SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[MGL]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

You left the most important part of the defintion out.

SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM...OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE FINITE RESOURCES OF PRODUCTION AND THEREBY TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE RESOURCES AS WELL.

You are living in a world of make-believe, which is where most socialists live. They can't handle reality. Your statement was self-refuting. If resources are limited, then they cannot be universally distributed to everyone, can they? To give food to one person, means another does not get that food. Socialism cannot change that fact of reality. Capitalism allows people the freedom to decide how the resources will be divided, while the socialist believes that she or he knows better than anyone else how resources shall be divided. The poblem the socialist has is that the socialist has no rational basis for making the decision. The free-market has a price mechanism that helps to efficiently divide resources. The socialist has no such mechanism, and just issues arbitrary commands. Like telling people that apartments must be provided and the rent can't be more thn $200.00 a month. If the market-clearing rent is $500.l00 per month, this command just creates a shortage for apartments. Demand increases, without any incentive for anyone to povide additional apartments. So what happens? A black-market develops where people offer apartments at more than $200 per month rent, and people willingly pay the rent. However, now this free-exchange is considered a criminal act by the state.

It is very difficult to believe that you actually understand my comments as your responses and illustrations they contain seem to have no relevance. Certainly there are many goods that can only be consumed by one person only ( eg food ) but this hardly refutes the possibility that land and other means of production could be distributed more fairly or owned in common like that great invention of 19th century capitalism the joint stock company.

Why do you keep using the example of price fixing and totalitarian command economies? The principle of a fairer distribution of the means of production does not, as far as I can see, rule out the possibility of a free market in goods and services. It only suggests that a government intervene if there is no fair distribition and this intervention does not have to involve price fixing of things like rents.

As a consequence, it has been very difficult to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps if you answer these questions with specific answers your argument will become clearer.

1. Do you understand the difference between capital and income?
2. Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
3. Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
4. Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
5. Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
6. Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
7. If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
8. If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
9. Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
10. What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?

[ForgedinHell]

[
You left the most important part of the defintion out.

SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM...OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE FINITE RESOURCES OF PRODUCTION AND THEREBY TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE RESOURCES AS WELL.

You are living in a world of make-believe, which is where most socialists live. They can't handle reality. Your statement was self-refuting. If resources are limited, then they cannot be universally distributed to everyone, can they? To give food to one person, means another does not get that food. Socialism cannot change that fact of reality. Capitalism allows people the freedom to decide how the resources will be divided, while the socialist believes that she or he knows better than anyone else how resources shall be divided. The poblem the socialist has is that the socialist has no rational basis for making the decision. The free-market has a price mechanism that helps to efficiently divide resources. The socialist has no such mechanism, and just issues arbitrary commands. Like telling people that apartments must be provided and the rent can't be more thn $200.00 a month. If the market-clearing rent is $500.l00 per month, this command just creates a shortage for apartments. Demand increases, without any incentive for anyone to povide additional apartments. So what happens? A black-market develops where people offer apartments at more than $200 per month rent, and people willingly pay the rent. However, now this free-exchange is considered a criminal act by the state.

It is very difficult to believe that you actually understand my comments as your responses and illustrations they contain seem to have no relevance. Certainly there are many goods that can only be consumed by one person only ( eg food ) but this hardly refutes the possibility that land and other means of production could be distributed more fairly or owned in common like that great invention of 19th century capitalism the joint stock company.

Why do you keep using the example of price fixing and totalitarian command economies? The principle of a fairer distribution of the means of production does not, as far as I can see, rule out the possibility of a free market in goods and services. It only suggests that a government intervene if there is no fair distribition and this intervention does not have to involve price fixing of things like rents.

As a consequence, it has been very difficult to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps if you answer these questions with specific answers your argument will become clearer.

1. Do you understand the difference between capital and income?
2. Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
3. Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
4. Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
5. Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
6. Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
7. If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
8. If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
9. Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
10. What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?

1. Yes.
2. Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
3. So?
4. Duh.
5. Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?
6. No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.
7. Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.
8. They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.
9. Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?
10. Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

[ForgedinHell]

You left the most important part of the defintion out.

SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM...OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE FINITE RESOURCES OF PRODUCTION AND THEREBY TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE RESOURCES AS WELL.

You are living in a world of make-believe, which is where most socialists live. They can't handle reality. Your statement was self-refuting. If resources are limited, then they cannot be universally distributed to everyone, can they? To give food to one person, means another does not get that food. Socialism cannot change that fact of reality. Capitalism allows people the freedom to decide how the resources will be divided, while the socialist believes that she or he knows better than anyone else how resources shall be divided. The poblem the socialist has is that the socialist has no rational basis for making the decision. The free-market has a price mechanism that helps to efficiently divide resources. The socialist has no such mechanism, and just issues arbitrary commands. Like telling people that apartments must be provided and the rent can't be more thn $200.00 a month. If the market-clearing rent is $500.l00 per month, this command just creates a shortage for apartments. Demand increases, without any incentive for anyone to povide additional apartments. So what happens? A black-market develops where people offer apartments at more than $200 per month rent, and people willingly pay the rent. However, now this free-exchange is considered a criminal act by the state.

It is very difficult to believe that you actually understand my comments as your responses and illustrations they contain seem to have no relevance. Certainly there are many goods that can only be consumed by one person only ( eg food ) but this hardly refutes the possibility that land and other means of production could be distributed more fairly or owned in common like that great invention of 19th century capitalism the joint stock company.

Why do you keep using the example of price fixing and totalitarian command economies? The principle of a fairer distribution of the means of production does not, as far as I can see, rule out the possibility of a free market in goods and services. It only suggests that a government intervene if there is no fair distribition and this intervention does not have to involve price fixing of things like rents.

As a consequence, it has been very difficult to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps if you answer these questions with specific answers your argument will become clearer.

1. Do you understand the difference between capital and income?
2. Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
3. Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
4. Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
5. Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
6. Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
7. If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
8. If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
9. Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
10. What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?[/quote]
Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?

[Kayla]

Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

how do you determine who owns the desert

what does the population density of the desert have to be before people living there are deemed to own it - at which point the prospector owes them some money

[Ginkgo]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

Haven't you just provided a good way of distinguishing positive and negative liberty? Such a distinction exists in any democratic society, socialist or otherwise. Perhaps your definition would be better suited to the positive/negative distinction.

Are you saying there is too much positive liberty at the moment- whereby we are being deprived or too much freedom?

[ForgedinHell]

Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

how do you determine who owns the desert

what does the population density of the desert have to be before people living there are deemed to own it - at which point the prospector owes them some money

I'm not talking about owning the desert, but the gold nugget. Actually, modern legal systems do recognize ownership being based on finding abandoned objects. Haven't you ever found a lost object that you couldn't return to the owner? Any problem keeping it?

I don't think a population density has anything to do with ownership of land. I think one has to exert some work over the land, if one is starting from scratch. Original land ownership is a tricky nut to crack. If all economic exchanges, even of goods, are really exchanges of labor, then land ownership should be related to work one does to improve the land.

[ForgedinHell]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

Haven't you just provided a good way of distinguishing positive and negative liberty? Such a distinction exists in any democratic society, socialist or otherwise. Perhaps your definition would be better suited to the positive/negative distinction.

Are you saying there is too much positive liberty at the moment- whereby we are being deprived or too much freedom?

I'm saying we are all slaves runting in the muck, believing we are free, when nothing could be further from the truth. Who says democracy has anything to do with freedom? Why should the majority get to boss me around? Are they wiser? More just? Prettier? No, they are just more numerous, and, therefore, presumably more powerful. Democracy is simply "might makes right" packaged in a way where we can still feel good about ourselves at the end of the day. It would probably be better to go back to a king, or a sexy queen, dominatrix, instead of deluding ourselves because one group of people gets to boss another group around after the votes are tallied.

[MGL]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

You are just flat-out wrong. Where do you think the capital comes from? Someone earned it. Whether they give it to another, sell i to another, doesn't matter, you have a legit transfer to a subsequent user, and it all originated with work. Otherwise, what your argument is if someone actually saves or buys something with what they have earned, somehow, it is not theirs any more. That's childishness.

