NationStates Jolt Archive

i'd be interested to know if anybody around General owns/runs their own business and also supports a drastically socialist (or even communist) model. i've yet to meet such a person, but General forum tends to have a very unique mix of people so perhaps there will be somebody around who fits that bill.

I have tried several times to get various Co-Ops functional. A co-op fits somewhere between capitalism and comunsim. Everyone owns the business, everyone shares in the labor and management. Everyone bennifits when it does well. Everyone is hurt when it does not.

Ive found that getting such an organization functional is not easy. As a worker, you can take some comfort in the idea someone else has to take the hit if the business does badly. And you know you can demand a raise/bonus when it does well. I think fighting at the other side of this, some people have a sense of ownership over things, and are not very willing to share.

The people of Slushpupie dont think capitialsim is best, but its nearly the only option when working with another country who is capitalist.

I have tried several times to get various Co-Ops functional. A co-op fits somewhere between capitalism and comunsim. Everyone owns the business, everyone shares in the labor and management. Everyone bennifits when it does well. Everyone is hurt when it does not.

Ive found that getting such an organization functional is not easy. As a worker, you can take some comfort in the idea someone else has to take the hit if the business does badly. And you know you can demand a raise/bonus when it does well. I think fighting at the other side of this, some people have a sense of ownership over things, and are not very willing to share.

The people of Slushpupie dont think capitialsim is best, but its nearly the only option when working with another country who is capitalist.

There is very little technical difference between a Co-op and an SBO. Most SBO's are composed of one or more "owners" who share in the administrative duties. Just not everyone working for the SBO is a SBO. The owner(s) [read officers] are the ones who put forth the capital and do all the initial work of setting up the business.

Some others may operate even closer. For example, before I became an SBO, but after my time as an "employee" of another company, I worked with ExecTech, a technical resources contractor in my area. ExecTech itself was owned by Hugh Conway, but all of us technicians in the company were "sub-contractors", working by contract through ExecTech.

Basically I went from employee, to sub-contractor, to independant contractor to Small-Business owner. There was very little problem, except the desire to take on the task of owning such an endeavor, between flipping from a "laborer" into the role of a Corporate Officer. In Capitalism, your drive is what ultimately determines your status of "class", class itself has little meaning past that. The Class change can be a burden, yes... But all good things come to those who earnestly work for them.

The Capitalist uses his laborer status to push and attain higher class if he so desires.... While the Communist assumes he deserves a change of class without working for it.

The Communist revolutions occured by people, exploiting the dis-satisfaction of the masses, to push and form the "Worker's Party", thereby the "Worker's Party" leaders then become the exploitive element, its members, being the revolutions die-hard adherants, get their status through friendships with the other revolutionaries, or by lieu of their family. In effect, the "revolution" does nothing towards Communisms own ideas, but instead removes the existing "Bourgeoisie", and replaces it with another, "Bourgeoisie", which is composed of the Leaders of the "Workers Party"... These party members operate in no different a manner than the previous, but just enjoy the benefits of weidling both civil and corporate authority of their workers... Who are then exploited to degrees far past what the previous "Bourgeoisie" would have dreamed of.

When one worker complains of overload, it is my job to find and field more workers... Which requires paying for advertisement, reviewing resumes, and fielding interviews (work), I need to make sure the new worker can work well with the existing one. If a worker is effecting the output of the product in a bad way, or effecting the productivity of other workers badly, it is my job to remove them from the process so it can keep functioning efficiently... More work...

I have to ensure their unemployment insurance is covered, their income taxes are payed, I have to field their insurance plans....

There is far more in the production of a certain product, than the work that goes directly into the product. That is what communists fail to realize.

which places you firmly in the petite bourgeoisie. it's not our fault that even though we laid out a conceptual groundwork years ago, some people refuse to use it.

do the major stockholders of microsoft or walmart or shell handle those sorts of decisions? of course not. they pay other people to do the management and administration for them (excepting for the highest level stuff, which some - but not all - of them take part in). hell, you go apply for a job at kmart, and if you get hired it won't even be by a district manager, let alone a major stockholder.

Corporate "profit" is not automatically pocketed by the owner. Profit is used to expand the business (growth)... In effect, Mr. Smith the Owner, and Mr. Smith the President, while the same person, are two seperate entities.

you mean they can use their profits to purchase more of the means of production for themselves, which they can then charge other people to use to make them more products, the 'extra' wealth of which can be used to buy up more of the means of production? hmm, now why would they do that?

can we please stop pretending that the workings of capitalism are mysterious and that the main motivation behind ownership of the means of production is not to make lots and lots of money?

can we please stop pretending that the workings of capitalism are mysterious and that the main motivation behind ownership of the means of production is not to make lots and lots of money?

