“The law” and “the police” mean the same thing in this context: someone with power says it’s the case and everyone knows they had better go along with it or else.

My point is basically this: imagine that somehow magically everyone forgot what belonged to whom (including records on paper and computers etc). They still believe in property rights, they just can’t remember what is whose property, and have to figure that out anew. How would they figure that out, and what would the resulting answer look like?

I contend that the natural assumption would be that whoever is using a thing is its owner (residents own homes, workers own businesses, etc), and so the distribution of ownership that one would infer just from looking at the world with fresh eyes would be very different from what the legal records in the real world say it is.

That raises the question of how the law got and stays so different from the “natural order” so to speak. I contend that that has mostly to do with, first and foremost, straight up violent theft in the history of ownership that gave some people more than others; and secondly, terms of contracts like rent and interest (but not limited exclusively to those) that are morality invalid and serve to reinforce and perpetuate those differences in wealth, and without which those differences would naturally dissolve back to the “natural order” that one would expect when looking at the world with fresh eyes.

I was discussing this sort of thing with @Kenosha Kid in
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11135/the-ant-and-the-grasshopper-immediate-versus-delayed-return

About the move from egalitarianism to social hierarchy, about its inevitability when switching to a delayed return society from instant return. That is a better place to discuss the "natural order", not in 21st century capitalist society.

How would they figure that out, and what would the resulting answer look like? — Pfhorrest

I honestly have no idea but I also have no idea how society works with your justification of use. No marketplace is going to function, the concept of money wouldn't work, getting people to do anything for you without a personal relationship seems unlikely. Perhaps a natural consequence of the inability to hold private property without using it would that it was community-owned and each person receives on the basis of need, or otherwise, communism. Why not advocate for communism instead of having private property operate in such a disorganised way?

That raises the question of how the law got and stays so different from the “natural order” so to speak. — Pfhorrest

Just status-quo capitalism and private property should be sufficient to change things over time, even with a reset, to get things back to normal. What we have isn't a product of history it is a product of capitalism. Capital is invested, and capital is uneven, investments perform differently and the winners get ahead and gains advantages that skew the playing field further and further until society is marked by those who own a lot and those who own very little. But the investment of capital isn't just a mechanism for maintaining social hierarchies, it's a process of importance, much of what we have today is a result of that process. The "natural order" is of absolute poverty where there's no property to bicker over. We need to manage our productive power to serve the majority, not dismantle that power because it's currently being used to serve the few. Thus, people argue about how to use our productive power but the "natural order" doesn't teach us this, do you have a model to propose?

I contend that the natural assumption would be that whoever is using a thing is its owner (residents own homes, workers own businesses, etc), and so the distribution of ownership that one would infer just from looking at the world with fresh eyes would be very different from what the legal records in the real world say it is. — Pfhorrest

Interestingly, the immediate-return hunter-gatherer groups discussed in the thread Judaka referred to have some interesting and diverse views. For instance, the owner of the arrow that shot the beast, not the archer, might have nominal ownership rights of that beast (largely irrelevant since the carcass would be shared equally with the group). If you owned a painting by Picasso, it might be one of his descendants you'd seek out to return it to.

That raises the question of how the law got and stays so different from the “natural order” so to speak. I contend that that has mostly to do with, first and foremost, straight up violent theft in the history of ownership that gave some people more than others; and secondly, terms of contracts like rent and interest (but not limited exclusively to those) that are morality invalid and serve to reinforce and perpetuate those differences in wealth, and without which those differences would naturally dissolve back to the “natural order” that one would expect when looking at the world with fresh eyes. — Pfhorrest

So far as I know, as Judaka says, harsh winters appear to be the reason we have social hierarchy at all, including non-egalitarian property rights and one person's authority over another (e.g. a husband's authority over his wife) which amounts to another kind of property right. Winter seems to be original bogeyman opportunists used to scare people into giving up on fairness.

