all property is subject to recollection by the state if necessary.

>>22093721
Rights in an abstract don't exist to begin with. A slave was in many legal systems just a talking object, he had no rights. Rights are given or gained sometimes both, the property rights were gained by the strong who forced them on the weak and now are given to all who can afford ownership or property(which in the developed countries is quite a lot of people) by a government that possesses certain degree of monopoly on violence which allows it to enforce those rights(which is why a thief today goes to jail and yesterday was hanged while in some kind of ancient times people would sing songs about particularly talented cattle thieves). I don't make normative statements about it, this is just how it is.
>>22093818
Current arrangement of property is a derivative of a legal landscape which by itself is a result of the government "taming" the land for its own ends. It's obvious that in more barbaric times you will not see the modern rich successful, more likely the type of people who get involved with organised crime today would take their place. Also there's always one last mean or settling disputes(fight them out) so the question of how to implement property without methods of arbitrage can be answered by this.

>>22094543
So why aren't they seizing all of the property then?

>>22085986
the difference is that you need to keep putting money in to make money out of it, pay all your workers, cover running costs and buy the raw materials. If the shit you're making doesn't sell you lose that money. The workers sell you their labour and only pay smaller costs like travel, they get their pay for turning up and doing the job even if nobody ends up buying the product.

>Does it just mean I have the ability to call up manpower to kill anyone who tries to take it from me? Is there an actual philosophical justification for this?

unironically yes. There's no watertight philosophical justification for your right to property, but if your workers try and seize your factory you can have troops, cops or mercs take it back by force without punishment. Like any other right it's as real as a society's willingness and ability to enforce it.

You can also make pragmatic justifications that privately owned businesses are more efficiently run than ones run by governments or workers syndicates. But ultimately property is a social contract.

>>22085986
>Say I own a factory, and hire workers to run it. I then sit back and take all the profits for myself. How am I not just a parasite?
Through virtue of the fact the workers are CHOOSING to work at your factory for an agreed upon wage. This is a really dumb question anon.

>>22085986
Theft presupposes property

>>22094426
did you know US farmers are the 3rd highest suicide rate after miners and construction at 6x the avg and all their hospitals are closing because of private equity. sounds very sustainable!

>>22093391
>>*and if you take away the state all that will happen is some restructuring of property ownership and return to warlordism with again, the slavish mass becoming slaves as is their place
happening right now in the failed central republic of Africa. it's civil war (anarchy) was quelled by the Russian mercenary Wagner group who now keeps the peace for the state and expropriates their gold mining industry to fund their escapades in Ukraine. even put up statues and made of movie of their liberation https://wikideck.com/Tourist_(film)

>>22093905
This idiocy was prebunked waaaay up at >>22086413 >btw I'm vetoing your use of the atmosphere, tough luck kiddo.
And once again I am vetoing your use of the atmosphere, including but not limited to oxygen. If you take even one more breath you're a thief.

>>22089800
>You could reject these processes and not enjoy their fruits like cell phones
Cell phones were produced by labour.

Someone had to think of the idea. That's labour.
Someone had to design it. That's labour.
Someone had to engineer it. That's labour.
Someone had to code the OS. That's labour.
Someone had to build the equipment. That's labour.
Someone had to mine the materials. That's labour.
Someone had to co-ordinate manufacturing. That's labour.
Someone had to do the menial work of manufacturing. That's labour.
Someone had to market it. That's labour.
Someone had to sell it. That's labour.
Someone had to transport it. That's labour.
Someone had to deal with customer service. That's labour.

And so on and so on and so on.

Literally the only thing that can produce any economic value in this world is labour.

What did the stock owner who sat on his ass doing literally nothing contribute to the production of smartphones? Nothing. Yet he takes all of the profits.

"Oh but the CEO adds value!" Yes, he absolutely does, which is why he gets a SALARY, but insofar as he gains income from "ownership", he is a parasite.

In fact, the stockholders make the quality of the product worse. Why does Apple make "lightning chargers", which break very frequently? Because if they made a high quality, durable product they would lose millions because people wouldn't need to keep purchasing chargers from them. Same with the batteries, which are designed to bleed out quickly.

No value was ever produced by Apple, or any other smartphone company, except through labour.

>>22096099
If you had the power to do it, you rightfully could. You don't, so you can't. Are you retarded? Why is every argument an appeal to emotion or pithiness? How does that constitute a philosophical argument for property rights like OP asked for?

>>22085986
Theft is an action not a passive state.