Sure. Can we stop pretending that making money is a bad thing?

After all, as a soviet communist, you have no objection to money. You just have an objection to someone having more money than you. The question is, why do you deserve the same as everyone else?

Sure. Can we stop pretending that making money is a bad thing?

After all, as a soviet communist, you have no objection to money. You just have an objection to someone having more money than you. The question is, why do you deserve the same as everyone else?
I don't think that's the real question.
The real question is do you deserve more money because you have the luck of being born in a rich family, or do people deserve the same chances at birth, no matter where they were born?
And don't say me something like it is a natural thing that some people are born with more things than other. That does not answer the question and it is not true.
It is an article of the human rights declaration that they do actually.

I don't think that's the real question.
The real question is do you deserve more money because you have the luck of being born in a rich family, or do people deserve the same chances at birth, no matter where they were born?
And don't say me something like it is a natural thing that some people are born with more things than other. That does not answer the question and it is not true.
but it IS true. people don't have the same chances at birth, even if you make sure they are born into precisely the same economic class.

but it IS true. people don't have the same chances at birth, even if you make sure they are born into precisely the same economic class.
But it does not answer the question. The question was about the money they receive at birth, not about how tall they are.
It is not natural that some people have more rights in front of the law than others. During history, classes have changed and those who thought they had more rights ended up with less.
Please don't confuse the rights you are given at birth with the DNA you are given. Some people are given the control of massive amount of wealth and some people are given nothing. Does it have something to do with the DNA? Is that a natural thing? Do rich people have a better DNA than poor people?

But it does not answer the question. The question was about the money they receive at birth, not about how tall they are.

i thought it was about the advantages they are born into. some kids are born to stupid and abusive parents who happen to have a lot of money; other kids get wonderful, loving, intelligent parents who happen to be in the lower economic class. who's to say which kids get the best advantage?


It is not natural that some people have more rights in front of the law than others. During history, classes have changed and those who thought they had more rights ended up with less.
Please don't confuse the rights you are given at birth with the DNA you are given. Some people are given the control of massive amount of wealth and some people are given nothing. Does it have something to do with the DNA? Is that a natural thing? Do rich people have a better DNA than poor people?
it's not just about DNA. many non-genetic factors are accidents of birth.

I will say this. Right now, Socialist Capitalism seems to be the best bet.

The US is a Socialist Democratic Republic with a Capitalist system, after all. Just got to clean some of the idiocy out of it, like how so many of the red states are leeching off so many of the blue states.What? You have something against the forced redistribution of wealth?

I don't think that's the real question.
The real question is do you deserve more money because you have the luck of being born in a rich family, or do people deserve the same chances at birth, no matter where they were born?
And don't say me something like it is a natural thing that some people are born with more things than other. That does not answer the question and it is not true.
It is an article of the human rights declaration that they do actually.

I have a daughter that was born ten weeks ago. She lives with me, and therefore benefits from my money, a wage which could be accurately characterized as upper-middle class. So how do you propose to resolve the difference between her and the average child? Are you planning to take my daughter away? Or is it my money you're after? Considering that I started out poor, don't I deserve my money?

I hope you can see by these rhetorical questions that any attempt to level the playing field would result in a horribly immoral solution. And if the best argument against capitalism is that there are a tiny percentage of worthless people who were born into far too much money, then it's time to find new arguments, or stop arguing. Morons like Paris Hilton aren't worth getting upset over, and certainly aren't significant enough to make us reconsider the fabric of society.

"To provide my children with a better life" is the most common answer to questions on the motivations behind immigration, adult education, and start-up business ventures. Good things come from capitalism.

i thought it was about the advantages they are born into. some kids are born to stupid and abusive parents who happen to have a lot of money; other kids get wonderful, loving, intelligent parents who happen to be in the lower economic class. who's to say which kids get the best advantage?

it's not just about DNA. many non-genetic factors are accidents of birth.
You are confused. The DNA was just an example.
The intelligence of the parents or their loveliness is not linked with their wealth.
The precise thing I'm talking about is their wealth. Their wealth is given to them by the law. The state is giving them their wealth. It is not the wealth of their family, or the police would not have to protect it. The state police is protecting wealth for some people and not for others because they have inherited birth-given privileges. That is an unfair advantage, obviously, no matter if they have luck elsewhere. I know many other things are unfair, the question communists are asking is if this precise economic class is fair.