I'm really unclear what your views are now, since you seem to be simultaneously:

[A] morally defending the status quo capitalist account of who owns what and why and what kinds of powers to contract people have,
[if A then B] saying that hierarchical and authoritarian social organization is an inescapable consequence of that, and saying
[not-B] that that hierarchicy and authoritarianism is morally bad.

Maybe your point in this thread is to highlight that as some sort of paradox? If so, the resolution to the paradox is to reject one of those: either that account of moral assignment of ownership and powers to contract is wrong because it leads to a bad situation, or it doesn't lead to that bad situation, or that situation isn't actually bad. I reject the first part.

But for clarity, note that I do not reject private property rights. I am hinting at the common socialist rejection of them in favor of "possession" rights, but I'm not directly endorsing that myself (except as the criteria by which the convention of who owns what is rightly established in the beginning). I am instead suggesting that if the distribution of ownership of private property (which I support) differs greatly from the use of that property, that's a warning sign that something wrong is happening somewhere.

The general reason for that is that there's no incentive to own things you're not using yourself -- they're literally useless to you -- unless owning them gives you some kind of power over other people; and people morally shouldn't have power over other people in general, so it shouldn't be the case that owning stuff gives you power over other people; so the apparent fact that people have incentive to own more than they can use themselves indicates that something wrong is happening somewhere.

That then raises the question of what exactly is happening such that owning more than you can use gives you power over others. The obvious answer is that you can trade people your excess capital for their labor, but that's a self-correcting problem: if you do that you end up with less capital and they end up with more and pretty soon you're equals again. That's what naive capitalists assume would happen in a free market; but it observably doesn't. Why not?

My answer is that certain kinds of contracts -- which NB are deontologically akin to legislation, they're exercises of deontological power that create obligations where they didn't exist before -- allow the creation of self-reinforcing practical power structures, such as where the people who are getting paid for their labor also owe for the use of capital that they don't get ownership of, so what gets paid to them comes right back to the ownership class and the worker class never accrue capital in exchange for their labor. If such contract were not enforceable, then instead of them we would see the simple trades of capital for labor, which would have that equalizing effect that naive capitalists expect from a free market.

So we'd end up with a distribution of private property ownership that closely resembles the patterns of use, not because whoever uses something automatically becomes its new owner, but because nobody has any incentive to own anything they're not using, because ownership doesn't give you any power over anybody else, except in a way that then diminishes your ownership and consequently that power itself.

Well, my position is focused on the employer-employee relation, and that is where I think most of the problems of capitalism come from. I'm not clear on your model either but to me, capitalism represents something that is exceptional at maximising various ends, to the detriment of others. Any criticism of capitalism should consider how recommendations for change can hurt what makes capitalism in many areas so effective. The basis for production in capitalism is the drive for profit, to create goods and services and property for selling at the market, to pay for the expenses of the production and a little extra to maintain growth for the business and profit for the capitalist. Capitalism is defined by the employer-employee relationship, which is different from the master-slave relationship, the employee is not property, exchanges labour for wages and participates in the marketplace as a buying consumer. If Socialism was defined by group ownership of enterprises, co-ops, then it would be distinct from capitalism by lacking the employer-class. But the removal of the capitalist doesn't mean an end to the immensely imbalanced resources held by enterprises that currently exists today, though the situation wouldn't be nearly as bad. The "capitalist" account of who owns what is not much different from the master-slave and co-op account of who owns what. Only that people aren't property and businesses are conjointly owned/run by the workers.

What I don't want to see is the employee being treated as an asset, rather than an end in themselves. To see production and labour through the lens of profit, as opposed to its workers' happiness, environmental costs of their business, impact on the local community and so on. Capitalist businesses don't reflect the values of their workers, they only reflect the drive for profit and the need to comply with (or not comply with if they can get away with it) various government laws and regulations.

Most of what you see, in dictating who owns what, how goods are exchanged in the marketplace, how capital functions in the economy, I am not trying to change. That is not to say that I have decided there is no better system, there is a lot to be said about how the marketplace and private property currently function is broken and unethical but I lack the confidence to promote a different system. I hope this explains my position but I will return to your criticism.

