[Truth To Power]

This is not true. It could only be true IF all poor people were poor for the same reason.

Wrong and illogical. I've never said there was only one cause of poverty, in fact I have identified the three principal ones: misfortune, fecklessness, and privilege. Of these, by far the most important is privilege. Understanding the causes comes first no matter how many there are.

Government's rightful function is determined by the will of the majority of the people in a nominal democracy.

Wrong again. A majority vote can't make wrongful actions rightful.

Nonsense. This does not even make sense.

It makes perfect sense. It merely names facts that you have decided not to know.

I know a PhD who is a crack addict. Care to guess why he is poor? Just note that you have not mentioned yet the reason.

Poor choices. We are talking about institutional causes of poverty, not one individual's poor choices.

You have obviously never actually worked with the poor.

I have.

The FIRST thing a poor person needs is protection, food, shelter and clothing.

Why do they lack those things?

Blank out.

"When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a communist." -- Dom Helder Camara

While you and your libertard friends are kvetching about how to accomplish all of this stuff you are nattering on about thousands or millions would starve.

Millions ARE starving in places like Venezuela because socialist know-nothings refuse to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that I have been identifying on this forum for years.

So try again. Try to tell us, in 25 words or less, whether the government should act when it sees a starving person, or a homeless child....and when.

It should have acted long before, by securing every individual's equal rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, rather than removing their rights to liberty through privilege, and robbing them of their wages through taxation, for the benefit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

[Truth To Power]

I would say that the leverage that helps perpetuate the class system does not necessarily stop the worker from becoming a capitalist, but it is definitely a major obstacle when it comes to the worker becoming a capitalist.

Whether the worker wants to become a capitalist or not, the factory owner's "leverage" does not deprive the worker of any opportunity he would otherwise have had, or of his wages. The landowner's does. You know this, but are just trying to contrive some way of not knowing it.

Both the landowner and the capitalist do this.

No, that is factually incorrect. The factory owner has no power to deprive the worker of any opportunity he would otherwise have had. The landowner does, by law.

The faxt that the landowner makes money off the deal as well does not magically prove that the capitalist does not make money.

Whether they make money or not is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is whether they make money commensurately with their contributions to production, as the worker and factory owner do, or without making any contribution, as the landowner does.

Factory owners are not productive. They are parasites.

No, that is objectively false. The factory owner has provided the tools, buildings, etc. that make the worker's labor orders of magnitude more productive, and which the worker would not have had the opportunity to use had the factory owner not provided them. You know this.

Also, the factory owner often owns the land.

Are you serious? The fact that the same person might do two different things doesn't make those things the same thing. A priest might also be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean being a priest is the same thing as being a pedophile. Do you understand that that is how illogical and fallacious your "argument" is?

Both capitalists and landowners create and sustain the capitalist class system.

No, that is objectively false, as already proved. The factory owner only offers the worker access to better opportunities than he would otherwise have been able to access. The landowner DEPRIVES the worker of access to opportunities he WOULD otherwise have been at liberty to access. You know this. You merely have to contrive some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I am simply going to say that gov't should take care of the poor.

How's that working for you in Venezuela?

GET IT???

[SolarCross]

The factory owner only offers the worker access to better opportunities than he would otherwise have been able to access. The landowner DEPRIVES the worker of access to opportunities he WOULD otherwise have been at liberty to access.

I think it is fair to say that the landowner deprives others of access to that land but is it not usually the case that people take or buy ownership of land in order to do something that requires exclusive control? I might buy some land for the purpose of building a house to live in, or site a factory or office.. the reason for doing that is in order to have a home or a business function as it should I need to control who enters that site and what they do there. I can't endure random strangers rummaging through my wife's jewelry box in the middle of the night, nor can I endure random strangers helping themselves to stock from my business. Okay now there is another reason for owning land which is to exact rents from others using that space, probably this is the "injustice" you are really interested in. However isn't even rent seeking just a form of arbitrage? As in maybe I don't have the money at a particular time to buy outright a parcel of land or only need it temporarily, then I would want someone else to buy it and just buy the usage rights from them for a smaller portion of time. Isn't that just like renting a tool or a car?

[Pants-of-dog]

Whether the worker wants to become a capitalist or not, the factory owner's "leverage" does not deprive the worker of any opportunity he would otherwise have had, or of his wages.

No, that is factually incorrect. The factory owner has no power to deprive the worker of any opportunity he would otherwise have had. The landowner does, by law.

Whether they make money or not is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is whether they make money commensurately with their contributions to production, as the worker and factory owner do, or without making any contribution, as the landowner does.

No, that is objectively false. The factory owner has provided the tools, buildings, etc. that make the worker's labor orders of magnitude more productive, and which the worker would not have had the opportunity to use had the factory owner not provided them. You know this.

No, that is objectively false, as already proved. The factory owner only offers the worker access to better opportunities than he would otherwise have been able to access.

The fact that the factory owner is not legally constraining the worker from anything does not, in any way, contradict my claim that the ownership of capital perpetuates the capitalist class system through leverage of economic power.

The landowner's does. You know this, but are just trying to contrive some way of not knowing it.

The landowner DEPRIVES the worker of access to opportunities he WOULD otherwise have been at liberty to access. You know this. You merely have to contrive some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I do not disagree at all that the landowner also uses his or her leverage to maintain his or her power and perpetuate a class system. What you do not seem to understand is that I am not pretending to not know it.