The state is giving them their wealth. It is not the wealth of their family, or the police would not have to protect it. The state police is protecting wealth for some people and not for others because they have inherited birth-given privileges.

What on earth are you talking about?

I have a daughter that was born ten weeks ago. She lives with me, and therefore benefits from my money, a wage which could be accurately characterized as upper-middle class. So how do you propose to resolve the difference between her and the average child? Are you planning to take my daughter away? Or is it my money you're after? Considering that I started out poor, don't I deserve my money?

I hope you can see by these rhetorical questions that any attempt to level the playing field would result in a horribly immoral solution. And if the best argument against capitalism is that there are a tiny percentage of worthless people who were born into far too much money, then it's time to find new arguments, or stop arguing. Morons like Paris Hilton aren't worth getting upset over, and certainly aren't significant enough to make us reconsider the fabric of society.

"To provide my children with a better life" is the most common answer to questions on the motivations behind immigration, adult education, and start-up business ventures. Good things come from capitalism.
Well at least you recognise it is unfair, instead of constantly avoiding this problem with blind eyes like so many people do. When you recognize capitalism has flaws, you're one step out or ignorance.

Can I just say at this point that inherited wealth is not connected to capitalism. People have inherited wealth under all manner of different economic structures, capitalism being only the latest of them. Attacking capitalism on these grounds is really to attack any economic system other than some manifestations of socialism. Indeed, capitalism is a move away from the primacy of inherited wealth towards the primacy of entrepreneurial wealth.

Having got that out of the way, I'd like to endorse Cabinia's point. It is 'unfair' that Paris Hilton inherits lots of wealth, but it is far fairer than communism, where all are level no matter what they've done in their lives. Once you have got over being jealous of other people's good fortune you will be one step closer to happiness.

which places you firmly in the petite bourgeoisie. it's not our fault that even though we laid out a conceptual groundwork years ago, some people refuse to use it.

Your "groundwork" is a series of rhetoric and deceit designed to fool the masses.

Am I Petite "bourgeoisie"? Yes, most certainly, have I always been such? No... Did I seek help and cry not being such before? No... I worked my way to where I am now... Using the same available resources that anyone else living in a Capitalist economy has... I was able do do something that no communist can, change classes by sheer force of my own will and drive... Which is the core principle in capitalist economies, the FREEDOM of the individual to make choices on his own, and live by the consequences of those choices, good or bad... Capitalism is not Totalitarian as Communism is, it's libertine, recognizing the person as the ultimate force of his own will and choice.... Communism wishes to do nothing but to take independence away from the people... And instill it in the leadership only.

A century of history proves that Communists seek nothing but the exploitation of the masses for the luxtury of the leadership.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets]
do the major stockholders of microsoft or walmart or shell handle those sorts of decisions? of course not. they pay other people to do the management and administration for them (excepting for the highest level stuff, which some - but not all - of them take part in). hell, you go apply for a job at kmart, and if you get hired it won't even be by a district manager, let alone a major stockholder.

Of course not, such would ammount to "micromanagment" and be far beyond the capacity of a single board, for such large corporate structures...

However, being a major stockholder, does not entitle you to payment. Stockholders receive dividends from the stock they own. Which ammounts, for example with microsoft, to $0.08 per share. That is, for each share a particular stockholder owns, he/she gets 8 cents per year. The dividend is computed from the increase in stock value, which is derived from the net-worth of the companies assests and marketability. A single microsoft share is about 28.00 presently. The stocks one own factor into their net worth. Though net-worth, in itself is not tangible asset (that is, bill gates may be "worth" 28+ billion USD, but he could not write a check for that ammount without liquidating assets... so the figure is not absolutely accurate to how much currency he actually has. Gates has 28+ billion USD planted of his assests planted into MSFT, and in turn, he gets payed 84 million per year, for that massive risk...

Stockholders themselves, only make money in proportion to the risk they take by levying their own personal assets into the company (as opposed to actually working)...



you mean they can use their profits to purchase more of the means of production for themselves, which they can then charge other people to use to make them more products, the 'extra' wealth of which can be used to buy up more of the means of production? hmm, now why would they do that?

Corporations don't "charge people" to work for them. They pay their worker for the labor. Once again, a communist distorting facts to support their agenda of fraud and deception... They use that product as investment in further production, for their own livelihood, and to whatever other source the wish.


can we please stop pretending that the workings of capitalism are mysterious and that the main motivation behind ownership of the means of production is not to make lots and lots of money?

