In the social context theft can only occur when someone else's property is stolen but in theory if something isn't someone else's then it isn't technically theft. However the problem with this is that it is only in the legal context of things as doesn't account for the issue of "thing in and of itself" having rights (property or otherwise) which need to be respected. — dclements

Then you may claim that appropriating, say, mineral resources somehow "disrespects" the Earth or whatever, but it doesn't follow that it constitutes theft, in which case you've simply changed the subject. Furthermore, this would require defending the rather tendentious claim that, for instance, the Earth is something deserving of respect and having rights "in and of itself." The Earth is an accretion of rock and metals, with a thin scum of gravitationally-bound gases, with some trace amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and phosphorus, some agglomerations of which believe themselves to be the center of the universe.

I don't see that the planet is something which inherently deserves respect or which can "own" anything, any more than my wristwatch is inherently deserving of respect, or can own property. We disapprove of the misallocation of resources for its impact on people, not because it takes what rightfully "belongs" to Mother Earth.

If statements such as "property is theft" signify something like "I don't approve of the notion of private property," "people are too greedy or materialistic," or "people should share more," then perhaps one ought to simply defend those positions instead of engaging in sloganeering.

"Theft" implies taking someone else's property. If property is theft, then who is being stolen from? — Arkady

Why don't you think about it? Even you can work that one out.

Vertical axis is the use of the term American Dream in writing. — René Descartes

LOL.
What a waste of time. Who does this shit?

How is each instance weighted?? Was it just the written word or would that include a film since they are mostly scripted?

Did the survey count each mention in every article book and film? Or did they consider each article, book and film with regard to its circulation? If so, did they weight films over books and books over academic articles?

Is the graph adjusted for population increase? Is the graph adjusted for the increase in printed media?
You might get the same result for any phrase.
The only thing of interest is the origin, which is later than I expected. But I do not think the rest of the graph is meaningful without understanding how the numbers are reached.

I think the morality of capitalism depends on there being a frontier. As long as there are untapped resources out there, the accumulation of property cannot be said to be depriving anyone. We all slave on Jamalrob's estate here, but if anyone feels unhappy, they are free to carve out their own philosophical homestead further down the internet highway. — unenlightened

I think this is close to how capitalism functions, but not quite. My point of view is that capitalism works by outsourcing exploitation, just like life works by decreasing its own internal entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment (by more than it decreases its own). So for capitalism to work, there must be an "out there" that we don't care about - the Chinese, the Africans, etc. - let them produce everything for us cheaply, we don't care how they live so long as we have what we need back home.

So in this manner, life becomes materially better for the capitalist countries. Today, even the poor from the UK live better than ever in the past. However, some people in the world, for example in Syria, live worse than they have ever lived in their entire history. And these aren't proportional - we live somewhat better than ever before, but they live a lot worse than ever before.

The reason we have so much money invested in space travel and space exploration recently is because capitalism is looking for new places to export exploitation to. Can you imagine what a golden age it would be for Earth if we found another planet with somewhat intelligent aliens that we could exploit?

But in the absence of this external "enemy", "victim", etc. capitalism cannot work.

But there is no land left to clear; no free space to invest my labour in and grow my food and my capital. The landless peasant is doomed to remain forever landless, because all the land is already owned. And at this stage it becomes apparent and significant that to own property is to deprive others of its use. — unenlightened

Skyscrapers? :P On the same surface area of Earth live more and more people. We're not yet at the point where we have a land shortage, though in certain parts of the world, this is becoming a problem.

My point of view is that capitalism works by outsourcing exploitation, just like life works by decreasing its own internal entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment (by more than it decreases its own). So for capitalism to work, there must be an "out there" that we don't care about - the Chinese, the Africans, etc. - let them produce everything for us cheaply, we don't care how they live so long as we have what we need back home. — Agustino

There are capitalists who produce by their own labor and who offer generous income and benefits to their labor force. You're just describing a particular type of industry and type of capitalist where production requires little skill and the owner is trying to maximize his own profits at the expense of his employees being provided very little.