In a co-op, as an example, the workers do indeed own the factory they work at, they own the tools and materials they use. But what rightfully belongs to whom is still determined in exactly the same way as before, the workers conjointly own the business and these articles of property belong to that business. Is this kind of model something you could get behind?

As for land, capitalism has very little to do with how that's handled. Land could be nationalised and leased such as in Singapore, it's still capitalist. Help me to understand you. Currently, land is bought, rental properties are built and leased out, without any profit motivation to build these properties for sale or rent, who is going to build up these properties for people to live in?

the workers conjointly own the business and these articles of property belong to that business. Is this kind of model something you could get behind? — Judaka

Yes, that’s exactly the kind of ends I’m aiming toward. Everything else I’m on about is concerned with why things don’t end up like that already and what can be changed to fix that.

without any profit motivation to build these properties for sale or rent, who is going to build up these properties for people to live in? — Judaka

Sales are perfectly fine on my account. What I want to see is capital being sold, rather than rented; because that has the effect of spreading ownership to the users of things who don't own enough yet, rather than concentrating it into the hands of those who already own more than they can use.


To perhaps better relate everything back to your primary concern about the employer-employee relationship: we can start off asking why abusive forms of such relationships exist. From the employer's perspective, the incentive is obvious: they can get more for less. But if these relationships are supposedly voluntary, why would the employees go along with that and not just walk away?

Because most of them need a job more than any job needs them: the jobs do need some workers or others, but there are lots to choose from, and most of them are desperate, so if one person won't accept the abuse, someone else will, and the person who didn't will just go broke and suffer even worse for it. That then raises the question of why the workers are desperate and more in need of a job than the jobs are in need of them.

And the answer to that is that the workers are categorically poorer than the business-owners. Which isn't to say that every business-owner is super rich, but if you're in a position where you can afford to start even a small business, you're better off than anybody who can't. (A lot of people who try to start small business are not actually in a position to afford it, and that's a large part of why so many small businesses fail, but that failure rate consequently means not a lot of people are working for those non-rich employers for long; most people are usually working for people much wealthier than themselves, because people as poor as themselves couldn't afford to employ them for long).

Which then brings us to the question of why there are so many poor people and so few rich people, which comes back around to general issues of why wealth doesn't actually "trickle down" from the rich to the poor as naive capitalism would expect, but instead the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, fewer and fewer end up rich while more and more end up poor. Which is where my analysis of rent and interest etc comes into play.

TL;DR: employer-employee relationships are abusive because employers and employees have unequal power because they are financially unequal. If people generally had more or less equal amounts of wealth then trading labor and capital between those equals would be all fine and dandy.

In a co-op, as an example, the workers do indeed own the factory they work at, they own the tools and materials they use. But what rightfully belongs to whom is still determined in exactly the same way as before, the workers conjointly own the business and these articles of property belong to that business. Is this kind of model something you could get behind? — Judaka

I think I'm being facetious here, not sure, but I toss this out because you should be ready to answer this when the opposition throws it at you: When it comes to publicly traded companies, the employees can own it if they buy stock. Then, we'll have to see where their morals lie when they are looking at quarterly dividends versus "doing the right thing" generally.

Okay, it seems we have the same values but tell give different explanations for why things should be the way we want and why things are the way they are. We both favour co-ops, but I see the employer-class as unethical and undesirable, I don't want a return to any "natural state", I want society to make an ethical and practical decision to rearrange things and abolish capitalism - or create a hybrid between capitalism and socialism where socialism is favoured and promoted. I don't think Democratic Socialism is enough but it's better than nothing.

To perhaps better relate everything back to your primary concern about the employer-employee relationship: we can start off asking why abusive forms of such relationships exist. — Pfhorrest

While your analysis about how wealth inequality leads to further wealth inequality is correct, how employees aren't property but buying consumers and need buying power to live, the only way to get that buying power for the majority is to exchange labour for wages as an employee. It will always be this way in capitalism and the disparities can only increase. Technology similarly through increased efficiency, capabilities and automation can cater to ever greater numbers and a handful of companies, after defeating their competitors over and over again, rise to the top.