I agree. Is that clear?

Are you serious? The fact that the same person might do two different things doesn't make those things the same thing. A priest might also be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean being a priest is the same thing as being a pedophile. Do you understand that that is how illogical and fallacious your "argument" is?

Since I never argued that they were the same thing, this is another moment where we are not actually disagreeing.

How's that working for you in Venezuela?

GET IT???

I get the fact that you are arguing that Venezuela's problems are a result of literacy programs and free health care, and are not due to the fact that they are a developing nation.

Mexico is a capitalist devleoping nation. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, flee the country for better economic prospects in the US. According to your logic, this is a damning example of how capitalism sucks.

[Truth To Power]

The fact that the factory owner is not legally constraining the worker from anything does not, in any way, contradict my claim that the ownership of capital perpetuates the capitalist class system through leverage of economic power.

Yes, actually, it does. It flat-out disproves it. The factory owner qua factory owner has no privilege. He has to compete in the market like the worker, and his expected return is commensurately low. The main difference is merely that the factory owner's return is much more variable than the worker's, and is higher in compensation for that risk. The worker gets his wages with great reliability. The factory owner may make a lot of money, but may also lose a lot. The worker doesn't put in a day's work and then wait to find out if he made money that day or will have some removed from his bank account. The factory owner does. It's that vastly higher level of risk that justifies the factory owner's occasional high return, not "economic power." Unlike the landowner, who has the power to deprive people of their liberty, the factory owner has no more economic power than the worker.

I do not disagree at all that the landowner also uses his or her leverage to maintain his or her power and perpetuate a class system. What you do not seem to understand is that I am not pretending to not know it.

I agree. Is that clear?

No, because you still refuse to know that the factory owner has no privilege, and thus no "leverage." He is just as much at the mercy of competition as the worker. His "leverage," to which you seem to take such exception, is merely that he could easily lose his shirt, and many do, and to get people to take that greater risk they have to believe they have a chance at commensurately greater returns.

Since I never argued that they were the same thing, this is another moment where we are not actually disagreeing.

So you agree that the fact that one person may own both land and a factory on the land does not in any way argue that landowner and factory owner play similar roles in the capitalist class system?

I get the fact that you are arguing that Venezuela's problems are a result of literacy programs and free health care, and are not due to the fact that they are a developing nation.

That is an absurd strawman, because literacy programs and free health care are not socialism. Government owning the factories and appropriating the products of labor is socialism, and that is why Venezuela is collapsing into starvation.

Mexico is a capitalist devleoping nation. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, flee the country for better economic prospects in the US. According to your logic, this is a damning example of how capitalism sucks.

Of course. Mexico is in many ways even more capitalist than the USA. Certainly ownership of land is more concentrated, and landowner privilege even more egregious and profitable.

[Truth To Power]

I think it is fair to say that the landowner deprives others of access to that land but is it not usually the case that people take or buy ownership of land in order to do something that requires exclusive control?

Of course.

I might buy some land for the purpose of building a house to live in, or site a factory or office.. the reason for doing that is in order to have a home or a business function as it should I need to control who enters that site and what they do there. I can't endure random strangers rummaging through my wife's jewelry box in the middle of the night, nor can I endure random strangers helping themselves to stock from my business.

Of course exclusive land tenure is necessary for a post-nomadic-herding economy to function. The point is that it is a privilege. It gives an economic advantage to the excluder at the expense of the excluded. That abrogation of rights and the concomitant advantage to their abrogator must rightly be compensated.

Okay now there is another reason for owning land which is to exact rents from others using that space, probably this is the "injustice" you are really interested in.

Although the landowner's privilege of pocketing the value created by government and the community is an important injustice, the more important injustice is the uncompensated removal of everyone else's liberty to use the land.

However isn't even rent seeking just a form of arbitrage?

No, it is legalized theft.

As in maybe I don't have the money at a particular time to buy outright a parcel of land or only need it temporarily, then I would want someone else to buy it and just buy the usage rights from them for a smaller portion of time. Isn't that just like renting a tool or a car?

No, because the tool or car would not otherwise have been available to you. The land would.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, actually, it does. It flat-out disproves it. The factory owner qua factory owner has no privilege. He has to compete in the market like the worker, and his expected return is commensurately low. The main difference is merely that the factory owner's return is much more variable than the worker's, and is higher in compensation for that risk. The worker gets his wages with great reliability. The factory owner may make a lot of money, but may also lose a lot. The worker doesn't put in a day's work and then wait to find out if he made money that day or will have some removed from his bank account. The factory owner does. It's that vastly higher level of risk that justifies the factory owner's occasional high return, not "economic power." Unlike the landowner, who has the power to deprive people of their liberty, the factory owner has no more economic power than the worker.

The fact that you believe many incorrect things about wage earners does not, in any way, contradict my claims about how the capitalist class perpetuates the class system by leveraging its economic power.

No, because you still refuse to know that the factory owner has no privilege, and thus no "leverage." He is just as much at the mercy of competition as the worker. His "leverage," to which you seem to take such exception, is merely that he could easily lose his shirt, and many do, and to get people to take that greater risk they have to believe they have a chance at commensurately greater returns.

I have no idea how you can deduce that I am ignorant of how landowners use their economic power as leverage to perpetuate their power because I argue that capitalists also do it.

That makes no sense at all.

So you agree that the fact that one person may own both land and a factory on the land does not in any way argue that landowner and factory owner play similar roles in the capitalist class system?