They are not mysterious... No... When you decide to pull your head out of your hind-end, it is obvious... And the main goal is not to make "lots and lots of money", when that is your goal, you ultimately fail... The purpose is more and more power over your own life... Something which, and don't both to deny it, is opposed to communism, where people are basically slaves to their masters.

Communism was tried, and it failed miserably...

You are confused. The DNA was just an example.

hmm, can you see why i might have been "confused" about the importance you were putting on DNA as an issue?

"Please don't confuse the rights you are given at birth with the DNA you are given. Some people are given the control of massive amount of wealth and some people are given nothing. Does it have something to do with the DNA? Is that a natural thing? Do rich people have a better DNA than poor people?"

i don't see any other examples being raised here, and both of the questions you posed were specifically about DNA. hence, i responded in kind.


The intelligence of the parents or their loveliness is not linked with their wealth.

debatable.


The precise thing I'm talking about is their wealth. Their wealth is given to them by the law. The state is giving them their wealth. It is not the wealth of their family, or the police would not have to protect it.

huh? so, because the police have to protect my life, does that mean my life is not my own? if the firemen protect my house from burning down, does that mean my house belongs to them?


The state police is protecting wealth for some people and not for others because they have inherited birth-given privileges.

and here i thought the state was protecting the right of an individual to give their money to the people or causes that they choose. if i have ten dollars and i choose to give it to my friend, and the police help ensure that nobody mugs my friend and takes the money, does that mean the $10 actually belongs to the state and the STATE is the one making the gift to my friend?


That is an unfair advantage, obviously, no matter if they have luck elsewhere. I know many other things are unfair, the question communists are asking is if this precise economic class is fair.
if it is fair to allow all the other inequities that exist as accidents of birth, i don't see how you can justify forced redistribution of wealth. if you are going to insist that economic classes be artificially altered to bring about "equality" for eveybody's "starting point" then i would expect you to follow this through and artificially alter all sources of such inequality that can be changed.

What on earth are you talking about?
Some people don't recognize that the capital is a social thing. The law is common to everybody and when you own a field, it is because the law says you own it. If somebody walks on your field, you don't shoot him yourself, you call the social police to do it. So basically it is the state which grants you ownership of the field, as a privilege.

I don't think that's the real question.
The real question is do you deserve more money because you have the luck of being born in a rich family, or do people deserve the same chances at birth, no matter where they were born?
And don't say me something like it is a natural thing that some people are born with more things than other. That does not answer the question and it is not true.
It is an article of the human rights declaration that they do actually.

Once again, a Communist speaking from the hind-end

Merely because we are in a certain class, does not mean we were born there....

Such has already been stated and proven... Bring it up again, and I will not be nice with you...

The 300,000 I sunk into my own business did not come from thin air, I earned it by the sweat of my own brow... That is the wonderful thing about capitalism... class distinction is determined by the individual, and not souly by the desire of the governing body, as it is in Communism.

Communism has firm class distinction formed by the leadership, opposed to the people. A person in communism has all ability to operate as a free agent removed from his person, and is left in destitution, unless the leadership wants to make him part of their elite. Irregardless of the intention...

Class distinction is what you make of it in capitalism, and that is a simple fact...

I'm reminded of the popular joke: "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the other way round."

But seriously, capitalism can exploit people and often does. People make money creating products that are then sold for more than it cost to make them. In addition, the government takes a lot of tax from the workers. And the workers then buy products at an increased price—these being the same products they made, but the money is going into the pockets of the CEO and the investors in the company. Isn't that a bit of exploitation? Shouldn't the money made from the products go to the workers instead of the manager? Socialists say yes, the workers should get the money—but that leaves the manager and the president of the company with practically no money, and they make a living too. Capitalists say no—after all, weren't the workers paid? Communists compromise: no one can have any of the money, it all goes to the government which can "share it out" among the rest of the people.

Therefore, in a way, they're all exploiting people.

Bottle, I was just pointing out capitalist flaws, not doing communist propaganda. I'm not even starting to think that you could consider communism as an alternative, I'm just hoping that you will see capitalism has flaws and maybe you will try to adress tham and come with you own alternative.

Some people don't recognize that the capital is a social thing. The law is common to everybody and when you own a field, it is because the law says you own it. If somebody walks on your field, you don't shoot him yourself, you call the social police to do it. So basically it is the state which grants you ownership of the field, as a privilege.

I take it you're not a lawyer?