If I own a clothing business, maybe it would be cheaper to outsource to China where the workers will make very little. If I'm starting a plumbing business, it might behoove me to treat my best plumbers very well. In a capitalist system, the worker is a commodity, so the greater his skills and talents, the better he will be treated, which is why you should stay in school, be hardworking, and make yourself valuable.

On the same surface area of Earth live more and more people. We're not yet at the point where we have a land shortage, though in certain parts of the world, this is becoming a problem. — Agustino

Scotland is not an overcrowded place, but most of the land is owned in very large estates by a few individuals. So most of the population is landless. There was a concerted effort to depopulate these estates by evicting subsistence farmers, (crofters), in favour in the first instance of sheep.

And this is how property works as theft. And now get off my planet, peasant! Property is a claim, and theft is an accusation of violation of that claim, and so dependent on the claim. But property is appropriated, and that too can be a violation of other rights, of use of habitation, etc, so Proudhon's paradox has bite.

Something that might be worth mentioning here is the importance in Eco-philosophy of the concept of 'wilderness'. It is an odd notion to pragmatists, humanists and capitalists, that one might conceive of land as being neither common, nor owned, nor available for exploitation, but wild as in free, as humans are taken to be free, belonging to itself alone. It is different in approach from the National Park, which is an amenity for humans. The idea that not everything is ours, or for us in potential if anyone wants it, might even come as a shock if it is taken seriously.

But perhaps that might be worth a thread of its own, Ecosophy is a bit neglected round here.

You're just describing a particular type of industry and type of capitalist where production requires little skill and the owner is trying to maximize his own profits at the expense of his employees being provided very little. — Hanover

No, I'm describing the capitalist system as a whole. There are industries which are less affected by this, but overall, even those industries will ultimately rely on those industries that require exploitation in order to be possible (at the scale that they are possible). And look, even relatively lean internet businesses, like Amazon FBA stores, outsource like crazy - customer service is outsourced, production is outsourced, shipping is outsourced - the entrepreneur ends up not doing very much of the actual work except providing the capital, supervising, sales & marketing and making sure that all the parties are working together smoothly.

All economic activities will ultimately rely on the production of the basic goods like food, clothes, raw material mining, etc. I rely on the exploited Chinese worker to get my Mac for example. Make no mention of my clothing, toothbrush and on and on.

In a capitalist system, the worker is a commodity, so the greater his skills and talents, the better he will be treated, which is why you should stay in school, be hardworking, and make yourself valuable. — Hanover

When production and money is the only criteria, then someone's value is always tied to their productive capacity. That is wrong from a moral point of view. If one's wife, for example, doesn't work, do you reckon they should consider her a useless piece of trash because she's not "productive"?

The "stay in school and be a slave" is not something I buy into as a way of making yourself valuable from an economic point of view. Quite the contrary - the school graduate is not valuable, that's why he gets paid so little. And I'm saying this as someone who is moderately successful in the current system, and who values entrepreneurship and people producing on their own, creating new businesses, creating value etc. I'm an entrepreneur myself. I'm saying this because I know that school is bullshit - it will train you to be a good slave, not to be a business owner. I've had the good fortune to attend a good university, so it's not like I'm jealous or anything. I've also done incredibly well in schooling.

But I agree with Marx on this. This is false consciousness, the proletariat thinking that by going to school, etc. he is freeing himself and obtaining a better life - while in truth, he is merely training to become a good slave for the capitalist. If you want to be the capitalist, then school isn't where you need to be. It doesn't take much to see - just pick a copy of Forbes.

And if I am to judge what I learned in school, but really, judge it authentically, I will come to the conclusion that I could have learned the same things I learned in 4 years of university, in a single year of serious study. Lacking seriousness is not good for an entrepreneur, and people are taught to lack seriousness in universities - party party party, learning just a little bit and very slowly.

What the capitalist system (not individual capitalists) isn't saying is that they are purposefully dumbing down people through school, public education, etc. in order to get them to be good slaves later on, and not be capable to be independent. They will be dependent on the 9-5 their entire life. If the common man discovered that he could provide value without working under terrible conditions for the capitalist, you reckon he would do it? Of course not.