Yes. The fact that they play similar roles in the capitalist class system has nothing to do with the fact that some people (actually, many) belong to both groups.

That is an absurd strawman, because literacy programs and free health care are not socialism. Government owning the factories and appropriating the products of labor is socialism, and that is why Venezuela is collapsing into starvation.

Programs such as these are often the work of socialists. Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian public health care, described himself as a democratic socialist.

But this is not the point. My point was that Venezuela is a developing nation, and that any analysis of Venezuela's economy that ignores this is almost ceainoy incorrect, or at least limited. So let us look at that point:

Of course. Mexico is in many ways even more capitalist than the USA. Certainly ownership of land is more concentrated, and landowner privilege even more egregious and profitable.

And since Mexico also has rampant poverty, the problem is that they are devleoping nations and not socialism.

[SolarCross]

Of course exclusive land tenure is necessary for a post-nomadic-herding economy to function. The point is that it is a privilege. It gives an economic advantage to the excluder at the expense of the excluded. That abrogation of rights and the concomitant advantage to their abrogator must rightly be compensated.

You mean "privilege" by the actual meaning of the word and not the debased and altered meaning that SJWs attach to it? If so then yes it is usually a privilege but that is because private citizens must have government permission to "own" land as government makes the claim of being the highest owner of the land, a claim it can back up with overwhelming force. It would be government then that is the one that abrogates the "natural" rights of people to use land. Government itself has that ultimate land ownership by the primeval pre-legal way of "right by conquest" and thus not technically a privilege, as the highest owners they are the ones to dispense privileges and not receive them.

Although the landowner's privilege of pocketing the value created by government and the community is an important injustice, the more important injustice is the uncompensated removal of everyone else's liberty to use the land.

It isn't an injustice if those that make justice, the governors, say it isn't; that is the ultimate general truth of law and government. Ask the ungoverned such as the wild hare and wild fox about justice and they will not understand you, outside of governance there is no such thing as justice beyond "might makes right". If I beg for permission from the governors to build a little cottage in Dorset in which to live I risk offending no one but the governors as it is ultimately their land not yours nor POD nor some random Massai warrior a thousand miles away. In theory if this random Masaai were to go on a walking tour of Dorset he may find my cottage in his way and he may be offended by its presence to the point where he demands monetary compensation from me instead of just walking on the road around by cottage. But what is that worth? If anything it is such a vanishingly trivial sum, it wouldn't even be worth demanding it. Yet still I owe him nothing if the governors do not say I do, and I can think of no reason why they would. If the governors just want to raise money from me they don't need pretty excuses they can just demand it and they do.

However isn't even rent seeking just a form of arbitrage?

No, it is legalized theft.

It can't be, because the tenant does not own the property before the freeholder, so the freeholder could not have taken it from the tenant. Before the freeholder the government is the owner, if theft it was then it was theft from the government... which makes no sense as the government is the one who consciously dispensed the freehold to the freeholder. Ultimately the government has the land by "right by conquest" which is as close to theft as can be, perhaps this the legalised theft to which you are referring yet well it may be that, but well.. so it must be for civilisation to be.

As in maybe I don't have the money at a particular time to buy outright a parcel of land or only need it temporarily, then I would want someone else to buy it and just buy the usage rights from them for a smaller portion of time. Isn't that just like renting a tool or a car?

No, because the tool or car would not otherwise have been available to you. The land would.

Neither would the land, it has already been claimed, firstly be government, secondly by the freeholder, thirdly by any existing tenants. You might say the first claim was "unjust" but yet the first claimant is the creator of justice and moreover beyond all but the most serious reprisals or vengeance (requiring heavy duty military force) to punish.

[Truth To Power]

The fact that you believe many incorrect things about wage earners

Name one.

does not, in any way, contradict my claims about how the capitalist class perpetuates the class system by leveraging its economic power.

It disproved your claim. The capital owner has no way to leverage his economic power. All he can do is compete, and that reduces the economic power of every capital owner.

I have no idea how you can deduce that I am ignorant of how landowners use their economic power as leverage to perpetuate their power because I argue that capitalists also do it.

That you think capital owners also do it when they can't proves you don't understand the difference.

The fact that they play similar roles in the capitalist class system has nothing to do with the fact that some people (actually, many) belong to both groups.

It's the reverse: the fact that many belong to both groups has nothing to do with your false claim that they play similar roles in the capitalist class system.

Programs such as these are often the work of socialists. Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian public health care, described himself as a democratic socialist.

This again? The fact that a socialist may advocate or even implement a given policy does not make that policy socialism.

But this is not the point. My point was that Venezuela is a developing nation, and that any analysis of Venezuela's economy that ignores this is almost ceainoy incorrect, or at least limited.

No, because the fact that it is a "developing" nation can't explain why it is rapidly un-developing. Most nations less developed than Venezuela are doing much better.

So let us look at that point:

And you proceed to totally ignore it:

And since Mexico also has rampant poverty, the problem is that they are devleoping nations and not socialism.

NO! The problem in Venezuela is not rampant poverty but rapidly increasing and increasingly widespread poverty, destitution, and starvation caused by socialism. The problem in Mexico is enduring, intractable, but not growing poverty caused by capitalism. Hello? Two different evil and oppressive systems based on opposite interpretations of the same lie we have seen repeated on this forum ad infinitum: that land is capital. But socialism is the one that is currently going off a cliff in Venezuela.