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

You seriously don't know the difference between stealing and recovering abandoned property? The abandoned property has no owner. So, the owner has already lost the object, either intentionally, or accidentally, but he cannot be identifed and the property is gone. By picking up the property, one puts it back in use, without causing any loss to anyone. The loss already occurred when the property was abandoned. In contrast, when you steal property from an owner, you are taking something from the person, causing a loss, against his will, which you have no right to do. You really can't distinguish between those two situations?

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

And as to your "imagine a market where wealth is distributed evenly" crap, that's also childish. Go ahead and imagine it. You know what I imagibe? I imagine some people creating even more wealth, and others spending their wealth in Vegas. I imagine in a short while, that the even distribution will become uneven. So, what have you accomplished? Nothing. Now, are you going to periodicially confiscate the wealth of the successful, hardworking people, and give it to the spendthrifts, to make things perpetually more even? If so, all you are doing is stealing from people, for no rational reason, and giving it to those who don't deserve it. In a free market, inequality develops, reflecting people's unequal contributions to wealth creation, investment, etc. That encourages people to work hard, and save. What's wrong with that?

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

As far as your claim that everything that is found should be common property, why? First of all, common property would be unworkable. Everyone owning property means everyone has a say in what is done with it. Now, how are you going to ask everyone for their opinion, and what if they disagree? What if soemone doesn't want the property? You force them to own it? Group ownership is always an unworkable idea. In the end, all it means is that a small group of government hacks will decide what to do with the property, making them the owners, through the use of force, and for no rational reason.

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

No, my definition of force does not apply to all systems of ownership. My system states that only voluntary exchanges are legit. Under socialism, you force people to make exchanges they don't want to. Using force to protect one's property, that is the same as using force in an act of self defense. Under socialism, force is used to dictate how people shall live, under some arbitrary principles that someone just makes up, and can never even explain. That is a significant difference. I live through my work, and if someone takes away th fruit of my labor, that affects my ability to live. Protecting my property is, therefore, self-defense. The socialist taking my property, because the socialist has deluded herself into thinking she is all wise, and knows how we should all live, that is an act of theft. It is an act of theft based on a delusion, moreover. No one has such insights.

[ForgedinHell]

MGL: Do you appreciate that the more capital one has, the more income one is likely to recieve?
FIH: Not always true, but I think generally this is true.
MGL: Do you realise that this difference this makes in earnings cannot be attribuitable to the labour of one's own body?
FIH: So?

MGL: You were trying to justify claims to property by the labour of one's own body. If you agree that there is property that people acquire that is not attributable to their labour then you must provide some other principle if you want to justify their claim to it.

==================

MGL: Do you understand that force cannot be used to protect property unless it is also enforces the rules that settle property entitlement. Justifying the enforcing of a property right presupposes the legitimacy of that right. You cannot separate them.
FIH: Duh.
MGL: Do you not accept that the freedom one person has in enjoying property denies that freedom to someone else? I can probably infer your "yes" to this from your example of food above, but please clarify if you think that does nor count.
FIH: Absolutely. I just love eating cake in front of starving people. Don't you?

MGL: So your definition of socialism effectively applies to any system of ownership.

===========

MGL: Do you think that we are entitled to force each other not just to do no harm, but also to make at least a mimumum effort to help those in peril?
FIH: No. You are free to help anyone you want, but you have no right to force another to do so. The last guy who tried to get me to help a little old lady across the street? He's in intensive care.

MGL: I therefore assume you would acquit somebody of intentionally leaving someone to die when they could have made a little effort to save them. I think I am getting a better picture of where you are coming from now

==================

MGL: If you work and pay taxes, albeit begrudgingly, have you not voluntarily accepted this arrangement. Are you not therefore bound by your own definition of earnings to accept that what you own is only your net salary?
FIH: Not at all. I only pay taxes because the thought of sharing a jail cell with Willie Nelson is not on my to-do list.

