[Pants-of-dog]

They are not my definitions they are the normal common definitions. Agreed?

Okay. Please note that is the fourth or fidth time I have said this.

The impact of objects on society is particular to an object and context that varies exceedingly. Guns, forklift trucks, tomatoes, sweaty communist pamphlets, banjos... endless endless number of objects, it quite beyond your abilities I am sure to weigh up their impact on society, you have only just learned the meaning of two words and you may not quite have it yet, it is a bit beyond your abilities to weigh up the social impact of shoe shining kits, boxing gloves, paperclips or lathes.

This does not contradict my point that a factory has a very different impact than the sippy cup my daughter uses. The former perpetuates the capitalist class system while the latter does not.

[SolarCross]

This does not contradict my point that a factory has a very different impact than the sippy cup my daughter uses. The former perpetuates the capitalist class system while the latter does not.

Your "point" is moronic. Factories don't "perpetuate the capitalist class system" they make stuff including sippy cups. No factories, no sippy cups.

[Pants-of-dog]

Factories that are owned by people other than the workers perpetuate the capitalist class system.

The factory owners use the fact of ownership to claim all the profits and thereby enrich themselves in order to maintain ownership of the factory or buy more factories.

The factory workers make so little money that they will almost never have the opportunity to own a factory.

Because of their different relationships to the factory, each group is likely to stay where they are.

My daughter's sippy cup does not do this.

[Truth To Power]

You have gone off the deep end again. I am not going to go through is sentence by sentence weirdness which is based on ignorance of socialist policy as well as ignorance of whatever claim you are making.

So you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Check.

Now, you have yet to show how I am wrong in my distinction between private and personal property. Just answer that one question.

It's the wrong question, which is why your distinction is irrelevant, like the distinction between socks and ties. All property is a social phenomenon, and it's arbitrary to classify it according to whether or not it appears in employer-employee relationships. That's not the relevant point of distinction. It's just adopting the incorrect socialist assumption that employer-employee relations are what is inherently exploitive and unjust in capitalism, and the cause of workers' disadvantaged condition in capitalist societies. I described the actual economic relationships characteristic of capitalism in simplified form for you, and you ignored it and said you were not interested in "mind games." I.e., you admitted you were not interested in understanding.

[SolarCross]

Factories that are owned by people other than the workers perpetuate the capitalist class system.

The factory owners use the fact of ownership to claim all the profits and thereby enrich themselves in order to maintain ownership of the factory or buy more factories.

The factory workers make so little money that they will almost never have the opportunity to own a factory.

Because of their different relationships to the factory, each group is likely to stay where they are.

My daughter's sippy cup does not do this.

Factory owners paid for stuff, they did that paying because they hope to make a profit. If there is no chance of profit, then they won't pay for stuff, the factory will never exist in the first place and no workers will get the money they want for working and no sippy cups will be made either. So yeah let's randomly make it illegal to own shares in a factory or make a profit and watch the civilisation fall down to prehistoric levels of development.

[Pants-of-dog]

Truth To Power,

Actually, I pointed out that you incorrectly assumed a level playing field when we discussed the difference between personal and private property. The fact that private property perpetuates the capitalist class system is what makes it not a level playing field.

When I said I was not interested in thought experiments, you were making an "argument" about how socialists are stupid and ignorant about landowners. My reply about focusing on reality was about how history shows that socialists and communists have no trouble putting landowners up against the wall come the revolution. I should have made that clearer.

---------------

Factory owners paid for stuff, they did that paying because they hope to make a profit. If there is no chance of profit, then they won't pay for stuff, the factory will never exist in the first place and no workers will get the money they want for working and no sippy cups will be made either.

None of this contradicts what I have said.

So yeah let's randomly make it illegal to own shares in a factory or make a profit and watch the civilisation fall down to prehistoric levels of development.

Or we could simply move past capitalism.

[Truth To Power]

Aslo, please note that despite your rudeness, I am not insulting you.

You are insulting his intelligence with your obtuseness, as you do to almost everyone who tries to engage in discussion with you.

Do we agree that objects used solely for personal use have a different impact on society than objects used to create and maintain work that employs some people and allows others to profit?

Sure: by enhancing production, the latter enrich society and make it more prosperous, the former don't. Plus, the employer and employee BOTH profit from the arrangement, because they if they didn't, they wouldn't trade.

[Truth To Power]

If I was mentally ill, then you would have no problem showing how the relationships I have described are not true.

