"Rich" Options

[Aesirus]

That's right. Exploitation is something done in degrees, not in black-and-white. Wealthy youth are simply the most exploitative.

Although, if someone produces something, he should be able to trade its values for the goods of others.

[Spirited Away]

That's right. Exploitation is something done in degrees, not in black-and-white. Wealthy youth are simply the most exploitative.

Although, if someone produces something, he should be able to trade its values for the goods of others.

The rich give jobs to the working class.

Actually, tell me how they exploit.

[Aesirus]

Then you must ask what gives the rich the ability to give jobs to the working class.

You will find that the answer lies in the fact that the rich posess capital, and thus the ability to give jobs to the working class, and take some of hte money for themselves.

But then, to test the legitimacy of job-giving, one must find out where this capital comes from. Ultimately, all capital derives from the Earth, which was created for all men to use in common.

At some point in time, the capital was forcefully exploited from the commons of the Earth and put into private stock. Thus, the jobs that the rich possess in the first place are stolen property. The only solution to exploitation and the restoration of voluntary economy, therefore, is the abolition of private property.

Now, of course, there are practical problems with the abolition of private property, and it is better to live with a little exploitation than a lot of oppression, but it nonetheless does not change the fact that the capitalist system is clearly exploitative, and unproductive wealthy youth are the most exploitative of the classes.

[Spirited Away]

Thus, the jobs that the rich possess in the first place are stolen property. The only solution to exploitation and the restoration of voluntary economy, therefore, is the abolition of private property.

That itself is problematic. How do you define stolen property? Every rich person who owns property stole it?

Edit>>> You sound familiar...

[Aesirus]

No, all capital goods are essentially stolen, since they derive from the Earth, and no man may place a claim on the Earth, because it belongs to humanity in common. The rich are able to give the poor jobs because they have the iron ore, etc. But to have gotten the iron ore, they must have gotten it from the Earth at some point in time, and thus the iron ore legitimately belongs to all people in common. Thus, the possession of that capital good is illegitimate.

Services and certain consumer goods are a different story. Since they derive from the person's mind, then they are legitimate forms of trade and property.

[Spirited Away]

No, all capital goods are essentially stolen, since they derive from the Earth, and no man may place a claim on the Earth, because it belongs to humanity in common. The rich are able to give the poor jobs because they have the iron ore, etc. But to have gotten the iron ore, they must have gotten it from the Earth at some point in time, and thus the iron ore legitimately belongs to all people in common. Thus, the possession of that capital good is illegitimate.

The rich lay claims to property by legal means. If properties are "stolen" even by legality, is it not the fault of the government? Then is it not the government that exploits?

Edit>> sorry, i have to eat now... be back later.

[Aesirus]

The early governments that set in motion the propertied institutions we have today are those that were controlled by the rich, i.e. feudal and church systems. Our modern system of laws derives from the Magna Carta, which, while it was an improvement over the alternative, was nonetheless written to consolidate the legal power of wealthy barons against arbitrary kingship.

[Spirited Away]

The early governments that set in motion the propertied institutions we have today are those that were controlled by the rich, i.e. feudal and church systems. Our modern system of laws derives from the Magna Carta, which, while it was an improvement over the alternative, was nonetheless written to consolidate the legal power of wealthy barons against arbitrary kingship.

In other words, you mean to say that property laws favor(ed) rich people. That's a given but it shouldn't mean the rich gets free property. They pay for it making it legally theirs. While barons and kingship, titles, property were passed down to families in those times, many rich people today earned their wealth and status with hard work. If anyone is exploiting by your definition, it's the government that's doing the most exploitations. All rich kids do is exploit their parents and help stimulate the economy.

[Aesirus]

But the concept of capital property in the first place is illegitimate since SOMEONE had to take it from the Earth, which belongs to all men in common. If a rich person worked hard for property, then he often must have takne it from someone who took it from the Earth, thus being the recipient of stolen property.

[Spirited Away]

But the concept of capital property in the first place is illegitimate since SOMEONE had to take it from the Earth, which belongs to all men in common. If a rich person worked hard for property, then he often must have takne it from someone who took it from the Earth, thus being the recipient of stolen property.

Sure, lets say that it is illegitimate as you say for modern day government to take and give something that is not theirs to give. And also lets say that the rich is the owner of stolen property after he worked hard for the money to earn the slolen land.