[SolarCross]

No, because the fact that it is a "developing" nation can't explain why it is rapidly un-developing. Most nations less developed than Venezuela are doing much better.

QFT, indeed Venezuala might once of been a "developing" nation but that was before Chavez, now it is really un-developing, just as you say.

[Truth To Power]

You mean "privilege" by the actual meaning of the word and not the debased and altered meaning that SJWs attach to it?

Legal entitlements to benefit by the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights. I certainly don't mean "white privilege."

If so then yes it is usually a privilege but that is because private citizens must have government permission to "own" land as government makes the claim of being the highest owner of the land, a claim it can back up with overwhelming force.

"Permission"? No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to own land without government's active enforcement of exclusive tenure. People can only ever own land at all by government's say-so.

It would be government then that is the one that abrogates the "natural" rights of people to use land.

Anyone who excludes others from using land without making just compensation abrogates their rights. Governments just typically do it on behalf of private land "owners."

Government itself has that ultimate land ownership by the primeval pre-legal way of "right by conquest" and thus not technically a privilege, as the highest owners they are the ones to dispense privileges and not receive them.

Conquest does not confer rights, only power and authority. As the sovereign authority over the land, with a duty to administer its possession and use, government is indeed the dispenser of landowner privilege.

It isn't an injustice if those that make justice, the governors, say it isn't;

Governors don't make justice. They may try to administer it, but they don't make it.

that is the ultimate general truth of law and government.

Nope. False. The ultimate truth of law and government is that government only exists to implement a justice prior and superior to it.

Ask the ungoverned such as the wild hare and wild fox about justice and they will not understand you,

Because they are not human beings. Every normal human being understands justice, and knows government is neither its source nor its ultimate arbiter. A few wild animals do demonstrate a primitive concept of justice, but rights only apply to human beings. Animals have instincts.

outside of governance there is no such thing as justice beyond "might makes right".

That is false. Even months-old infants show clear understanding of justice.

If I beg for permission from the governors to build a little cottage in Dorset in which to live I risk offending no one but the governors as it is ultimately their land not yours nor POD nor some random Massai warrior a thousand miles away.

Irrelevant. The fact that land is not mine doesn't mean I have no right to use it, just as the fact that the letter A is not mine doesn't mean I have no right to use it.

In theory if this random Masaai were to go on a walking tour of Dorset he may find my cottage in his way and he may be offended by its presence to the point where he demands monetary compensation from me instead of just walking on the road around by cottage.

He may want to build his own cottage. But yours occupies one site -- and you exclude him from using some area around it -- and others occupy the other good sites. You are depriving him of liberty he would otherwise have, and owe him (and everyone else whom you exclude from the site) just compensation for that.

But what is that worth? If anything it is such a vanishingly trivial sum, it wouldn't even be worth demanding it.

It's worth whatever the person who wants it most would have to pay to get it from the person who wants it second most.

Yet still I owe him nothing if the governors do not say I do, and I can think of no reason why they would.

What the governors say has no bearing other than the trivial legal one.

If the governors just want to raise money from me they don't need pretty excuses they can just demand it and they do.

Justice is not a petty excuse, and you know very well they do not demand nearly what they would if they wished to recover the subsidy they are giving you.

It can't be, because the tenant does not own the property before the freeholder, so the freeholder could not have taken it from the tenant.

False. The aboriginal Americans did not own the land they lived on, but the settlers still stole it from them. I do not own the letter A, but if you forcibly stop me from using it unless I pay you rent, you have certainly stolen from me.

GET IT??

Before the freeholder the government is the owner,

There was never a rightful owner, and never can be.

if theft it was then it was theft from the government...

No, theft from the community of all those whom you exclude, which the government serves.

which makes no sense as the government is the one who consciously dispensed the freehold to the freeholder.

Government has no valid authority to give away its citizens' rights to liberty.

Ultimately the government has the land by "right by conquest" which is as close to theft as can be,

No, government only administers possession and use of the land, rightly performing that duty to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

perhaps this the legalised theft to which you are referring yet well it may be that, but well.. so it must be for civilisation to be.

Exclusive tenure is needed for civilization, but just compensation is rightly due to the community of those excluded.

Neither would the land,

Yes, of course it would. That is just a physical fact.

it has already been claimed,

So what? What is "claiming" land but an announced intention to abrogate others' rights to use it? Claiming the letter A as your property does not make it anything but theft when you demand rent from me for using it.

firstly be government, secondly by the freeholder, thirdly by any existing tenants.

Government certainly has a responsibility to administer possession and use of the land to secure and reconcile everyone's equal rights to use it. That has nothing to do with any silly "claiming."

You might say the first claim was "unjust"

It was and is self-evidently unjust.

but yet the first claimant is the creator of justice

False.

and moreover beyond all but the most serious reprisals or vengeance (requiring heavy duty military force) to punish.

Who could have a better claim to administer possession and use of land but the authority charged with the duty to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all to use it?

[SolarCross]

@TtP

First off I have a technical complaint on your reply to my last post. You have made micro replies to almost each and every sentence which is an exceedingly disjointed and annoying approach, if I were to reply in kind it will only get worse. Please can you tackle the ideas not the words and make whole paragraphs of your counter-points?