I am an entrepreneur because I recognised that I don't need school, degrees, and on and on to provide value. This is what made me an entrepreneur, and gave me the freedom to start out on my own. Yes, I do have drive and persistence, and I do work hard, and I am not a dumb guy but that is all secondary. Some people work hard at digging ditches their entire lives - merely working hard won't take you anywhere.

So what upsets me is that some people keep this to themselves - only they should be the entrepreneurs and the business owners - the secrets should be kept from everyone else, everyone else ought to be their slave. That's what I take issue with. Most of the entrepreneurs of today are the rebels of yesterday. The drop outs - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg etc. It is almost that you have to be a dropout to be a billionaire :rofl:

Making money is actually not difficult once you get the hang of it. Once you learn what you really need to learn (which is how to sell mostly), then it's easy. I would never work for anyone 9-5 for a single day - even if they said, we will give you $100 million per year, I would not work for them. I think that anyone with intelligence ought to refuse to live like a slave.

Now I'm sure that you will say, well you're a particular case, not everybody is like you, and on and on. Truth is that when I started out everyone thought I was crazy, and nobody believed in me. That's just how it works. The world tries to keep you a slave, you have to break the chains yourself, no one can do it for you. But I remain firmly convinced that this is possible and available to everyone, and not merely to a select few who are "gifted", "intelligent", "lucky" and whatever other positive adjectives.

But perhaps that might be worth a thread of its own, Ecosophy is a bit neglected round here. — unenlightened

Oh dear... hopefully you don't become an @apokrisis version 2.0. :joke:

morality of capitalism
Dryness of the Sea.
Warmth of Ice.
Darkness of Light.

Suffice to say that out of all economic systems I've seen tried, I'd rather live in capitalism. At least freedom is possible in capitalism. Under communism, it's not. Communism was a horrifying system.

Under communism, it's not. Communism was a horrifying system. — Agustino

You've never seen such an example.
Capiitalism is global. You forget the all the starving under $1 a day people also live under the yoke of capitalism. Given a random placement the likely hood is that you would be one of those living under a $1 per day.
Maybe you should take your head out of your bum once in a whilst and try to see the bigger picture?
The other thing you might like to consider is the thread subject.
The morality of it , not whether or not you happen to live in a country where you benefit from Capitalism's immorality!

You've never seen such an example.
Capiitalism is global. You forget the all the starving under $1 a day people also live under the yoke of capitalism. Given a random placement the likely hood is that you would be one of those living under a $1 per day.
Maybe you should take your head out of your bum once in a whilst and try to see the bigger picture?
The other thing you might like to consider is the thread subject.
The morality of it , not whether or not you happen to live in a country where you benefit from Capitalism's immorality! — charleton

Yes, I am aware that this thread is discussing the morality of capitalism. I do not think that capitalism is more immoral than the alternatives that have been tried so far, let's put it that way. I don't think capitalism is perfect. It's definitely not, and I am very much opposed to consumerism and pretty much the whole modern culture (Hollywood, etc.).

I just noticed you were talking to me. If you select text from a post, a quote button will appear. Push the quote button. — frank

This works on some computers and not on others. It always works on my home computer, which is Firefox on Mint Linux, but only works intermittently on my work computer which is Internet Explorer on Windows 10.

I have inferred by looking at the style of others's posts that others encounter this problem too. That is, I see people who I know from experience know how to use the quote feature sometimes either not using it where it would be the natural method to use, or doing 'manual quotes', which is where you hit reply, then paste the text you wanted to quote under the reply link in the new post, manually typing in the quote delimiters.

I don't know why this is. It's irritating but it's never been enough of a problem to complain about.

BUT - now feeling guilty about posting off topic - I feel that some softened version of communism may be the best way out of this decline into robber baron social Darwinism that countries like the US and Russia are experiencing, which will only be exacerbated by the rise of AI making all jobs that are not highly skilled - and hence beyond the reach of at least half the population - redundant.

But I have nothing against people that like capitalism. Some of them are quite nice.

I didn't know that about the variation in the editor's functionality. Thanks.

Bitter Crank's point is well taken that the super wealthy will probably have to be property taxed at some point. I think it would take a depression to open the door to that though.