True but irrelevant, like the difference in social role between socks and ties.

GET IT??

This does not contradict my point that a factory has a very different impact than the sippy cup my daughter uses. The former perpetuates the capitalist class system while the latter does not.

Incorrect. Private ownership of a factory in a geoist economy DOES NOT perpetuate the capitalist class system, because it does not create or reinforce privilege.

The factory owners use the fact of ownership to claim all the profits and thereby enrich themselves in order to maintain ownership of the factory or buy more factories.

No, I already explained why that is objectively false. It is the landowner who takes the profits despite not contributing anything to production, a fact that Marx himself came to realize late in life (it's stated in V III of "Capital"). The factory owner only profits if he can make the factory produce more value more efficiently than other prospective users of the same resources, which is why most factory owners actually lose money and go bankrupt. The landowner qua landowner can never lose money or go bankrupt, because he can just accept the high bid from among the prospective tenants. Landowners only go bankrupt when they go into debt to buy land, and the land users can't pay enough rent to pay the interest.

The factory workers make so little money that they will almost never have the opportunity to own a factory.

Wrong. They have the same opportunity as the factory owner, who often as not started out as a worker. I have known enough of them personally to know that is a fact.

Because of their different relationships to the factory, each group is likely to stay where they are.

Wrong. It is most often whether or not they own LAND that will determine whether they stay where they are. A factory business that owns the land under its premises will likely make its owner rich. One that does not will usually go broke.

My daughter's sippy cup does not do this.

Neither does the factory.

[Truth To Power]

Factory owners paid for stuff, they did that paying because they hope to make a profit.

Well, parasitic slave owners and landowners paid for stuff in hopes of profit, too, so that's not really much of an argument.

If there is no chance of profit, then they won't pay for stuff, the factory will never exist in the first place

Ah. Now you have hit the bull's-eye: the slave and the land would exist and be available for productive employment without their owners, the factory wouldn't. This is the central fact of objective economic reality that socialists like PoD AND CAPITALISTS have to contrive some way to avoid knowing.

and no workers will get the money they want for working and no sippy cups will be made either. So yeah let's randomly make it illegal to own shares in a factory or make a profit and watch the civilisation fall down to prehistoric levels of development.

QFT. Venezuela. 'Nuff said.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, it seems that you agree that private property is different from personal property.

[Truth To Power]

Actually, I pointed out that you incorrectly assumed a level playing field when we discussed the difference between personal and private property.

No, I pointed out that it was not incorrect.

The fact that private property perpetuates the capitalist class system is what makes it not a level playing field.

But you are incorrect in claiming that private property perpetuates the capitalist class system. Only private property in PRIVILEGE does that.

When I said I was not interested in thought experiments, you were making an "argument" about how socialists are stupid and ignorant about landowners.

Right. I was explaining why they are objectively incorrect to claim that owning a factory and owning land are both privileges.

My reply about focusing on reality was about how history shows that socialists and communists have no trouble putting landowners up against the wall come the revolution. I should have made that clearer.

But they refuse to support legal, peaceful removal of their privilege by taxation, and thus the pretext for revolution.

Or we could simply move past capitalism.

I wouldn't call retreating to an inferior, failed, and obsolete alternative "moving past." "Moving past" implies advancing to something better. That would be geoism, not socialism. Socialism is something even worse than capitalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

None of that actually addresses what I said.

[Drlee]

Insert drone strike here?

Could we get back on topic. Please?

[Truth To Power]

None of that actually addresses what I said.

Of course it does. You have merely realized that your claims are indefensible, and so are pretending I have not demolished them.

Your claim was that a factory owner's ownership of the factory somehow disadvantages the worker, reinforcing the capitalist class system. I proved that was false, because the factory owner's ownership of the factory does not deprive the worker of anything he would otherwise have. It merely offers the worker access to an opportunity he would NOT otherwise have. It is the LANDOWNER who deprives the worker of opportunity he would otherwise have, putting him in the position of class disadvantage that compels him to offer his labor to the factory owner at low wages or starve.

You also claimed that the factory owner somehow exploits the worker and takes all production in excess of wages as profit. I also proved that was false, because both worker and factory owner must above all pay the LANDOWNER all of production in excess of what can be obtained on marginal land using the same inputs (Google "Law of Rent" and start reading. It's time.). The low wages that workers obtain under the capitalist class system therefore do not benefit the factory owner in the least: the difference between (wages + other production costs) and the value of what the worker and factory owner produce is all taken in land rent.

