In America Them that got gets, the rest pay taxes

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,
OK, first of all I understand your point about most current property (by which I assume you mean mainly land) being the result of theft. I agree with you, in many cases.

But what I was talking about was the natural right to property, to own one's own labor, and to me, this is a right that exists regardless of who is in power, or what economic philosophy they subscribe to.

It also includes capital, as rents on stolen land as well as the profits from stolen labor are converted into capital. There's no way around the original sin of capitalism.

On your second point, labor is not property, it is an activity. You cannot own labor. The ability to labor, i.e., labor-power, is however property, and no better system than capitalism has yet been devised to remove from people their right to freely dispose of their labor-power.

[blackice]

No, but if you can't afford a family on Wendy's pay

You are a woman divorced and had poor parents and little education. Again it is a cycle you can not ignore it.

If you can't bring your kids up with the financial resources you have, don't have kids

Kids happen ask any parent again it seems you simply ignore reality because to you it is simple and or does not exsist in your perfect world. The cycle continues.

I don't think they should, but I think that if, say,

Now child labor

The difference is you can opt out of banks,

Evil is out thier in all classes to single one out is to promote hate against that class of people. There all laws for people like you.

I don't hate the poor. I don't hate anyone. I'm simply very much against those who would steal in order to better themselves.

No problem, then why single out poor people? Is it because they can not afford to defend themselves and make for easy prey?

You don't have to use a bank, and can you be more specific when you refer to businesses?

I get it you cash your wendy's check at the local money mart which robs you blind because you do not have a bank account. I really do not think you have put much thought into this stance you have.

Look if you invest in these people you have more people with money and less people without. Simple really the cycle stops.

[David Floyd]

It also includes capital, as rents on stolen land as well as the profits from stolen labor are converted into capital. There's no way around the original sin of capitalism.

Much of this stolen land was stolen before capitalism existed, and very little was stolen in the name of capitalism. Let's not blame capitalism in general for the actions of the morally corrupt and the empire builders.

On your second point, labor is not property, it is an activity. You cannot own labor.

Labor is certainly an activity, and one can own the products of that activity. When I say that I own my labor, what I really mean is that I own the products of my labor.
Now, I know where you're gonna take this, and if I decide to contract with someone else to sell them my labor (the products of my labor) in exchange for a specified amount of goods or services, that is certainly my prerogative.

The ability to labor, i.e., labor-power, is however property, and no better system than capitalism has yet been devised to remove from people their right to freely dispose of their labor-power.

That's certainly not the case. Capitalism - at least laissez faire - thrives on voluntary contracts between individuals or groups of individuals. Translation - if you don't want someone else to own the products of your labor, fine. Don't contract with them for that to be the case. It's your choice. I'm sure you can be totally self-sufficient on your own farm, in your own log cabin, with no running water or indoor plumbing.
But that's sorta the point. While someone COULD be totally self-sufficient, and retain all of the products of their own labor, why would they want to? I'd much rather have electricity, running water, a nice apartment, a car, etc., and to get those things, I have to contract with others - I work for an employer, who pays me for my labor. I then use that compensation in order to pay others for their labor (or, more accurately, reimburse those who paid others for their labor) so that I can obtain goods and services.

Frankly, I fail to see the problem with this system.

[chequita guevara]

blackice, ever read Merchants of Misery? It's all about the poverty industry, the financial institutions that exist specficically to prey upon the poor. Since the poor are more likely to have no credit or poor credit they get denied bank accounts, and have to rely upon currency exchanges, payday loans, etc. It makes for some really grim reading. "Financing" the poor was a growth industry in the '90s, making massive profits. Then there's the abuse, including physical violence, extotions, and trading for sex that goes on by folks lower in the industry.

[David Floyd]

You are a woman divorced and had poor parents and little education. Again it is a cycle you can not ignore it.

Look, you can contrive any example you want to. What it's going to come down to is, first of all, other people's problems are not my own, and secondly, there are multiple avenues people can take in order to help themselves, such as church, charity, and family.

Kids happen ask any parent again it seems you simply ignore reality because to you it is simple and or does not exsist in your perfect world.

Kids happen because of an act called sex. Sex, I hope you will agree, does not "just happen".

Now child labor

Call it whatever you like - if a 13 year old is able and willing to work, I see no legal reason they should not be allowed to, although I would certainly hope the parents in question would put the kid's education first.

Evil is out thier in all classes to single one out is to promote hate against that class of people.

I was singling out poor people (more accurately, poor people willing to steal in order to better themselves) because we were talking about various forms of welfare and entitlements.

No problem, then why single out poor people? Is it because they can not afford to defend themselves and make for easy prey?

No, it's because that's what we were talking about at the time. You wanna talk about evil rich men? Fine, I have no problem with that, they are certainly out there.

I get it you cash your wendy's check at the local money mart which robs you blind because you do not have a bank account.

If you're worried about the money mart, then use the bank. Open a checking account, you earn interest on your money and its easy to find free checking. Let's not be ridiculous here.
What I think you were referring to are bank loans, and specifically interest rates on those loans. My point was, if you don't like the interest rates, don't take out loans.

