SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[Kayla]

so using your reasoning if there is a natural disaster and there is a major shortage of drinking water someone who has excess of it is justified in charging as much as he wants for it

and that forcing him to sell for under market price will save lives is irrelevant in your world?

[MGL]

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.

How on earth can the first person who owned some land have earned it?

[MGL]

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?

You are only able to distinguish between the two becasue you are presuming the right to ownership using the rule of finders keepers I am questioning.

[MGL]

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?

I am so pleased that you managed to imagine how the free market would still work where wealth is more evenly distributed. Certainly the state would have to regulate the ownership of the capital market to maintain a fair distribution and in a way that would not penalise the hardworking and reward reckless spendthrifts. At least do so in a better way than a badly regulated capital market would reward reckless bankers at the expense of the hardworking poor.

[MGL]

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.

MGL:

The common ownership of Joint Stock companies work by annual general meetings. If someone does not want a share in the company they sell it.

[MGL]

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.

Your argument just goes round in circles. You can't legitimise the force to protect your property until you justify your entitlement to it. If only voluntary exchanges are legitimate then you have not accounted for the original ownership of unproduced property like land except for a finders keepers rule which you are priveleging over common ownership with no justification at all. As you exchange your labour voluntarily despite the tax you pay you are by your own definition legitimising the state's claim to it.

[ForgedinHell]

so using your reasoning if there is a natural disaster and there is a major shortage of drinking water someone who has excess of it is justified in charging as much as he wants for it

and that forcing him to sell for under market price will save lives is irrelevant in your world?

Of course it's irrelevant, ever hear of over-fucking population? Let them die off. That way we are being environmentally friendly, which should earn you some points with green peace, so maybe they won't capsize your boat the next time you go whale hunting.

Do you know what happened when Home Depot encountered people wanting to buy supplies after being wiped out by a hurricane? Home Depot actually sold the products below cost, because it did not want to worry about bad publicity associated with claims of unfair profiteering. Do you know what happens when a natural disaster strikes? People volunteer to help from all over the place. We are actually genetically designed to assist others who are in trouble, so much for Hobbes and his speculative crap regarding human nature. So, if you want to argue that normal morality should allow for stealing, and the abuse of other people's freedoms, based on the extreme examples that you keep referring to, my counter is that theft is still not necessary, even in those extreme cases you mention, because people will volunteer to help. And since they will volunteer, there is no justification for the prima donna socialist to force others to live as she desires.

[ForgedinHell]

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.

How on earth can the first person who owned some land have earned it?

I stated above, one would have to work the land. This is assuming some primitive world, like, say, what America did with homesteading?

[ForgedinHell]

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?

You are only able to distinguish between the two becasue you are presuming the right to ownership using the rule of finders keepers I am questioning.

No, that is just one form of ownership. But, notice that I, unlike any socialist, have never made the claim that raping, murdering and pillaging is a legit way to acquire wealth. I have always associated it with working.

[ForgedinHell]

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.

MGL:

The common ownership of Joint Stock companies work by annual general meetings. If someone does not want a share in the company they sell it.

Yeah, so? That's my point, it's their property, and they can sell their stocks to buy drugs, prostitutes, or an education at Harvard. It's their decision what to do with their money and their life.

[Kayla]

so using your reasoning if there is a natural disaster and there is a major shortage of drinking water someone who has excess of it is justified in charging as much as he wants for it

and that forcing him to sell for under market price will save lives is irrelevant in your world?

Of course it's irrelevant, ever hear of over-fucking population? Let them die off.

ok i see you are an asshole and there is no point in continuing this discussion

[ForgedinHell]

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?

I am so pleased that you managed to imagine how the free market would still work where wealth is more evenly distributed. Certainly the state would have to regulate the ownership of the capital market to maintain a fair distribution and in a way that would not penalise the hardworking and reward reckless spendthrifts. At least do so in a better way than a badly regulated capital market would reward reckless bankers at the expense of the hardworking poor.

Come on now, either man-up an answer the damn question, or admit you are a failed disgrace. You keep begging the question in your answer. Saying that you will make sure everything is done "fairly" means nothing. What you think of as being "fair," may be quite unfair. You, like all socialists before you, can never, ever, state what specifically you will do. What standards are you using to determine what is a fair wage?

[ForgedinHell]

so using your reasoning if there is a natural disaster and there is a major shortage of drinking water someone who has excess of it is justified in charging as much as he wants for it

and that forcing him to sell for under market price will save lives is irrelevant in your world?

Of course it's irrelevant, ever hear of over-fucking population? Let them die off.

ok i see you are an asshole and there is no point in continuing this discussion

I was joking around. You are the one implying I am a fiend, so I thought I would fulfill your expectations. Besides, don't you think "asshole" is a bit strong, even if I were serious? I did have an environmentally-freiendly agenda, after all.

[Kayla]

I was joking around.

i live an area where rural and suburban texas intersect and combine their worst features

i am so used to hearing the most outrageous things said in all seriousness that sometimes i cannot tell a joke

Besides, don't you think "asshole" is a bit strong, even if I were serious?

if someone genuinely thinks that profiteering even at the expense of human lives is not morally repugnant then asshole applies

so are you a libertarian who are ok with just a tiny bit of socialism

dont worry that is a common view in my neck of the woods - socialized police libraries roads sewers for sure - and even a bit of welfare but not too much with a lifetime limit

and yes when disasters occur people are willing to help

however some people are also willing to profit themselves at the expense of others

and private charity is very uneven in its application

[ForgedinHell]

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.

Your argument just goes round in circles. You can't legitimise the force to protect your property until you justify your entitlement to it. If only voluntary exchanges are legitimate then you have not accounted for the original ownership of unproduced property like land except for a finders keepers rule which you are priveleging over common ownership with no justification at all. As you exchange your labour voluntarily despite the tax you pay you are by your own definition legitimising the state's claim to it.

You kidding me? You cannot even answer the questions I put to you. The force I mentioned is justified by self defense. Therefore, unlike you, I do not talk in circles. Until you can answer the questions I put to you, I will not respond to you. You have been defeated, but are too stupid to realize it. When you cannot answer questions, you are beaten.