Your distinction between personal and private property is therefore absolutely irrelevant to the capitalist class system. It is the difference between the rightful property of the productive class (workers and factory owners) and the wrongful property of the parasite class (landowners and other privilege holders) that creates and sustains the capitalist class system.

Could we get back on topic. Please?

I have been on topic all along. To determine whether government should take care of the poor, one must first understand why they are poor and what government's rightful function is. I have solved this problem for you. Government's rightful function is to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to everything they would have if others did not deprive them of it -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. This is the foundation of all civilization. The poor are poor primarily because government has removed their rights to liberty -- the liberty to produce and sustain themselves -- and property in the fruits of their labor (by taxation of economic activity and rightful property in products of labor) by conferring privileges (legal entitlements to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights) on the privileged, especially landowners, who are thus enabled to extort wealth from the productive in return for not depriving them of what they would otherwise have been able to access, use, and benefit from. Therefore, government should take care of the poor first by rescinding the privileges it has granted and restoring the liberty rights of all the people, and second by removing the burden of taxation from economic activity and rightful property, and placing it where it self-evidently belongs, on the publicly created value of natural resources (which no human produced), especially the locations whose users are peculiarly advantaged by government spending on services and infrastructure.

[Drlee]

To determine whether government should take care of the poor, one must first understand why they are poor and what government's rightful function is.

This is not true. It could only be true IF all poor people were poor for the same reason. They are not. Government's rightful function is determined by the will of the majority of the people in a nominal democracy.

The poor are poor primarily because government has removed their rights to liberty -- the liberty to produce and sustain themselves -- and property in the fruits of their labor (by taxation of economic activity and rightful property in products of labor) by conferring privileges (legal entitlements to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights) on the privileged, especially landowners, who are thus enabled to extort wealth from the productive in return for not depriving them of what they would otherwise have been able to access, use, and benefit from.

Nonsense. This does not even make sense. 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.

Therefore, government should take care of the poor first by rescinding the privileges it has granted and restoring the liberty rights of all the people, and second by removing the burden of taxation from economic activity and rightful property, and placing it where it self-evidently belongs, on the publicly created value of natural resources (which no human produced), especially the locations whose users are peculiarly advantaged by government spending on services and infrastructure.

You have obviously never actually worked with the poor. The FIRST thing a poor person needs is protection, food, shelter and clothing. 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.

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course it does. You have merely realized that your claims are indefensible, and so are pretending I have not demolished them.

Your claim was that a factory owner's ownership of the factory somehow disadvantages the worker, reinforcing the capitalist class system. I proved that was false, because the factory owner's ownership of the factory does not deprive the worker of anything he would otherwise have. It merely offers the worker access to an opportunity he would NOT otherwise have.

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.

It is the LANDOWNER who deprives the worker of opportunity he would otherwise have, putting him in the position of class disadvantage that compels him to offer his labor to the factory owner at low wages or starve.

Both the landowner and the capitalist do this.

You also claimed that the factory owner somehow exploits the worker and takes all production in excess of wages as profit. I also proved that was false, because both worker and factory owner must above all pay the LANDOWNER all of production in excess of what can be obtained on marginal land using the same inputs (Google "Law of Rent" and start reading. It's time.). The low wages that workers obtain under the capitalist class system therefore do not benefit the factory owner in the least: the difference between (wages + other production costs) and the value of what the worker and factory owner produce is all taken in land rent.

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

Your distinction between personal and private property is therefore absolutely irrelevant to the capitalist class system. It is the difference between the rightful property of the productive class (workers and factory owners) and the wrongful property of the parasite class (landowners and other privilege holders) that creates and sustains the capitalist class system.

Factory owners are not productive. They are parasites. Also, the factory owner often owns the land. Both capitalists and landowners create and sustain the capitalist class system.

