315d
@wajoma said" Capitalism is marked by two main features, "private property" (or in some cases, state-owned property) and wage labour. The latter, however, is dependent on the former, i.e. for wage labour to exist, workers must not own or control the means of production they use. In turn, private (or state) ownership of the means of production is only possible if there is a state, meaning mechanisms of organised coercion at the disposal of the propertied class (see section B.2).
You're trying to develop your red herring, property rights are hierarchical. What has 'exploit others to make a profit' got to do with it. A farm hand exploits the property owners need for labour, he profits from that, he exploits the fact he can walk away anytime and the land owner is faced with the upkeep of the property. You blokes need to make an adjustment in your head ' ...[text shortened]... d as a means of trying to wedge a difference between two non-existent class differences of property.
Anarchists oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority and elite privilege ("Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery," to use Proudhon's words - What is Property, p. 251). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb34
My use of the word "monopoly" to refer to the power given to the private property owner by the State is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition I provided.
@averagejoe1 saidSome unanswered questions here. And a strong one is, when will it stop? Is today the end of all the programs, Marauder? Can you say that? Or, or, will it end when we all end up in the same place????
Yeah I get all that. So, you are all in favor of people who don't have as much to show for their endeavors as does Mr. Jones to be able to pull from him. Kamals said it best, 'just as long as, at the end of the day, we all end up in the same place'. Do you want to end up in the same place, Marauder? Be in the same soup line as people who don't work as hard as you do? ...[text shortened]... sk that question.......just how far do you and Phranny and Sonhouse want to go with these programs?.
Marauder, that would be the only conclusion to it all.
You and Marx and Locke.
I wonder why it just does not feel right to me…….
315d
@AverageJoe1
I guess the ultrarightwingnuts are FUMING that the jobs report is more than double the estimate, which was 150,000 new jobs in Jan. but really it turned out to be 340,000+. I guess you and your buddies would NEVER admit Biden did something good.
@sonhouse saidWhatever the BS numbers are, one thing we can all agree is; that sleepy joe had nothing to do with it, all his mental powers are now directed into not shytting his NASA space technology diaper on stage.
@AverageJoe1
I guess the ultrarightwingnuts are FUMING that the jobs report is more than double the estimate, which was 150,000 new jobs in Jan. but really it turned out to be 340,000+. I guess you and your buddies would NEVER admit Biden did something good.
@no1marauder saidMarauder, sit down for this. You forget the law of Survival of the FIttest. You seem to suggest that the 'resources' are 'arbitrarily given'.....given by whom??/. The fittest? You are correct up to that point. You might look at history and see how strong tribes would be beaten by stronger tribes, and so on.
The whole point is that property is "hierarchical" while Man is naturally not.
Someone deprived of the resources of Nature that he requires for his survival is not in the same position as another arbitrarily given those resources because of his position as a relative or favored hired killer of a king or chief or dictator. Your Dream World insistence otherwise is a bizarre fantasy.
So, someone who is 'deprived' of resources of nature was deprived by the more fit tribe. They were slain, or, they became part of the winning tribe.
You know, maybe the idea of winning is so difficult for you libs that you have this innate feeling about how baaaaaaaad it was for the fitter tribe to win.
So, all you have done here is prove that the rule of survival of the fittest prevails, and always has, and always will.
Hierarchy: system where one group (the fittest tribe) is ranked above the other according to authority. So, you use the word hierarchy, and so do I. I have explained my use of it perfectly, your statement is just hanging out there, deflated.
@sonhouse saidBut he would make a great president. You are not very nice, I would never put Clinton in jail for desecrating the oval office. do you know that the DNA can never be removed from there?
@Wajoma
Fortunately you have no say in the matter so crawl back into your conch shell and let adults do the politics.
BTW, we agree on NOTHING. You think Trump is god, he is a POS who needs to be in jail for the rest of his ugly life.
315d
@AverageJoe1
We are about to lose Maruader from this thread, he might say that he has other fish to fry, but that is a southern colloquialism, and he aint southern.