Look if you invest in these people you have more people with money and less people without. Simple really the cycle stops.

I'm not concerned with this abstract "cycle", I'm concerned with the integrity of my property rights.

[blackice]

chegitz guevara No I have not but I have seen it first hand. I understand the power banks and wealthy have or the common folk.

As our finance minister once said, banks employ a form of legal extortion.

[David Floyd]

banks employ a form of legal extortion.

Wait a second. Banks are a totally voluntary institution - you don't have to use a bank. Taxes and government are not voluntary. Yet banks employ "legal extortion" and governments do not? That isn't too consistent.

[blackice]

What it's going to come down to is.

In your world yes.

Kids happen because of an act called sex. Sex, I hope you will agree, does not "just happen".

It does just happen, condoms break etc.

Call it whatever you like

Parents that have no money? You seem to go all over the map here and are hard to follow.

If you're worried about the money mart, then use the bank. Open a checking account, you earn interest on your money and its easy to find free checking. Let's not be ridiculous here.

poor prople can not open bank accounts. Interest good one, speaking of rediculous.

I'm concerned with the integrity of my property rights.

Which will be threatened even more if you ingore the widening gap between rich and poor.

[David Floyd]

It does just happen, condoms break etc.

The sure way to avoid having children is to not have sex.

Parents that have no money? You seem to go all over the map here and are hard to follow.

What are you talking about? I was talking about letting 13 year olds work.

poor prople can not open bank accounts.

I have one. I've always had one, and I'm certainly not rich.
But you know what? Even assuming you are correct, there is no reason a group of poor people can't come together and form their own private bank.

Which will be threatened even more if you ingore the widening gap between rich and poor.

Yes, they will be threatened as a result of poor people acting immorally and resorting to theft.

[Ramo]

che is absolutely correct. Capitalism is built upon centuries of coercion. The "capitalist" revolutions in Napoleonic France, Cromwellian England, etc., etc. were founded upon the enclosure of communal peasant lands (hence, for instance, the odd bedfellows in 19th century Latin America when the peasantry and the conservatives consistently allied against the liberals). And this phenomenon continues to this day.

The problem with libertarian capitalist philosophy is that its adherents believe that coercion to protect property is perfectly fine, but only the property claims that already have state recognition should be respected (see the perspectives they tend to have on land reform).

[David Floyd]

che is absolutely correct. Capitalism is built upon centuries of coercion. The "capitalist" revolutions in Napoleonic France, Cromwellian England, etc., etc. were founded upon the enclosure of communal peasant lands (hence, for instance, the odd bedfellows in 19th century Latin America when the peasantry and the conservatives consistently allied against the liberals). And this phenomenon continues to this day.

I would not call Cromwellian England or Napoleonic France capitalist, by any means, nor would I call the regimes that followed them capitalist.

The problem with libertarian capitalist philosophy is that its adherents believe that coercion to protect property is perfectly fine, but only the property claims that already have state recognition should be respected (see the perspectives they tend to have on land reform).

Find me a living person who has been outright robbed of his land or property, and I'll be more than happy to see that he gets it back. Otherwise, you are simply proposing slavery reparations on a large scale, which is preposterous. I did nothing to American Indians, and you can't find a living one who was alive during the time of "Manifest Destiny", and all that. Where's the logic in harming an innocent person (me) in order to give land to someone who never owned it and was never harmed by me owning it?

Now, show me that the land I currently live on was stolen from a living person, and I'll be happy to vacate.

[Promethus]

DF

If my grandfather robbed your grandfather of his land would you still take the possition that I am entitled to the land not you?

[Ramo]

I would not call Cromwellian England or Napoleonic France capitalist, by any means, nor would I call the regimes that followed them capitalist.

Well, the general elements of capitalism were there (i.e. those societies were what most capitalists would consider capitalist). Under a libertarian capitalist definition, capitalism may not have existed there (and in fact, never existed except in socialist societies), but that's why I put the word in quotes.

Otherwise, you are simply proposing slavery reparations on a large scale, which is preposterous.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the libertarian concept of absolute property rights is faulty, and the moral situation is much more ambiguous than y'all make it out to be. The only proposition I'm making is that in certain circumstances (namely in those where such action would reduce coercion), it is perfectly just for workers to seize the means of production through force.

[Shi Huangdi]

I had a job last summer, where I had to pay taxes. I didn't like having to pay taxes.

[Sikander]

I'd like to see the U.S. move away from income taxes and toward sales taxes. It would be a simple thing to exempt necessities like food, rent etc. in order to introduce a small element of graduation. The benefits would be that there would be an incentive to save and a disincentive to spend / borrow for consumer items. In addition poorer people would be less likely to run amock with endless demands for more services, as there would be a more direct relation between government spending and prices for them. Finally it will be much more difficult for government to write such a complicated tax code that theoretically taxes the rich more than the poor, but in the case of some bold and immoral persons and organizations loopholes are written in that allow them to escape paying their fair share. As it stands now the powerful are able to write the tax code to their advantage, and the perception of the problem is probably worse than the reality. Make it simple and fair, and people will support it and worry about their own productivity instead of trying to steal from one another.