Tweet
In the last thread I gave a specific challenge to the right with my opening post. That was to successfully argue that taking profit, rent and interest was fair. My argument was that people without property are denied equal treatment by the system, and that a political and economic system that treats people unequally is unjust.
Several people on the right insist that they were successful. That is absurd. Let me try to help you understand why nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn’t matter that I was never given the chance to give closing statement. It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed. You lost because none of you even addressed my challenge. You lost by default. I offer you another chance though.
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.
Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.
The argument from the right in the previous thread argued that taking profit is fair because the employee is capable of owning property in the future. This is just like arguing that in my hypothetical example the game is fair because my team has a chance to win. Nothing but complete nonsense, and coming from so many people on the right that I’m simply amazed. Of course my team is not given an equal chance to win the game. Therefore the game is not fair.
Like in the game, people without property are forced to accept an agreement with those with property to work and live. That agreement is to allow the property owners to collect profit, rent and interest while those with no property do what they must to survive.
In time the workers can make sacrifices to own property. Maybe they can one day own more property than those they worked for in the past. Does this make the situation where capitalists collected profit from their employees work fair? Certainly not.
Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.
At no point in time will the employee be given equal compensation, because the original deal was never fair. Can the employee escape exploitation? Yes. Is it fair? No. Just because the employee doesn’t have to be exploited anymore, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t exploited in the past. If you think so, there is a problem with your logic. Once again, I give you a very specific challenge. Show that those without property are given equal treatment by the capitalist system. If you can then maybe you can really win the debate. If you can’t don’t bother proclaiming that you have won. You only fool yourself.
Several people on the right insist that they were successful. That is absurd. Let me try to help you understand why nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn’t matter that I was never given the chance to give closing statement. It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed. You lost because none of you even addressed my challenge. You lost by default. I offer you another chance though.
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.
Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.
The argument from the right in the previous thread argued that taking profit is fair because the employee is capable of owning property in the future. This is just like arguing that in my hypothetical example the game is fair because my team has a chance to win. Nothing but complete nonsense, and coming from so many people on the right that I’m simply amazed. Of course my team is not given an equal chance to win the game. Therefore the game is not fair.
Like in the game, people without property are forced to accept an agreement with those with property to work and live. That agreement is to allow the property owners to collect profit, rent and interest while those with no property do what they must to survive.
In time the workers can make sacrifices to own property. Maybe they can one day own more property than those they worked for in the past. Does this make the situation where capitalists collected profit from their employees work fair? Certainly not.
Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.
At no point in time will the employee be given equal compensation, because the original deal was never fair. Can the employee escape exploitation? Yes. Is it fair? No. Just because the employee doesn’t have to be exploited anymore, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t exploited in the past. If you think so, there is a problem with your logic. Once again, I give you a very specific challenge. Show that those without property are given equal treatment by the capitalist system. If you can then maybe you can really win the debate. If you can’t don’t bother proclaiming that you have won. You only fool yourself.
Are you serious?
Comment