315d
@averagejoe1 saidJesus Christ, I posted in the thread a few hours ago, nitwit. Unlike you, I have better things to do on all Saturday night then participate in a internet Forum.
@AverageJoe1
We are about to lose Maruader from this thread, he might say that he has other fish to fry, but that is a southern colloquialism, and he aint southern.
Grow up, you pathetic imbecile. Every point you've raised here has been gone over at least dozens of time here already.
315d
@AverageJoe1
Right, Trump POTUS again, this time radicalized like his oath keeper buddies.
All his officers, he wants loyalty to him and him only and you can't see past the fuzz on your nose.
He has deteriorated mentally, confusing Pelosi with Haley, I could go on and on with his verbal gaffs but the bottom line is he is after revenge for anyone daring to call out his criminality and if POTUS again the world will shake not because he is so great but because he is so evil.
Getting out of NATO, giving Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter, Taiwan to follow, Putin rebuilds his Soviet empire, yep a great leader your POS Trump.
@no1marauder saidBut not resolved. You suggest a society where people who need ANYTHING are satisfied by the government ‘s giving them what they need. Since the govt has zero money of its own, it is giving away money of people who, well, just don’t need anything.
Jesus Christ, I posted in the thread a few hours ago, nitwit. Unlike you, I have better things to do on all Saturday night then participate in a internet Forum.
Grow up, you pathetic imbecile. Every point you've raised here has been gone over at least dozens of time here already.
This is what you are saying. I am inquiring of you, BTW, not Locke.
315d
@averagejoe1 saidNo one ever "suggested" such a thing; it's a figment of your imagination reinforced by your constant exposure to simple minded right wing propaganda.
But not resolved. You suggest a society where people who need ANYTHING are satisfied by the government ‘s giving them what they need. Since the govt has zero money of its own, it is giving away money of people who, well, just don’t need anything.
This is what you are saying. I am inquiring of you, BTW, not Locke.
Money doesn't exist outside of an economic system created by society. That means no one has money separately and distinctly from societal rules. IF the People democratically decide that some portion of money is needed to fulfill desired goals, that is a price individuals agree to pay when they give their tacit consent to be part of and receive the benefits of society.
How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
315d
@averagejoe1 saidYour idea that the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" equates in humans to "might makes right" is utter nonsense, typical of those as uneducated and ignorant as yourself.
Marauder, sit down for this. You forget the law of Survival of the FIttest. You seem to suggest that the 'resources' are 'arbitrarily given'.....given by whom??/. The fittest? You are correct up to that point. You might look at history and see how strong tribes would be beaten by stronger tribes, and so on.
So, someone who is 'deprived' of resources of nature w ...[text shortened]... do I. I have explained my use of it perfectly, your statement is just hanging out there, deflated.
Humans survived and thrived not based on exploitation and murder, but on cooperation and mutual benefit. We would have perished as a species long ago if humans had acted always or even primarily has you think.
"Fitness" in biological terms means reproductive success and likelihood of survival to have offspring and both are largely determined by adaptation to the immediate, local environment. In Man, that doesn't mean a regime of killing or physically dominating others but as Kropotkin put it:
"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress.[21]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
It should be obvious that in the Natural State where Man lived almost exclusively in small bands of hunter gatherers, conflict as you describe would be deleterious to individual and group survival. That is why we evolved to be egalitarian by nature, resistant to social hierarchy, and marked by hyper cooperation.
315d
@averagejoe1 saidDo you know what 335 million times 15 percent is?
Look at it this way. 15% of the USA population is destitute. Let us support them. OK
These people have a right under our law to this care. The rest of us are independent and self-reliant and cannot logically expect that any other citizen has a duty of care to us.
For you to take Locke's statement as the truth, the gospel, the answer......is to say that MORE ...[text shortened]... e not destitute, they are like you and me and Sonhouse.
Please, take as long as you would like.
It is 50,250,000.
Is this what you meant?