With this first criticism in mind I shall reply to the ideas in your posts and not each and every word, as so:

The main idea of yours that pops up frequently in your mess of one-liners, and under-pins all your arguments and assertions, is the assumption that there is some mystical justice that is platonically separate and superior to that which is actually imposed by mere earthlings like our dear governors. This is a remnant of religious thinking and it was a scam. This is how it broadly went: first there were the warlords who gained dominion over more timid folk and became governors in the process. These timid folk who fell under their thrall were apt to have disagreements with one another and to settle things would go to the warlord or king for a settlement of their disputes for such a dread and dangerous character as the king could settle such matters very easily and none dare argue. See law is just opinion married to force. Opinions are common and trivial we all have them and they all differ, as this thread demonstrates, but without force those opinions roll around eternally, never settle and in the end can always be ignored. Force can not be ignored. Then where the strong arms of soldierly people wielded real power there came skulking scheming speakers with skinny arms but deft tongues, we shall henceforth call these people by the general term priests, who coveted the power of kings whilst lacking the practical ability for it. They concocted an imaginary super power purportedly more powerful than any real king with his own imaginary idea of "justice" more discerning than that of any real king and then these priests posed themselves as the special emissaries and representatives of this super power. Why? Just a trick, a scam for power or a facsimile of power. Priests are the original scam artists. The trick did work quite well, even kings fell for it, but it is still an illusion not the real thing and it is easily undone by a discerning mind. Real power is not undone by disbelief. Your idea of justice is a remnant of a meme cooked up by lying priests to scam people. There is no higher justice, what the real world governors call justice is all that there is.

I do believe there is no mileage left for pro-scammers like priests to win faux power with fairy tales, this last flowering of science since the rennaisance till now has killed that dream, and good riddance. The remnants of their scams like your higher justice and natural rights will roll around the memeosphere mutating but will forever run into hard reason and be demolished in due course. There is no justice higher than that of the warlord, the king or the military cabal at the heart of a republic. That is just how it is, how it always was and how it always will be.

[Pants-of-dog]

TTP,

The fact that you ignore how capitalists use their economic leverage to maintain or strengthen their economic power does not magically make it not so.

[Truth To Power]

The fact that you ignore how capitalists use their economic leverage to maintain or strengthen their economic power does not magically make it not so.

I have explained why they can't. You have yet to explain how they could.

[Truth To Power]

First off I have a technical complaint on your reply to my last post. You have made micro replies to almost each and every sentence which is an exceedingly disjointed and annoying approach, if I were to reply in kind it will only get worse. Please can you tackle the ideas not the words and make whole paragraphs of your counter-points?

I find it clearer and easier to follow when points are addressed individually. An error in a single sentence, even the usage of a single word, can reverberate through an argument, invalidating everything else. If you choose to dispute with me, I am going to identify all your errors lest you seek to take refuge in ones you imagine I have not noticed.

The main idea of yours that pops up frequently in your mess of one-liners, and under-pins all your arguments and assertions, is the assumption that there is some mystical justice that is platonically separate and superior to that which is actually imposed by mere earthlings like our dear governors.

There is nothing mystical about it. Justice is a part of everyday existence that every normal person -- i.e., everyone who is not a sociopath -- is keenly aware of. Indeed, it is known that the more intelligent a person is, the keener their sense of justice. You seem to think government is like the alpha male in a wolf pack, just imposing its will by superior force. It's not.

This is a remnant of religious thinking and it was a scam.

False. It is part of human biology, and there is a very good evolutionary reason for it: it strengthens society, thereby enhancing the reproductive prospects of its members. It just does so in subtle ways you might not understand -- or want to understand.

This is how it broadly went: first there were the warlords who gained dominion over more timid folk and became governors in the process.

False. You are describing wolves and some other social animals, but not human beings.

These timid folk who fell under their thrall were apt to have disagreements with one another and to settle things would go to the warlord or king for a settlement of their disputes for such a dread and dangerous character as the king could settle such matters very easily and none dare argue.

Nope. In almost all cases, there was no dispute because people understood the concept of justice (though you apparently don't) and respected each other's rights. Only when justice and rights weren't clear did they resort to arbitration.

See law is just opinion married to force.

Wrong. It is an attempt to clarify, codify and formalize the innate human desire for liberty, security, and justice.

Opinions are common and trivial we all have them and they all differ, as this thread demonstrates, but without force those opinions roll around eternally, never settle and in the end can always be ignored.

Justice is a matter of fact, not opinion. It is the way of the sociopath to ignore opinion, justice, and rights, and seek to achieve his desires by force.

Force can not be ignored.

It also cannot be the ultimate criterion of justice.

Then where the strong arms of soldierly people wielded real power there came skulking scheming speakers with skinny arms but deft tongues, we shall henceforth call these people by the general term priests, who coveted the power of kings whilst lacking the practical ability for it.

Wrong. Priests exist because they help satisfy some basic human desires: the desire to feel that one understands the world, the desire for ultimate justice, the desire to feel that one has a measure of control over events, the desire to avoid personal mortality, the desire to feel superior to others, the desire to avoid responsibility and be taken care of, etc.

They concocted an imaginary super power purportedly more powerful than any real king with his own imaginary idea of "justice" more discerning than that of any real king and then these priests posed themselves as the special emissaries and representatives of this super power. Why?

More to the point, HOW? If justice is at root nothing but force, how did they ever convince anyone that there was anything to justice more discerning than force? See? Even to make your argument, you have to admit that your claim can't logically be true.

Just a trick, a scam for power or a facsimile of power. Priests are the original scam artists. The trick did work quite well, even kings fell for it, but it is still an illusion not the real thing and it is easily undone by a discerning mind.