The employer could have more or less wealth than the employee but the power imbalance is inherent in their positions. The employee exchanges wages for labour, nothing more, what wages and what labour, are the only questions. The employer owns his business, makes all decisions regarding the businesses direction, chooses how his business will operate, promote, demote, fire his employees. Should the business care about the environment? Should it care about the community? Should it do anything? Only the capitalist decides, the employees have no voice. That is why it doesn't matter if we're talking about high-level employees or low-level employees who make nothing, we're only talking about the ability of an employee to negotiate or resign in opposition more easily. The profit drive is to pay for expenses, enable the business to grow and enrich the capitalist. The employee only exchanges labour for wages, they're not involved in what happens to profit. In every single situation, about everything, the employer has near-absolute command and his authority is in-built into capitalism. It's not dependant upon his wealth, status or connections, the employer-class simply has these authorities over employees and that's how capitalism works.

So, I contend it's the very system, rather than the specifics or specific people and the unethical employer-employee relation which is by itself, a class-based system. The unequal resources are a product of the unequal system, the inequality of the relationship goes deeper than that for me.



I'm going to use this opportunity to respond to these comments about how an employer might treat his employees, publically owned companies and employee agency.

Firstly, with regards to how employees are treated, really by other employees or employers, can be viewed through the lens of common decency and respect. That should be promoted and is but it doesn't address the underlying problems. It is not exceptionally different from how a master might treat his slave well. My point isn't to compare employees with slaves, just to say, if it can be true in a situation that is much, much worse, then it can be true here. Slavery is a problem regardless and I contend employers are a problem regardless, the relation is inherently unethical.

When it comes to publicly traded companies, the employees can own it if they buy stock. Then, we'll have to see where their morals lie when they are looking at quarterly dividends versus "doing the right thing" generally. — James Riley

I don't actually expect employees to always be doing "the right thing", I expect them to view their interests beyond the scope of what makes sense from the perspective of capitalists or investors. Giving themselves better working conditions, protecting their local environment and community, all while making a profit, people are often just talking about making things better for themselves. They are the local community and exist in the local environment. They are the workers. If workers choose to screw the environment for profit, that's a separate problem. We can look at existing co-ops to see how this might work, not how capitalist structured publically owned businesses run. Employers, employees, investors, they're all just people, how they act depends on the situation you put them in.

Have you never met a shift supervisor or a manager? — BitconnectCarlos

By necessity, the employer must delegate tasks but how these tasks are performed and judged, the authority and resources they have, are all things he decides. I'm not interested in democratising the power of a shift supervisor, the decisions they make don't interest me. What's your game here anyway Carlos? Why do you care so much about capitalism that you're willing to resort to these absurd tactics to defend it?

"Good" is subjective, whereas "true" is objective. — James Riley

No, true in this contexts refers to ideological interpretation, it's no different than dictating what a "true" patriot does, as though, a patriot's interpretation of their patriotism must conform to certain rules. It is not objective, it's just a different and more oppressive form of "good". Capitalism has innumerable variations but most of them do not pervert the basic system. I don't know if any one variation has a monopoly on the term, you just need to meet the basic requirements. If one variation is a failure, another can still be a success. That is why I am not interested in arguing what is the "true" capitalism, it is a distraction, a pedantic discussion, which does nothing but change the meaning of a word. Capitalists can kill their golden goose, they can tax evade, externalise costs. Especially since I'm saying that the employer-employee relationship is flawed, I am largely uninterested in these variations, though I recognise a hierarchy.

I don't know exactly how you want to calculate the externalised costs, I presume you don't stop at subsidies but environmental, health, business costs and so on? Or is it just businesses receiving money from the government that you care about?