People own things regardless of what the state says. There is no statute saying 'people can own such and such things.' The law recognises pre-existing ownership rights and the state merely enforces them. The fundamental assumption, unless the law says otherwise, is that the state has no influence on people's ownership. That is the legal position.

In practice many states have the right for their legislature to pass laws that would affect people's ownership of property, but these are seriously curtailed by constitutional rights. So again, the possibility of a state having any right to interfere with your land is small in Western capitalist societies.

Your theories are bunkum. They have no bearing on reality. Perhaps you are thinking of the USSR or some such place, where the state had every right to take away a person's property, and often did so.

I don't think that's the real question.
The real question is do you deserve more money because you have the luck of being born in a rich family, or do people deserve the same chances at birth, no matter where they were born?
And don't say me something like it is a natural thing that some people are born with more things than other. That does not answer the question and it is not true.
It is an article of the human rights declaration that they do actually.

The person recieving the inheritance has no right to the inheritance, in my opinion. But it doesn't matter because the person who is handing it down has the right to decide what his property is used for in the future.

Some people don't recognize that the capital is a social thing. The law is common to everybody and when you own a field, it is because the law says you own it. If somebody walks on your field, you don't shoot him yourself, you call the social police to do it. So basically it is the state which grants you ownership of the field, as a privilege.

Uhhh... no. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the government owns all property, which, except in communist countries, is not true at all. In capitalist countries it is the individual who owns property, and one of the functions of the police and government is to protect the property rights of the individual over those who would take your property through deception, coercion, or force.

Capital is not a social thing. It is a private thing. And the state has an obligation to protect the private individual. Otherwise, the state has no purpose and cannot justify its existence.

Once again, a Communist speaking from the hind-end

Merely because we are in a certain class, does not mean we were born there....

Such has already been stated and proven... Bring it up again, and I will not be nice with you...Don't threaten me please. It has not be proven to me.

I feel like I'm not understood.
Nobody seems to get what I say.
Whatever. I'll try again with other words next time.

I feel like I'm not understood.
Nobody seems to get what I say.
Whatever. I'll try again with other words next time.

I see what you're trying to say about property - without the state our 'ownership' is fairly meaningless, as it becomes about self-enforcement, and then it's just a question of might-has-right. But we do have a state and we have law, and it works on the basis that ownership comes before the rights of the state.

Some people don't recognize that the capital is a social thing. The law is common to everybody and when you own a field, it is because the law says you own it. If somebody walks on your field, you don't shoot him yourself, you call the social police to do it. So basically it is the state which grants you ownership of the field, as a privilege.

The Communist state rears its ugly head...

In true libertine capitalism, the state owns nothing, people do... The state is merely there to protect the individual right of the people... in relation to one another.

The state does not "grant rights"... rights are "inherant"... The state has no honest control past that of the people... Anoter differentiation of communism, where state control is totalitarian, the state owns everything, and makes determination for the betterment of itself, as to who has access to what.

We capitalists are libertine, and believe in the concept of the individual... which you hate...

Sure, my kids may have more benefits; but they do so because of my work... CONCEPT... The kids are a product of the parents... WOW! Brilliant... What a concept... Is it my fault someone else doesn't have the desire I did to provide more for their kids than I did for mine? No, it is not. But it also does not mean I would support some tyrannical communist regime stealing all of my hard earned labor, and giving it to the lazy do-nothing family who did not put their and their kids future above all else? Just to squander away again, because they lack the personnal discipline (which is the end concept of capitalist drive) to succeed in life... My kids have more benefits, because I worked for those benefits, because I wanted my kids to have more than I did when I was growing up... I was born lower-class... My parents could barely keep ends meet, and while I love my parents, the reason they didn't have more, was because of themselves... MY dad was more than capable attaining more in life, but he choose not to... Does this mean I scream and while like little communists infants do, that I should have had more? No, I know the reason, and I know how to correct it for my kids, and I have done it...
I
I
I
I....

What you make in life is a product of the "I", your own drive, your own desire, and your own willingness... It does not matter how much money your parents gave you, it does not matter how much money some government agency would give you, it does not matter what resources you get ahold of; it only matters what you do, and how you use the resources around you... Which is motivated by your own self.... The "I"...


Those born poor, can become rich; those born rich can become poor...

The principle is, the "I", the SELF determines what class you eventually end up in... Nothing else around matters more than that.