Nonsense. If there is nothing to justice but the will of those with power, how did the priests ever convince any king of their superior justice?

Real power is not undone by disbelief.

And the real power of justice and rights is not undone by your disbelief in them.

GET IT??

Your idea of justice is a remnant of a meme cooked up by lying priests to scam people. There is no higher justice, what the real world governors call justice is all that there is.

Garbage. Justice is necessary to human social existence, that's why it has been incorporated into our genes by evolutionary pressures. Justice and the closely associated concept of rights are products of evolution: they exist because they help us survive and thrive. Specifically, they help strengthen society by reducing internal conflict and improving incentives for social contribution. This is important to evolutionary success because society helps preserve and replicate our genes: because of the multiple copies of our genes carried by our kin within our society, societal failure and defeat is normally a bigger reproductive setback than even our personal extinction.

I do believe there is no mileage left for pro-scammers like priests to win faux power with fairy tales, this last flowering of science since the rennaisance till now has killed that dream, and good riddance.

See above. While the unscientific, metaphysical part of priesthood and religion seems to be in broad retreat before science, justice and individual rights are not at all metaphysical, and are broadly advancing in secular civilization. This is
O B V I O U S in the history of the last several centuries.

The remnants of their scams like your higher justice and natural rights will roll around the memeosphere mutating but will forever run into hard reason and be demolished in due course.

Hard reason and objective fact are on my side, because evolution and its implications are objective facts, as explained above.

There is no justice higher than that of the warlord, the king or the military cabal at the heart of a republic. That is just how it is, how it always was and how it always will be.

In the wolf pack, yes. Never in human society, except in the sub-human mind of the sociopath.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have explained why they can't. You have yet to explain how they could.

Okay. Rich people, i.e. the factory owners and not the workers, have access to better educational opportunities, thus significantly increasing the chances that their kids will lead successful careers.

The children of factory owners will inherit factories. The children of workers will inherit debts.

The factory owner can bribe the politician to have more favourable laws. The worker cannot.

The factory owner can afford the best health care. The worker is lucky if he lives in a country with socialist health care.

All of this is obvious.

[SolarCross]

First off I have a technical complaint on your reply to my last post. You have made micro replies to almost each and every sentence which is an exceedingly disjointed and annoying approach, if I were to reply in kind it will only get worse. Please can you tackle the ideas not the words and make whole paragraphs of your counter-points?

I find it clearer and easier to follow when points are addressed individually. An error in a single sentence, even the usage of a single word, can reverberate through an argument, invalidating everything else. If you choose to dispute with me, I am going to identify all your errors lest you seek to take refuge in ones you imagine I have not noticed.

Fine, if we aren't to have a normal conversation, I'll do as you do and gainsay each line. Enjoy.

The main idea of yours that pops up frequently in your mess of one-liners, and under-pins all your arguments and assertions, is the assumption that there is some mystical justice that is platonically separate and superior to that which is actually imposed by mere earthlings like our dear governors.

There is nothing mystical about it. Justice is a part of everyday existence that every normal person -- i.e., everyone who is not a sociopath -- is keenly aware of. Indeed, it is known that the more intelligent a person is, the keener their sense of justice. You seem to think government is like the alpha male in a wolf pack, just imposing its will by superior force. It's not.

What you are seeing is the accumulation of civility. For 8000 years mankind has been under the dominion of warlords, be it tribal chiefs, kings or the military cabals of a republic, for their own sake these warlords impose order and in consequence civility becomes normal. We are adapted to this situation and so we game it, our "fine sense of justice" is just our individual attempts to have what we want from the civil norms. The car owner wants to be able to park his car without it being vandalised or plastered with parking tickets, so his "keen sense of justice" is deployed against vandals and parking wardens. The husband wants to go to work without worrying about some random stranger filling up his woman's womb with alien sperm and so his "keen sense of justice" is deployed against rapists and adulterers. The land owner wants to let out his land for rents and doesn't want those rents to go unpaid or the property vandalised and so his "keen sense of justice" is deployed against squatters, vandals and tenants who don't pay. On and on... But so far this natural sense of justice is a million different and often conflicting desires, it falls then to the governors to decide which of these desires should be the norm and protected by his force, the irrational governor may use some kooky ideology to help him decide, the rational governor will use a utilitarian criteria.

This is a remnant of religious thinking and it was a scam.

False. It is part of human biology, and there is a very good evolutionary reason for it: it strengthens society, thereby enhancing the reproductive prospects of its members. It just does so in subtle ways you might not understand -- or want to understand.

Oh so you think you can find your mystical justice in our genes, well indeed in the scientific age you could hardly find it in jesus. There is an element of truth here though as social animals have a strength in numbers that does require some operating co-ordination protocols so that the rabble can be a team. This goes for the wolf pack as much as the city state though. It isn't anything different from what I am saying, and the pack leader is still the pack leader.

This is how it broadly went: first there were the warlords who gained dominion over more timid folk and became governors in the process.

False. You are describing wolves and some other social animals, but not human beings.

Human beings are animals and yes social animals, just as lions, wolves, dogs, ants, bovines, chimps, pigs, elephants and the rest.. Well we can be more specific as diet plays a part in morality. The lion is a carnivorous social animal, the bovine is a herbivorous social animal. Humans like chimps and pigs are omnivorous social animals and so our morality is closer to that of pigs and chimps rather than lions or cows.