Capitalism has so many problems, and given what I've read from you, I'm surprised to hear that your only problem with capitalism is on this single issue. An issue which could actually affect socialist organisation such as co-ops and so isn't even a solely capitalist issue. It's more of a governmental issue than anything else. Externalities is a fine topic that demonstrates a flaw in capitalism, the capitalist weighs up the profit motive for a decision but only includes costs that the capitalist needs to pay for. That a community, society, person - whoever has to pay an extra financial, emotional or cost to their well-being isn't factored in. You're talking about such problems, yes? Or just government subsidies?

If your only concern is government subsidisation, why? If it's not, how can this not be included in capitalism? How can cost externalisation possibly be calculated and paid for by the capitalist? Is this less complex than I'm making it out to be? That you think this should be the norm, how does it work?

but I see the employer-class as unethical and undesirable, I don't want a return to any "natural state", I want society to make an ethical and practical decision to rearrange things and abolish capitalism - or create a hybrid between capitalism and socialism where socialism is favoured and promoted. I don't think Democratic Socialism is enough but it's better than nothing. — Judaka

That all sounds like the same thing I want, so now I'm just more confused about where any disagreement lies. I'm wondering if it's just the talk of "natural state" in my earlier post that's throwing things off: if so, all I meant by that is that ownership and usage coinciding is what we would ("naturally") expect to happen if nothing unethical was going on, so the fact that we have separate owner/employer and user/worker classes is a sign that something unethical is going on.

The employer could have more or less wealth than the employee but the power imbalance is inherent in their positions. The employee exchanges wages for labour, nothing more, what wages and what labour, are the only questions. The employer owns his business, makes all decisions regarding the businesses direction, chooses how his business will operate, promote, demote, fire his employees. Should the business care about the environment? Should it care about the community? Should it do anything? Only the capitalist decides, the employees have no voice. That is why it doesn't matter if we're talking about high-level employees or low-level employees who make nothing, we're only talking about the ability of an employee to negotiate or resign in opposition more easily. The profit drive is to pay for expenses, enable the business to grow and enrich the capitalist. The employee only exchanges labour for wages, they're not involved in what happens to profit. In every single situation, about everything, the employer has near-absolute command and his authority is in-built into capitalism. It's not dependant upon his wealth, status or connections, the employer-class simply has these authorities over employees and that's how capitalism works. — Judaka

I agree with all of this too, except your claims that how much wealth the employer and employee have relative to each other is irrelevant. The person who is the employer (call him Bob) is always going to be the person with the more wealth, because the only reason the other person (call her Alice) works for Bob is that Bob owns the stuff needed to do the work and Alice doesn't. If Alice did (or could) own the stuff needed to do the work herself, she could go into business for herself, and not work for Bob. She might still choose to work for Bob after all, but because she would have the easy option to not work for him without any great loss, he wouldn't be able to be abusive of her, since she wouldn't need him; it'd be more like she worked with him, than for him.

So, I contend it's the very system, rather than the specifics or specific people and the unethical employer-employee relation which is by itself, a class-based system. The unequal resources are a product of the unequal system, the inequality of the relationship goes deeper than that for me. — Judaka

I agree that it's a systemic issue, not anything about specific people. My contention though is that it's the inequality of wealth that creates and perpetuates those class differences that underlie the employer-employee relationship. That some people own the means of production and others don't is why those others have to work for the first class. I don't see how you would go about fixing the abusive employer-employee relationship without freeing the employees from their dependence on the employers, which dependence comes from their unequal wealth.

The usual state-socialist solution is just to take wealth from the owners to give the the workers, "manually" fixing the problem. I don't have a strong objection to that as a band-aid at least, a way of ameliorating the symptoms of the problem, though it's not a perfect solution as it depends on state force backed by violence to accomplish. I'm much more interested in the cause of the disease in the first place: what is it exactly about the specific system of legal rights and obligations that underlie capitalism that makes it the case that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and so we end up with these owner and worker classes and the exploitative relationship between them?