Communism denies the "SELF" it wants to "give everyone the same opportunities", it never does of course; it still creates new class distinctions (by power, instead of wealth), and removes the ability of the "Self" to change their state in life. It denies self, and perpetrates tyranny. The only people granted "SELF" are those who are "graced" by some arbitrary body of tyrants, the privilidge to be leaders in the tyrany itself...

Communists, you can keep your rhetoric. None of the Capitalists here are dumb enough to buy into it.

The person recieving the inheritance has no right to the inheritance, in my opinion. But it doesn't matter because the person who is handing it down has the right to decide what his property is used for in the future.
How do you define his property? Who is giving those rights to property you are talking about?

How do you define his property? Who is giving those rights to property you are talking about?

The money that he has earnt, presumably. He has a right to that because he has worked for it.

We capitalists are libertine, and believe in the concept of the individual... which you hate...I don't.
Please calm down. Your rant didn't make any sense to me.
Please talk to me as a human being, don't always bring to the table that I'm a communist and that you hate communism.
I was talking about property and inheritance, nothing more.

The money that he has earnt, presumably. He has a right to that because he has worked for it.
Does it include the money his father has worked for?

Does it include the money his father has worked for?

What I mean is that it is the parent who has the right to the money that the parent has worked for. The parent can do whatever he wants with that money, including giving it to his children. The child has no right unless the parent gives him it or intends to give him it.

Incidentally, it is a rule of common law here in the UK that a parent is assumed to intend to give his possessions to his children on death unless he says otherwise in his will. But it is all based on the intention of the parent to do what he wants with his property, and without that intention the child has no rights.

I don't.
Please calm down. Your rant didn't make any sense to me.
Please talk to me as a human being, don't always bring to the table that I'm a communist and that you hate communism.
I was talking about property and inheritance, nothing more.

Kids are a product of the parents...

My kids have more than others, because I work for it, and have worked for it. Because I want them to have more than I did...

When I was growing up poor, I did not cry about not having things, I realized, in the end, that I could do better than them, and did.

Thus, my kids are "graced" with it... They get it, because I work for it.

Do they deserve it? Yes, they do... They deserve it, because it is my responsibility as a parent to do so. If I shirked my responsibility, they would get nothing, and much like my life growing up, would be left in the same state I started in.... But life is about growth, and families grow... Right now, my wife and I are the primary driving force in that growth; and we are accountable for our kids, and their raising, and providing them with what we can, so they do can, if they desire, go even further than we did...

That is life, that is growth; that is what Communism denies...

You may not like it, but that is the truth... And that is why I hate your system of economics... because growth becomes non-existant... Any cursory view of the history of this planet will prove, when something stops growing, it dies. Communism is opposed to actual growth of the person, in all aspects. It seeks to supposedly "level" the playing ground... Of course, in doing such, it removes all potential from the individual to grow as an individual. There is no competition, there is no real advancement, and everything dies... Just as every communist regime in the past and present, is and has been dying. Communism is the USSR had a heart-attack... China is growing into a Socio-Capitalist state, Cuba is on the verge of death, North Korea is slowly slipping... etc... They can't compete with the whole, so they die... They may go quietly (China), they may go quickly (USSR), but in the end, since they deny nature itself, they die.

What I mean is that it is the parent who has the right to the money that the parent has worked for. The parent can do whatever he wants with that money, including giving it to his children. The child has no right unless the parent gives him it or intends to give him it.

Incidentally, it is a rule of common law here in the UK that a parent is assumed to intend to give his possessions to his children on death unless he says otherwise in his will. But it is all based on the intention of the parent to do what he wants with his property, and without that intention the child has no rights.

It's roughly universal among capitalist nations that, in the absence of instructions from the deceased, the estate is distributed to individuals in a clearly defined succession based on family relationship with the deceased, beginning at spouse and moving on to children, or beyond if necessary. Property rights at death are automatically transferred to the next of kin, except in special circumstances, in which case the courts have to weigh all property claims and award them proportionately based on the validity of those claims.

What I mean is that it is the parent who has the right to the money that the parent has worked for. The parent can do whatever he wants with that money, including giving it to his children. The child has no right unless the parent gives him it or intends to give him it.

Incidentally, it is a rule of common law here in the UK that a parent is assumed to intend to give his possessions to his children on death unless he says otherwise in his will. But it is all based on the intention of the parent to do what he wants with his property, and without that intention the child has no rights.In my country, inheritance and gift are taxed and limited, unless for charity.
Are there limits to property in your country?

The money that he has earnt, presumably. He has a right to that because he has worked for it.