MGL: Yes, but you also have the option of not working. So you are paying taxes voluntarily, and according to your definition of earning you therefore only earn your net income.

==================



MGL: If someone stumbles across a spear, what labour are they expending? This does not seem to be a rule about justifying property by earnings, but justifying property by a rule of "finders keepers"
FIH: They picked the damn thing up. If it was abandoned before they picked it up, it's now theirs. Just like a guy walking in the desert who finds a gold nugget. If he doesn't bend over, he doesn't get the nugget, but if he does, provided he doesn't herniate a disc, he's now better off for his labor.

MGL: What if someone were to say "anything found on this island is mine?" They are now expending energy making this claim. Do they now own everything? Or does the energy expended have to interact directly with the object being claimed? But anybody could come along later and spend energy picking the spear up and that would be stealing in your books, so the rule must presumably be that legitimate ownership is bestowed on the first person who spends energy interacting directly with the object being claimed. What would happen if someone spotted it first, announced their claim, but then someone else picked it up? Who would then have entitlement? Presumably the one who picked it up? What I am struggling to understand is where the moral argument is. You simply seem to be stating a rule that confers legitimacy of ownership without attempting to justify it in any way that seems morally agreeable or fair.
==================

MGL: Is this rule of "finders keepers" some kind of natural moral law that precedes and over-rides any legislative law that is enacted by\agreed by a majority of citizens?
FIH: Who knows. But it works, and I haven't seen a better idea yet. If a meteor lands in my backyard, I'm claiming ownership, unless it's radioactive, in which case, I'll say you own it. How's that?

MGL: It clearly only works for those who are lucky enough to "find" the resources in the first place. Can you explain how this works for those who weren't so lucky? Surely, on purely ethical grounds a fairer rule would be that everything that has not been produced but merely found is considered common property until perhaps someone has actually performed some sufficient labour to deserve it or unless there is sufficiently more of the same thing that it can be allocated to an individual. What you have not made clear yet is wheter you think someone is allowed to insist on the rule of finders keepers even if the majority have already agreed on an alternative such as the rule I have suggested.

============

MGL: What makes this rule of "right by sight" any less deplorable than "right by might"?
FIH: Because when I pick up the abandoned property, I'm not hurting anyone.

MGL: Why is the act of depriving others the use of something not hurting them in this case, while when one is stealing something it is. The only answer you seem to be able to give is to presuppose the legitimacy of prevailing property rights, the very thing you have yet to justify.
=====

FIH: Look, I answered all ten of your questions, so answer mine. You keep going on an on about how you are going to distribute things "fairly." Sounds good. Fair is nice. However, give me specifics. How are you going to determine what a fair wage is to pay someone, if you are not going to let the free market determine the pay? If you pay someone above free-market wages, then that takes away money from some other people. How is that fair? What formula do you use, besides making up crap?


MGL: Imagine a free market economy where ownership of WEALTH is unevenly distributed ( like most capitalist economies today ). Now imagine a free market economy where WEALTH is owned more evenly - with perhaps all land and natural resources either owned in common ( like a joint stock company ) or are divided equally. Why would the latter preclude a free market in wages?

I have answered all your points. But, you have never answered mine. Real simple: Tell me by what principle will you determine what a fair wage is for someone without using the free market to determine what they earn? And when you come up with this plan, how do you justify taking money from other people to pay this "fair" wage, assuming the figure is higher than what the free market would have paid the person. And if the fair wage is lower than what the person would have earned on the free market, what justification is there to force the person to work now for lower wages? No socialist has ever produced any cogent answer to these basic questions. They never want to admit that their entire game plan is that they are so elite, so superior to everyone else, that their arbitrary opinions on what people should earn must be right. That they are smarter than all of us who want to live freely. The notion is absurd. That's why no socialist wants to publicly admit what their system really is. Everyone would laugh at them if they did.

[MGL]

Tell me by what principle will you determine what a fair wage is for someone without using the free market to determine what they earn?

I have no objection to the free market in determining a fair wage for what people earn. Indeed, for most services and commodites the free market seems the ideal mechanism for determining prices and wages.