The usual anarcho-socialist answer to that question is that it's the state protecting private ownership of things that other people are using that's at fault: if the government just stopped acting like the apartment building is the property of some guy who doesn't even live there, instead of the property of the people who live there, then the people who live there could just keep their rent money for themselves and not have to pay that other guy just to keep living where they do. (And since they wouldn't owe that rent anymore, they wouldn't need as much money from a job, and so could walk away from an abusive employer much more easily; never mind saving up the rent money they would have been spending to just buy some means of production of their own so they don't have to work for anyone but themselves anymore.)

But you and I already agree that that's not the best solution. So I have my other proposed solution that I've already described, instead; the one about contracts of rent and interest.

By necessity, the employer must delegate tasks but how these tasks are performed and judged, the authority and resources they have, are all things he decides. I'm not interested in democratising the power of a shift supervisor, the decisions they make don't interest me. What's your game here anyway Carlos? Why do you care so much about capitalism that you're willing to resort to these absurd tactics to defend it? — Judaka

This isn't about capitalism, this is about how organizations work. Any organization. The boss cannot know and does not know all the features of those little jobs making the bureaucrat the de facto expert there. The further down the chain the more clueless the boss is. I was in the military for 6 years -- an insanely hierarchical organization - and I can tell you that there is no way the Colonels or the Generals (who are far from the real bosses anyways, the real boss is Biden) have that close daily understanding of what's going on in offices. The day-to-day management is enacted and enforced by the equivalent of middle-management and there's layers of authority even within that. Yes, these middle management have strong ad hoc authority and they can make your life hell without even speaking with a Colonel. That's power.

Look into the de facto/de jure distinction.

Middle management and supervisors control how tasks are completed.

It is about capitalism, this is but a single justification of yours, which isn't a justification at all but a distraction. Authoritarian governments delegate power, so what? Hitler, a dictator? Not really, there were many German commanders, lieutenants, officers who had authority in Germany! Except that's not how we define what a dictatorship is, it's not how we define democracy, the natural consequence of the necessity for delegation is not a way to equalise every political and economic system. Your point is moot, it is another low bar set for capitalism, but my question is why? Why are you trying to make things so easy for capitalism by giving it hoops to jump over like slavery and authoritarianism?

I was making an explanation since you seemed to be under the impression that the boss controls how all tasks are done.

My point was that in these delegations of power - even under Hitler - people within those ranks of bureaucracy have latitude and real decisions to make. Middle management are not mindless automatons mindlessly following orders. The way you phrase things is like only the head boss has agency and everyone else just follows his orders. It's not reflective of reality at all. An order or a regulation is far from actual performance and execution.

Anyway, back to an earlier question: Is it immoral for me to offer you a job? Is it abusive?

My point was that in these delegations of power - even under Hitler - people within those ranks of bureaucracy have latitude and real decisions to make. Middle management are not mindless automatons mindlessly following orders. The way you phrase things is like only the head boss has agency and everyone else just follows his orders. It's not reflective of reality at all. — BitconnectCarlos

I seemed to you to think delegation doesn't exist or you are just making nonsense points to distract from criticisms of capitalism? Your "point" is noted. The employer makes all the important decisions, they wield absolute authority - similarly, Hitler wielded absolute authority, delegation for either role doesn't change how much authority either has. I factored all of this in when arriving at my conclusion, but it's not good enough, delegation of power isn't a substitute for democracy or any of the other things I value, nor should it work that way for you.

Anyway, back to an earlier question: Is it immoral for me to offer you a job? Is it abusive? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not interested in discussing the morality of employers, only the ethics of the system.

— Judaka

The employer makes all the important decisions, they wield absolute authority - similarly, — Judaka

Please clarify this. Who are you talking about? The founder? CEO? The person interviewing you for the job? The hiring manager who approves the applicant? Or are you talking about just the entire company as an abstract entity? Maybe the board?

I'm not interested in discussing the morality of employers, only the ethics of the system. — Judaka

Well "the system" starts with a job offer in a free market.

You might be right, I understood you to be arguing in favour of something bizarre but it appears those concerns were invalid. Perhaps if we discussed libertarianism, we would disagree more but it seems we agree on most things here.