These timid folk who fell under their thrall were apt to have disagreements with one another and to settle things would go to the warlord or king for a settlement of their disputes for such a dread and dangerous character as the king could settle such matters very easily and none dare argue.

Nope. In almost all cases, there was no dispute because people understood the concept of justice (though you apparently don't) and respected each other's rights. Only when justice and rights weren't clear did they resort to arbitration.

There is an expense in getting into disputes, an expense of time, mental energy, money or other resources, social capital, so it is adaptive to let some things slide, go with the flow and conform where that is tolerable to save on that expense, to ask "is it worth it?". Disputes nonetheless happen and happen a lot.

See law is just opinion married to force.

Wrong. It is an attempt to clarify, codify and formalize the innate human desire for liberty, security, and justice.

That is just PR gibberish. Law is, just as I say, opinion married to force.

Opinions are common and trivial we all have them and they all differ, as this thread demonstrates, but without force those opinions roll around eternally, never settle and in the end can always be ignored.

Justice is a matter of fact, not opinion. It is the way of the sociopath to ignore opinion, justice, and rights, and seek to achieve his desires by force.

Now you are really dreaming. A sensible arbitrator will look closely at the relevant facts but is judgement of what should be done about it is an opinion, an opinion anyone could make or unmake but for the hardy police force, knights or mob the arbitrator can call upon to make his opinion something that can not be ignored.

Force can not be ignored.

It also cannot be the ultimate criterion of justice.

Ideally utility will be the ultimate criterion but force is needed to make it law, otherwise it is just an opinion. "Bad" people will ignore opinions even good opinions perhaps especially good opinions but will not ignore force, or do so at their peril.

Then where the strong arms of soldierly people wielded real power there came skulking scheming speakers with skinny arms but deft tongues, we shall henceforth call these people by the general term priests, who coveted the power of kings whilst lacking the practical ability for it.

Wrong. Priests exist because they help satisfy some basic human desires: the desire to feel that one understands the world, the desire for ultimate justice, the desire to feel that one has a measure of control over events, the desire to avoid personal mortality, the desire to feel superior to others, the desire to avoid responsibility and be taken care of, etc.

All you say here is complete balderdash. Priests exist to make a parasitical living off of the stupid and the credulous. They are mind hackers, so yes they are very interested in exploiting psychology for their advantage. Your capacity for guilt, envy, sexual desire, fear (especially of death) are all substrate for their psy-ops. As a victim of priests you will be programmed to see them as helpful saviours but that is all part of their art.

They concocted an imaginary super power purportedly more powerful than any real king with his own imaginary idea of "justice" more discerning than that of any real king and then these priests posed themselves as the special emissaries and representatives of this super power. Why?

More to the point, HOW? If justice is at root nothing but force, how did they ever convince anyone that there was anything to justice more discerning than force? See? Even to make your argument, you have to admit that your claim can't logically be true.

I just gave you the answer, they invented a bigger albeit imaginary force, GOD! The creator and destroyer of worlds, the commander of hosts of angelic immortal warriors of terrible power. Yes that is force, an illusion of force, but yet while the illusion is believed it works just as well. And if he believes it what king could compare himself to that? His knights can die and they may flee. He has had castles and palaces built for him maybe he even founded a town or city but God made the very world on which those feeble edifices sit. How does the king's dungeons and gaolers compare to fires of hell and eternal torment by demons more cruel and inventive than any torturer a king could find to employ?

Just a trick, a scam for power or a facsimile of power. Priests are the original scam artists. The trick did work quite well, even kings fell for it, but it is still an illusion not the real thing and it is easily undone by a discerning mind.

Nonsense. If there is nothing to justice but the will of those with power, how did the priests ever convince any king of their superior justice?

Because the priests have god on a string, and they have painted that god as more powerful than all the kings. Well I already covered that.

Real power is not undone by disbelief.

And the real power of justice and rights is not undone by your disbelief in them.

GET IT??

Ah now you are talking of power. If you believed that you are right and the police are wrong that will not stop them putting you in prison. You beliefs, your opinions of justice are exactly undone without power without force.

Your idea of justice is a remnant of a meme cooked up by lying priests to scam people. There is no higher justice, what the real world governors call justice is all that there is.

Garbage. Justice is necessary to human social existence, that's why it has been incorporated into our genes by evolutionary pressures. Justice and the closely associated concept of rights are products of evolution: they exist because they help us survive and thrive. Specifically, they help strengthen society by reducing internal conflict and improving incentives for social contribution. This is important to evolutionary success because society helps preserve and replicate our genes: because of the multiple copies of our genes carried by our kin within our society, societal failure and defeat is normally a bigger reproductive setback than even our personal extinction.

I don't disagree that societies (of any species of animal) require operating protocols, morals, and that these thing are adaptive, generally. This doesn't help you though if you are trying to set your justice in our genes, they way priests set their justice in invisible, immortal sky-kings because no one's genes are exactly crying out at the injustice of land ownership... My genes do not say to me that my landlord has stolen from me, that he owes me compensation. I own things but I do not own land (except indirectly as a tenant, which I think doesn't count with you), yet I do not feel victimised. I'd like to pay less rent, but I'd like to pay less for everything: food, electricity, consumer electronics. Id like everything cheaper, like anyone I suppose, but I don't envy my landlord for what he has. I don't feel the injustice you are saying I should feel, even after hearing you go one about it all the time. How then can land ownership be an injustice, if justice is in the genes. I shouldn't even need you to tell me to feel victimised, I should feel it without your help.

