Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And if you had $200 at the beginning of a transaction and $50 at the end, I would say you lost $150, no matter what the intermidiate steps were, whether there was a land deal gone sour, or some guy came and coned you out of it (they could be the very same thing)

Yah, you lost money, but not property.

Property is the more general term and Money is the more specific term. You can substitute a general term for a specific term, but you cannot do the opposite. Property can be placed in a sentance for money (because all money is property), but money cannot be placed for property (because all property is NOT money).

Imran, money is property. If it's not you have no property rights to it. So if I take your money then I will not have broken the law

[Velociryx]

As you yourself have said, the system (capitalism) has no morals attached to it. It is merely a system describing the allocation of goods and services.

As such, it's pretty well suited to operate under any sort of religious background.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Imran is threadjacking. What does your point mean Imran?

[Velociryx]

and you say the worth of individuals is based on whether they do porductive work

I said this? Really? That's pretty amazing. I'd like to see that quote too!

Yes, the value of an individual's economic worth is measured by his productive works, but how is that in ANY way connected to his value as a human being?

Human beings ought not get paid a stipend for simply being alive, but because they ought not, how do you make the jump in logic that they're somehow of lesser value?

-=Vel=-
(genuinely curious)

[Imran Siddiqui]

So someone can steal your land too. This does not address the basic point.

Your basic point is that you have no right to keep your property, and backed it by saying that you can lose money on a bad investment. However, theft is forbidden, indicating that people believe that there is a right to keep property, and the only way property can legally be taken from you is if you consentually give it up in legally defined ways.

Imran, money is property. If it's not you have no property rights to it.

property > money

Money is a subset of property, but NOT the entire thing!

[JohnT]

"There is a reason Christian socialisms is one of the oldest groups, or why so many communes were created by Christian groups."

Yes, because Communism was invented in the West, a very predominately* Christian society. Otoh, I'm not too sure that one follows the other because, after all, Marx was, you know, Jewish. And so was Engels, unless my memory is failing me...

*Yeah, bad English. Live with it.

[Velociryx]

Know how you feel, Imran, we've been doing that same thing for DAYS now (and now that GePap is here questioning things that should be bedrocks "but daddy, why is stealing wrong") we'll prolly see a lot more. Stock up on Tylenol....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: Just to make sure I'm getting you, it's okay if I transfer deed and title of my private property (which you are not against), to my kids, so long as they don't use it to collect rent, or to finance evil capitalist enterprises (ie - they can never take a mortgage out against the value of the house, cos GOD ONLY KNOWS what they would do with the money!)

How do you plan to check? I mean, to see that they don't rent a room out to a travelling student or a weary traveller, for that matter?

And what will you do to them if they do? Gulag again? That place is filling up quick! We might better just start killing some of them, you know....make more room!

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

Sent ya a couple of PM's Vel.

[Velociryx]

Back atcha, Master John! (tho admittedly, I didn't see 'em at first! )

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and you say the worth of individuals is based on whether they do porductive work

I said this? Really? That's pretty amazing. I'd like to see that quote too!

Yes, the value of an individual's economic worth is measured by his productive works, but how is that in ANY way connected to his value as a human being?

Human beings ought not get paid a stipend for simply being alive, but because they ought not, how do you make the jump in logic that they're somehow of lesser value?

-=Vel=-
(genuinely curious)

But in a system where without money you starve, what is the functional difference? To live you must (in your system) do a basic amount of work, so is then your life not based on work?

And fi people can be valued at all (and eocnommist do so every second), it stands to reason smoe most be of higher value than others to the system (otherwise, why value them at all) for some reason.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: Just to make sure I'm getting you, it's okay if I transfer deed and title of my private property (which you are not against), to my kids, so long as they don't use it to collect rent, or to finance evil capitalist enterprises (ie - they can never take a mortgage out against the value of the house, cos GOD ONLY KNOWS what they would do with the money!)

How do you plan to check? I mean, to see that they don't rent a room out to a travelling student or a weary traveller, for that matter?

And what will you do to them if they do? Gulag again? That place is filling up quick! We might better just start killing some of them, you know....make more room!

-=Vel=-

The law will be broken. It's not a big deal. I wouldn't spend a lot of resources policing it. However, if someone started building an enterprise then they would suffer serious consequences including the lose of everything that they aquired.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So someone can steal your land too. This does not address the basic point.

Your basic point is that you have no right to keep your property, and backed it by saying that you can lose money on a bad investment. However, theft is forbidden, indicating that people believe that there is a right to keep property, and the only way property can legally be taken from you is if you consentually give it up in legally defined ways.

Maybe GePap's point was that when you speculate with your property someone else may well end up with your property. If you have a right to your property why are they able to get it?

[JohnT]

The answer lies within your question... because you speculated* with it.

*Also defined as "gambling."

[Velociryx]

Because, Kid, in a free society you "have enough rope to hang yourself." If you make bad choices, you can lose your property, it's true.

Likewise, if you sell it, you lose your rights to it.

You can't change your mind later and demand it back....



-=Vel=-