I agree that it's a systemic issue, not anything about specific people. My contention though is that it's the inequality of wealth that creates and perpetuates those class differences that underlie the employer-employee relationship. That some people own the means of production and others don't is why those others have to work for the first class. I don't see how you would go about fixing the abusive employer-employee relationship without freeing the employees from their dependence on the employers, which dependence comes from their unequal wealth. — Pfhorrest

The transfer of the means of production would be sufficient, that's what I think. At worst, what I want is the democratisation of workforces, even if the workers do not own the means of production, simply having them be able to decide things and have leaders accountable to them would be preferable to this. There is a range of acceptable solutions though some are more ideal than others.

I don't know my preferred solution to rent currently, it's something on my list of things to think about and research. So, I'll discuss it another time.

Please clarify this. Who are you talking about? The founder? CEO? The person interviewing you for the job? The hiring manager who approves the applicant? Or are you talking about just the entire company as an abstract entity? — BitconnectCarlos

The owners or their representatives, aka not employees.

Well "the system" starts with a job offer in a free market. — BitconnectCarlos

And a tsunami consists of droplets of water.

I remember your definition of oppression, you mean "unfair", right? "Unjust"? You're asking whether offering someone a job is unjust? You've already shown your proclivity for allowing dumb exceptions to save your positions, if you want to talk about what you know, the literal employer of a business, give me an example and we can explore it.

The owners or their representatives, aka not employees. — Judaka

Are you talking about the CEO? How about the board of directors? The board of directors act on behalf of investors. This is not totalitarianism where the owner can do whatever he wants.

:up:

Capitalism has innumerable variations but most of them do not pervert the basic system. — Judaka

I stopped reading there, and did not continue in consideration of anything else you had to say, or in contemplation of any questions you may have asked. I think something needs to be cleared up. I will then be leaving, not because you are not worthy of engagement, but because I tire of TPF and would like to take a break of undetermined length. On the contrary, I find your intellectual curiosity to be sincere and I enjoy reading your posts. For now I will simply say:

True capitalism has some fundamental, foundational constituents, the absence of which makes for something that is not capitalism. I don't care if self-identified capitalists, or their opposition, want to paint a system as such, or a variation on it: If these constituents are not present, then capitalism has been left behind:

1. Property ownership;
2. Voluntary or negotiated payment in exchange.

Here I am setting aside, and capitalism itself often overlooks, how ownership was originally obtained, whether the obtaining was legal, ethical, moral, voluntary or negotiated. There are a plethora of legal principles, some fiction, some real, which permit a baseline from which ownership is stipulated. I'm not going to lay all those out for you at this time. But suffice it to say, one can own their body, their labor, a widget, an acre, an idea, a breath for their lungs, the food in their mouth, their personal space, their dignity, the integrity of their being, a legal or Constitutional or regulatory right, etc. ad infinitum.

If at any time that which is yours is taken from you outside of #2, then you do not have capitalism. You have something else, but you do not have capitalism. I don't care how anyone spins it, you do not have capitalism. It's not me making this shit up as I go, or creating artificial prerequisites to support my own bias. It simply is what it is.

All you have to do, Judaka, to attack the people that you and I both think are FOS, is to call them out and hang them on a petard they pay lip service to, but do not actually abide. I understand your frustration, but you are letting them define the terms of debate, and pervert capitalism to what they want it to be, in convivence of their own pursuit of greed, and in an effort to shut you down. They are availing themselves of nuanced version of socialism, where they privatize the profits and externalize (socialize) the costs. That is not capitalism and it's not a flavor of capitalism. It's not even a perversion of capitalism. If you take something without paying what is asked, you are a fucking thief. You are not a capitalist.

I could go on with how government fits in to all of this (corporations are a creature of the state), and how we entice capital into the markets outside of capitalism, and how we agree to externalize costs onto all or a few in furtherance of what should be the common good (if the people actually owned their government, which they don't, because it's been stolen). But alas, I tire.

I wish all the best to all of you. Have fun.

I'm reading a fun book recommended to me by Tim Wood and it's stimulated my writing bug, so I'm off to that. Peace.