Now then, not all rich people will make use of the land in ways that are immoral nor do most of them use it selfishly. Though it is in the mind of every entrepreneur to make profit, he/she will still give back to society by ways of providing jobs and stimulating the economy. Many rich people give to charities... etc... All these come from them exploiting the land that they PAID for legally. Who is more at fault? The one who legally paid for the land, or the one who illegitimately set claims to it (stole it), sold it and is also reaping property tax?

Okay, lets get back to rich youths. While all this is happening, kids are using their parents money to buy goods and services from the working class... this make them exploiting the working class, how?

[Jorge]

my parents might have a large income, but i don't try to abuse that. i don't got shopping for 100 doller jeans @ abercrombie. i only spend 30 bucks max on a tshirt and 50 bucks max on jeans ( i don't wear any other pants ) i don't try to be that kid with all the friends and money. i try to be the kid who helps less fortunate ones.

that's the kid i want to become.

[Aesirus]

Sure, lets say that it is illegitimate as you say for modern day government to take and give something that is not theirs to give. And also lets say that the rich is the owner of stolen property after he worked hard for the money to earn the slolen land.

Now then, not all rich people will make use of the land in ways that are immoral nor do most of them use it selfishly. Though it is in the mind of every entrepreneur to make profit, he/she will still give back to society by ways of providing jobs and stimulating the economy. Many rich people give to charities... etc... All these come from them exploiting the land that they PAID for legally. Who is more at fault? The one who legally paid for the land, or the one who illegitimately set claims to it (stole it), sold it and is also reaping property tax?

Okay, lets get back to rich youths. While all this is happening, kids are using their parents money to buy goods and services from the working class... this make them exploiting the working class, how?

Certainly, it is illegitimate for a government to tax land and such, but that makes them both illegitimate, not justifying the other.

The reason that the rich give jobs and such is because they can. They can make more money than the poor, while doing less work, because they own capital, not because they have any special merits of their own (though some of htem do). If the capital were administered by the workers, which it should be for unrefuted reasons I showed earlier, then those rich people would have to get real jobs, like everyone else.

The rich youth buy goods from the capitalist class that own the stores, who appropriate the goods that are produced for the working class and pay them less than the value of the work, taking advantage of their lack of opportunities.

[Spirited Away]

Certainly, it is illegitimate for a government to tax land and such, but that makes them both illegitimate, not justifying the other.

The reason that the rich give jobs and such is because they can. They can make more money than the poor, while doing less work, because they own capital, not because they have any special merits of their own (though some of htem do). If the capital were administered by the workers, which it should be for unrefuted reasons I showed earlier, then those rich people would have to get real jobs, like everyone else.

The rich youth buy goods from the capitalist class that own the stores, who appropriate the goods that are produced for the working class and pay them less than the value of the work, taking advantage of their lack of opportunities.

Lets look at an example. Lets say I adopted a foster child and raised her as best as I could. Years later her biological mother comes to claim her. Since she is obviously not of my blood but mine only by legal means, does this make me an illegitimate mother?

The land, though acquired illegitimately, must be claimed nonetheless. It could not be left unclaimed in this day and age, at least, not for very long. The government take from the earth what all humans take from nature. Singling out the rich alone is strangely problematic. And if they cannot justify one another why would the blame be placed upon the rich alone?

The rich works less? No doubt that the rich deals with less physical labor, but not all were born into that status. And if the rich would have "real jobs", like those of the working class, then who would provide such jobs if the rich isn't the one providing? Who would give back to the working class? The government? Hardly that without aid from higher class in this contemporary time.

As for the value of the good and the wage that is paid to those who make the good. You seem to blame the kids when, in actuallity, it is the parents of those kids who pay their employees. All kids know to do is spend what their parents give them. The price that they pay for goods and services are set by the market.

I don't understand how this makes them exploiting the working class.

[Aesirus]

Many of the rich do not administer their companies--that's what middle-clsas managers do--but merely own them.

In your case with the foster child, no one owned the child to begin with. But with land, it belongs to ALL people in common. Thus, it should be administered democratically, by a league of all people.

Now, there are practical problems to that, obviously, and as I said earlier, exploitation is the lesser of two evils, but it nonetheless is an evil.

[OriskybusinessO]

Yea, i'd love to debate it with ya. I dont mean to start another thing, you two have gone on and on about it... but here ya go

Where do rich kids get their money? Their parents. They dont produce much? And the kids from the middle and lower classes all work in Abercrombie and Fitch factories?

And you say the rich live off the lower classes? Most of them work at high paying jobs, or own thier own business etc. Most have earned their money.