To put it slightly more accurately (because money is not always earnt), he has been given it by voluntary donors, either in exchange for goods and services or as an act of charity (I consider inheritance an act of charity, since it involves donorship of money and property with no kind of two-way exchange involved).

People have the right to give what they own to others, and what they legitimately own has in turn been given to them by others, exchanged for something with others, or produced by their own work. Why do Psylos and chums have any objection to voluntary donation of goods which have been legitimately accquired? If they hadn't been given voluntarily, or produced through one's own labour, then they would have been stolen, and it would be the duty of government to restore them to the last owner who had come by them via legitimate means.

It's roughly universal among capitalist nations that, in the absence of instructions from the deceased, the estate is distributed to individuals in a clearly defined succession based on family relationship with the deceased, beginning at spouse and moving on to children, or beyond if necessary. Property rights at death are automatically transferred to the next of kin, except in special circumstances, in which case the courts have to weigh all property claims and award them proportionately based on the validity of those claims.

That's right, and the theoretical underpinning of that is the presumed intention of the deceased. It's his property and he died intestate (i.e. no admissable evidence of what he wanted done with his possessions), so what did he want done with it? It is assumed by courts that he wants it to go to his next of kin in a certain order, so it does.

In my country, inheritance and gift are taxed and limited, unless for charity.
Are there limits to property in your country?

Inheritance can be construed as a form of charity in my book.

To put it slightly more accurately (because money is not always earnt), he has been given it by voluntary donors, either in exchange for goods and services or as an act of charity (I consider inheritance an act of charity, since it involves donorship of money and property with no kind of two-way exchange involved)....

You're quite right, of course.

The point is that once someone has legitimately acquired ownership of something they should be able to dispose of it in any way they please.

Rants....
I understand you live in the USA and you think everything is unlimited and everybody can have an empire.
The countries you talk about are much more densely populated than the USA. Some kind of organization becomes necessary when your empire clashes with the neighboring ones.

In my country, inheritance and gift are taxed and limited, unless for charity.
Are there limits to property in your country?

Of course. But in a democracy taxes are legitimate because they have, theoretically, been collectively approved. People have consented to give their money to the state (even if they don't always appreciate it ;) ). They elected the government, which deals with taxation.

To put it slightly more accurately (because money is not always earnt), he has been given it by voluntary donors, either in exchange for goods and services or as an act of charity (I consider inheritance an act of charity, since it involves donorship of money and property with no kind of two-way exchange involved).

People have the right to give what they own to others, and what they legitimately own has in turn been given to them by others, exchanged for something with others, or produced by their own work. Why do Psylos and chums have any objection to voluntary donation of goods which have been legitimately accquired? If they hadn't been given voluntarily, or produced through one's own labour, then they would have been stolen, and it would be the duty of government to restore them to the last owner who had come by them via legitimate means.
Well actually, my objections are with the very concept of property rights. I just don't recognize them. My concept of justice is in opposition with all what has been done in the last 6000 years of human history. I see the reason with inheritance in relation to property though and I understand better the rationale now that you explain it. In your universe, you have the right to do whatever you want with your property so giving it to somebody else is legitimate.

I understand you live in the USA and you think everything is unlimited and everybody can have an empire.
The countries you talk about are much more densely populated than the USA. Some kind of organization becomes necessary when your empire clashes with the neighboring ones.

Capitalists acknowledge this. The kind of organization you refer to is commoly referred to as "the law", and it stops you from doing things like, oh, forcing people to surrender what they have made themselves or been given by voluntary donors.

Well actually, my objections are with the very concept of property rights. I just don't recognize them. My concept of justice is in opposition with all what has been done in the last 6000 years of human history. I see the reason with inheritance in relation to property though and I understand better the rationale now that you explain it. In your universe, you have the right to do whatever you want with your property so giving it to somebody else is legitimate.

You don't believe anybody should own anything? So what's to stop me sailing around looting everybody's houses? What's the incentive for anyone to ever create anything if it's going to be taken from them without compensation by random strangers?

Capitalists acknowledge this. The kind of organization you refer to is commoly referred to as "the law", and it stops you from doing things like, oh, forcing people to surrender what they have made themselves or been given by voluntary donors.
I was talking about the taxes and the involvment of the state in the economy.

Well, if you don't recognise property rights then discussing inheritance in this way is pointless. But then so is most of life.

The trouble is that if you don't recognise property rights then you have to have someone who decides who gets what, and that person or group of people has incredible power. Ordinary people have virtually none. I can think of fewer things more demeaning to the human spirit.