I have been on topic all along. To determine whether government should take care of the poor, one must first understand why they are poor and what government's rightful function is. I have solved this problem for you. Government's rightful function is to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to everything they would have if others did not deprive them of it -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. This is the foundation of all civilization. The poor are poor primarily because government has removed their rights to liberty -- the liberty to produce and sustain themselves -- and property in the fruits of their labor (by taxation of economic activity and rightful property in products of labor) by conferring privileges (legal entitlements to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights) on the privileged, especially landowners, who are thus enabled to extort wealth from the productive in return for not depriving them of what they would otherwise have been able to access, use, and benefit from. Therefore, government should take care of the poor first by rescinding the privileges it has granted and restoring the liberty rights of all the people, and second by removing the burden of taxation from economic activity and rightful property, and placing it where it self-evidently belongs, on the publicly created value of natural resources (which no human produced), especially the locations whose users are peculiarly advantaged by government spending on services and infrastructure.

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

[SolarCross]

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

Careful what you wish for and beware of euphemisms.. What do I mean? Government is and always was a soldierly institution, quite like the mafia infact only bigger. If you ask the mafia to "take care" of someone don't be too surprised if that someone ends up "sleeping with the fishes".

[Pants-of-dog]

And sometimes "taking care of someone" means providing a single payer public health care system, subsidised day care, subsidised education, and a social safety net that provides food security.

[SolarCross]

And sometimes "taking care of someone" means providing a single payer public health care system, subsidised day care, subsidised education, and a social safety net that provides food security.

Okay that's national socialism, I'm not saying national socialism doesn't work, but it does lock people into certain classes, removes choices and foster a sense of helpless dependency, which is not altogether healthy. Everyone becomes a ward of state, a perpetual child. I'm mean if the national socialist government you are advocating didn't take from people to pay for their health, education and what not they would have the resources to pay directly and exercise their own discretion as to what they consume. You are saying we should have a farmer who feeds his animals and takes them to the vet. Okay but if they were wild they would look after themselves, no? It is not like being a farm animal is automatically better than being wild.

Also national socialism was a very particular thing for a particular time, because for a time the rifle was the battle winning weapon and that is a weapon that is very labour intensive (every gun must have a man to fire it) and required very little skill to master, so for a time it was very important for soldierly institutions like government to have at their command as many warm bodies as possible to ensure their military competitiveness, ideally that would be nearly every person living within their domain. That is a lot of people to keep dependant and loyal, hence the need for mass scale intensive control over basic necessities like food, housing, education and medicine. The national socialism you love so much had a tactical utility for governors that was situational to the military technology of a certain era that has now passed. Battles now are won by capital intensive weapons that require only a few highly skilled careerists to man: cruise missiles, jet fighters, drones. We will soon be entering an age where AI may fill out much of the operational intelligence requirements for the military such that even fewer human persons are needed for military competitiveness. Why then should a government bother playing farmer to the mass of the population? I don't think they will see the utility in that and drop it, eventually.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay that's national socialism,

Not necessarily.

I'm not saying national socialism doesn't work, but it does lock people into certain classes, removes choices and foster a sense of helpless dependency, which is not altogether healthy. Everyone becomes a ward of state, a perpetual child. I'm mean if the national socialist government you are advocating didn't take from people to pay for their health, education and what not they would have the resources to pay directly and exercise their own discretion as to what they consume. You are saying we should have a farmer who feeds his animals and takes them to the vet. Okay but if they were wild they would look after themselves, no? It is not like being a farm animal is automatically better than being wild.

Maybe this "national socialism" that you made up does all that. In the real world, people who benefit from state run health care and subsidised educatiin, daycare and welfare are not locked into classes, bereft of choice, helpless, dependent, perpetual children.

As for education, health, and daycare, it seems that those countries that do subsidise these things are actualky spendingnless than those countries who privatise these things.

Also national socialism was a very particular thing for a particular time, because for a time the rifle was the battle winning weapon and that is a weapon that is very labour intensive (every gun must have a man to fire it) and required very little skill to master, so for a time it was very important for soldierly institutions like government to have at their command as many warm bodies as possible to ensure their military competitiveness, ideally that would be nearly every person living within their domain. That is a lot of people to keep dependant and loyal, hence the need for mass scale intensive control over basic necessities like food, housing, education and medicine. The national socialism you love so much had a tactical utility for governors that was situational to the military technology of a certain era that has now passed. Battles now are won by capital intensive weapons that require only a few highly skilled careerists to man: cruise missiles, jet fighters, drones. We will soon be entering an age where AI may fill out much of the operational intelligence requirements for the military such that even fewer human persons are needed for military competitiveness. Why then should a government bother playing farmer to the mass of the population? I don't think they will see the utility in that and drop it, eventually.

Well, since I never advocated this "national socialism" that you made up, I have no idea why you arebringing all of this up.