[Aesirus]

Most people in the middle-class have high paying jobs who earn their money. Most people who are really rich ($250,000 a year or more) get their money from collecting dividends on capital, which as I've shown, is an exploitative way of getting money.

[sadolakced acid]

Most people in the middle-class have high paying jobs who earn their money. Most people who are really rich ($250,000 a year or more) get their money from collecting dividends on capital, which as I've shown, is an exploitative way of getting money.

if they don't make dividends on the money, then they have no reason to invest that money in the companies that middle and lower class americans work at. they have no reason to keep thier money in a bank, where the bank loans out the money to middle and lower class americans.

rich people earn that money from dividends because they have the money, and instead of just sitting on it, the let companies use it, and let other people use it.

if rich people just sat on thier money; companies would go bankrupt, and there would be no way you could get a morgage or a loan.

[Aesirus]

Capital goods belong to all people because they derive directly from the Earth. My point is that the companies themselves and their capital investments should belong to all people in common, because otherwise it is one person or group of people exploiting the Earth, which belongs to everyone, for their personal gain. Money should only be useable on consumer goods, not for 'investment', since investment uses resources that belongs to all people for the benefits of a few.

[sadolakced acid]

if a person spends thier time to dig a rock out of the ground, why should the person who just sat on thier bum and watched him get an equal share of that rock?

so you're saying that i shouldn't loan you a horse (say this is 1800s) to ride to town, because that horse is technically come from the earth which is all of ours. )

because a horse is like money

i shouldn't loan you money so that you can buy a horse, i should just give the money to you?

can i 'borrow ' a million dollars from you?

[Aesirus]

About the horse, that's right. They should be considered common property.

If someone digs a rock out of my backyard, under current law it would be MY rock, not his. If he found it in his own backyard, then it would be his. Clearly, resources belong to the owner of the LAND, not the person who found teh resources.

We are the ones who will open up oil drills in Iraq. But that dosen't mean the US Army should own all the oil in Iraq.

Land, meanwhile, belongs to all humanity, rather than single individuals. Individual ownership of land is essentially a might-makes-right system, because, initially, someone was able to seize and fortify the land by force, which is therefore robbery.

[sadolakced acid]

of course might makes right. who remebers the armenians?

you cannot own land. you can own the right to use the land.
no one truely owns land. they own the right to use the land.

[largosama]

How ever did Debate about shopping at "rich" stores segway to a discussion about property?

Although we'd like to think that the person who dug our resources should get the same money as the one who smartly (and sometimes slyly) buys the right and ownership to that resource, it's not going to happen. Currency is how "might" is expressed I suppose, and therefore more of this might = more right, as unfair as that is.

It almost seems as if the resource itself is worth less than all the rights to deal with it. (i.e management vs. extraction)

[Spirited Away]

Many of the rich do not administer their companies--that's what middle-clsas managers do--but merely own them.

In your case with the foster child, no one owned the child to begin with. But with land, it belongs to ALL people in common. Thus, it should be administered democratically, by a league of all people.

Now, there are practical problems to that, obviously, and as I said earlier, exploitation is the lesser of two evils, but it nonetheless is an evil.

I never questioned the "ownership" of the child, I merely asked whether or not it would make me the illegitemate mother.

The rich gives jobs to these managers and this is exploiting how?

Most people in the middle-class have high paying jobs who earn their money. Most people who are really rich ($250,000 a year or more) get their money from collecting dividends on capital, which as I've shown, is an exploitative way of getting money.

And the kids are exploiting these people how?

Land, meanwhile, belongs to all humanity, rather than single individuals. Individual ownership of land is essentially a might-makes-right system, because, initially, someone was able to seize and fortify the land by force, which is therefore robbery.

It is sentimentally idealistic to say that land belongs to everyone. This sounds like something that could come out of Disney's Pocahontos movie. If the world has worked like that since the begining of civilization, major wars could have been prevented.

Now then, if one does not seize the land, someone else will. If the one, anyone, who lays claim to the land does not make use of it, the land to useless to humanity.



And I'd really appreciate it if you'd explain how all this fit into rich kids exploiting the working class.

[darkphyre]

Aesirus sounds like a Marxist who has never actually read Marx.

Locke proposed that our labour is what gives us ownership of nature. The effort of picking an apple off a tree, or even planting that tree, makes the apple ours, because you have put something of yourself, your labour, into the apple. In a monied economy, labour translates into money, which can be used to purchase goods that aren't actually produced using our labour.

[Spirited Away]

Aesirus sounds like a Marxist who has never actually read Marx.

That's EXACTLY what my brother said.... *twilight zone music*