Capitalism is flawed in its distribution of rewards, but the removal of property rights is hardly the answer in that regard.

You don't believe anybody should own anything? So what's to stop me sailing around looting everybody's houses? What's the incentive for anyone to ever create anything if it's going to be taken from them without compensation by random strangers?
Well that's another thread. I recommend you read Marx's books about that.
This thread is about pointing out the problems which arise with capitalism.
The problem is that it creates economic classes, but I'm not sure you recognize it as a problem or if you think it is no problem.

Sure. Can we stop pretending that making money is a bad thing?

After all, as a soviet communist, you have no objection to money. You just have an objection to someone having more money than you. The question is, why do you deserve the same as everyone else?

where have i ever claimed that?

and what do you think you know of my economic positions?

I was talking about the taxes and the involvment of the state in the economy.

They are a feature of any economy, and clearly aren't in opposition to capitalism. They are in opposition to libertarian anarchy, but that is not capitalism despite being defined by unbridled personal freedom. Capitalism requires a state structure.

The trouble is that if you don't recognise property rights then you have to have someone who decides who gets what, and that person or group of people has incredible power. Ordinary people have virtually none. I can think of fewer things more demeaning to the human spirit.


Indeed, by having someone who administrates in such a way, property rights of a sort are granted - to that administrator.

The only way to truly abolish property rights is to completely dissolve the state, in which case it's time to don a kevlar vest and a weapon and hit the streets for some pillaging.

Of those who desire for a Revolution, 15 more did it because capitalism exploits THEM, not because it exploits OTHERS.

Interesting. Very interesting. ;)

They are a feature of any economy, and clearly aren't in opposition to capitalism. They are in opposition to libertarian anarchy, but that is not capitalism despite being defined by unbridled personal freedom. Capitalism requires a state structure.
So actually you think it is ok for the state to limit property in order to help the less fortunate people? Or don't you?
I mean you recognize the right to private property, but that when it is in conflict with other basic human rights, it should be limited, is that so?

This thread is about pointing out the problems which arise with capitalism.


Well, this thread is about capitalism and how shit it is, and I'm counter-arguing by saying that your alternative is shitter. Isn't that legitimate?

The problem is that it creates economic classes, but I'm not sure you recognize it as a problem or if you think it is no problem.

It doesn't create economic classes in the way you seem to infer though. Poor people aren't instant slaves for all eternity to their evil capitalist masters (http://photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/mwahaha.png), they can easily become rich, just as the rich in a capitalist society can easily become poor. Yes, you can point out levels of wealth and poverty, but it's not as if the two aren't easily traversible.

Take some examples from modern capitalist society. There are plenty of people who have worked hard at what they do, and risen from grinding poverty to boundless wealth. I'm sure we can also find plenty of real-world examples of rich fools who have squandered their money on gambling, drink, bad stock choices and the like and are now beggars.

Just because you're born rich, it doesn't mean you can't become poor, and just because you're born poor, it doesn't mean you can't become rich.

Take MC Hammer, poor, mega-rich, poor.

Or Darius Rucker, struggling regional band, platinum record, Tendercrisp Bacon Chedder Ranch commercials.

So actually you think it is ok for the state to limit property in order to help the less fortunate people? Or don't you?
I mean you recognize the right to private property, but that when it is in conflict with other basic human rights, it should be limited, is that so?

My theory is that a democracy can be taken to represent the will of the people. When people vote for a government and that government imposes taxes, for any reason, then they have voluntarily decided to give their property to the state for the state to use collectively. It can only happen because the people allow it to happen. If the people ever decided to live in a communist society and allocate all their resources to the state then they could be quite free to do so under my system of property. But, sensible lot that they are, they never do so. They know what's good for them and what isn't.

So it isn't really a question of the state limiting property, because people always retain the ultimate control. A state has no right to limit property unless it has a popular mandate to do so.

Of course, we have to take into account that the consent is often imputed, and isn't real. Some people would want much lower taxes. But if we keep in sight the idea that taxation is only permitted because there is consent then we minimise the evil of state interference in a person's legitimate property.


My devotion to property is not absolute, overriding all other possible concerns. The primary aim, behind property rights, is that people are happy, and to be happy they have to be free, and that means free to enjoy their property. But it also means that they need to live in a functional society, so taxation is desirable to a degree. Past a certan point it begins to diminish people rather than elevate them, and finding that balance is the political obsession of most of the modern world, it would seem.

I don't disagree (please don't take offence, I'm not saying you're communist, just that I agree with you and that doesn't mean we have the same ideas).