I do believe there is no mileage left for pro-scammers like priests to win faux power with fairy tales, this last flowering of science since the rennaisance till now has killed that dream, and good riddance.

See above. While the unscientific, metaphysical part of priesthood and religion seems to be in broad retreat before science, justice and individual rights are not at all metaphysical, and are broadly advancing in secular civilization. This is
O B V I O U S in the history of the last several centuries.

Priests were a parasitic caste that hijacked our natural morals for their own ends. The influence of priests is in decline as science has provided a number of important antidotes to their lies, mainly their fairy tale cosmology was crushed by science which cast everything else they say in doubt. They were dug in deep into our cultural life and it will take time for the collective psyche to heal and rebalance our moral habits. Priests worked hard to tap into the power of the sex drive by harnessing it to guilt, with people falling out of that trap there was a snap-back into hedonism which perhaps was going to far. I believe that will settle down in time. The end will be like the beginning, going back to a utilitarian basis for morality as it was before priests.

The remnants of their scams like your higher justice and natural rights will roll around the memeosphere mutating but will forever run into hard reason and be demolished in due course.

Hard reason and objective fact are on my side, because evolution and its implications are objective facts, as explained above.

No you are trying to use them because in this age nothing else will do. Communists and other post-religion priests also try to use "hard reason and objective fact" to sculpt their ideologies but it is not as malleable a material as the fantasy of the priests of jesus, hence why communism failed so fast. As will your ideology.

There is no justice higher than that of the warlord, the king or the military cabal at the heart of a republic. That is just how it is, how it always was and how it always will be.

In the wolf pack, yes. Never in human society, except in the sub-human mind of the sociopath.

We are the wolf pack, we are the ant hive, the bovine herd, the troop of chimps.. well we are different as they all are different from each other but yet not specially different. Our great power relative to theirs comes from our technology, which comes from our brains, but only in this are we special. There is no god that loves us better than them.

Since you mention sociopaths so often seemingly as an implication that anyone that does not believe as you do is some kind of beyond the pale crazy, argument by pejorative, I will say a thing or two on my theory of sociopaths. If a sociopath were a solitary carnivore there would be nothing amiss in their hierarchy of concerns. For the solitary carnivore there is no "us" only "me", and only "me" is worthy of concern. That is adaptive for the survival of a solitary carnivore, that is good. But a human sociopath isn't supposed to be be solitary carnivore he is supposed to be a social omnivore like a chimp or a pig. Something must of happened to the sociopath to cause the failure to develop expected social omnivore morality and instead develop a solitary carnivore morality. It may be in the genes and it may be that it is not uncommon as homo sapiens are pretty variable (due to our possible hybrid origins) we don't come out all identical like ants. Or it may be an aloof, cold or cruel mother causes the a fatal interruption in the development of pan-identification with other humans. Or some combo of those two.

[Truth To Power]

Okay. Rich people, i.e. the factory owners and not the workers, have access to better educational opportunities, thus significantly increasing the chances that their kids will lead successful careers.

But that's not class. It's just inequality. And you are also incorrectly assuming that owning a factory makes one rich. It doesn't. Most factory owners go broke. People who are rich may sometimes buy factories, but the relationship doesn't go the other way. Moreover, you are assuming access to education is based on money, but that is not part of capitalism or factory ownership, so your logical link is broken.

Strike One.

The children of factory owners will inherit factories. The children of workers will inherit debts.

Question begging fallacy. You are merely ASSUMING what you claim to be proving: that simply owning a factory reinforces capitalist class divisions. And FYI, debts are not inheritable in most capitalist societies.

Strike Two.

The factory owner can bribe the politician to have more favourable laws. The worker cannot.

Flat false. Workers' labor unions often bribe politicians for more favorable laws. And you are once again begging the question: ASSUMING that factory owners as a class benefit from corrupt lawmaking. It is much more often the case that a factory owner bribes a politician for laws that favor him, but harm other factory owners.

That's Strike Three, sunshine. You're out.

The factory owner can afford the best health care. The worker is lucky if he lives in a country with socialist health care.

Again conflating mere inequality with class. Strike Four.

All of this is obvious.

Yep: obviously wrong, illogical, and irrelevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

Whatever, TTP.

The science agrees with me. The best indicator of which tax bracket you end up in is your parent's tax bracket. This is basically agreeing with me. Your "it might not happen that way" excuses do not change that.

[Truth To Power]

The science agrees with me.

No, it proves you wrong.

The best indicator of which tax bracket you end up in is your parent's tax bracket.

But that has almost nothing to do with owning factories. It has a LOT to do with owning PRIVILEGES like land titles, IP monopolies and bank charters, or owning shares of the companies that own them.

GET IT??

This is basically agreeing with me. Your "it might not happen that way" excuses do not change that.

No. You are objectively wrong about the fundamental relationships and facts of economics. Owning a factory does not get you free money the way owning a privilege does. The returns to factory ownership are, on average, competed away, because owning a factory is not a privilege. So while a few successful factory owners make out well, many more go broke. If you were right, that would be impossible, so you are wrong. You are allowing yourself to be deceived by the few factory owners who get rich through creating exceptional value, but are ignoring the majority who can't even make a go of it. You have to avoid knowing such facts, because they disprove your false belief that there is no essential difference between owning land and owning a factory.