Defending Capitalism

[JA37]

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it.
We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

Not unless it was my kid.

[1714054368]

1714054368

[1714054368]

1714054368

[1714054368]

1714054368

[1714054368]

1714054368

[1714054368]

1714054368

[MoonShadow]

How about gas prices? Technically an oligopoly but still. Concidering the profits they make they're overcharging, but there's no competition.

Whoa!  Hold on there!  You're going to have to support that statement, I will not accept it as a given that gas companies overcharge you.  And by what logic do you claim that there is no competition?  And which companies are we talking about, exactly?  The oil companies that pump it out of the ground, transport it from angry & sandy locales, convert it to petrol, transport it to your local station, or sell it to you at the station?

[benjamindees]

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it.
We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

Not unless it was my kid.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

[NghtRppr]

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

[benjamindees]

I'm sure there will always be some swath of desert somewhere that remains un-owned.

Would it be reasonable for the rest of us to demand that you either give us all of your possessions or move there?

[NghtRppr]

I'm sure there will always be some swath of desert somewhere that remains un-owned.

Would it be reasonable for the rest of us to demand that you either give us all of your possessions or move there?

There's something like 7 billion acres of land that can be used for growing crops on the planet. That's a little over an acre of arable land per person. However, to answer your question, assuming all that land is owned, yes. Of course, Las Vegas was built in the middle of a desert. So, it's really all about how you put the land to use.

[benjamindees]

Great, so then you're not only for slavery.  You're for sex slavery.  Fantastic argument.  I can't imagine why everyone isn't rushing to sign up for your "evict your kids so they can whore themselves out in a desert wasteland to survive" philosophy.

[NghtRppr]

Great, so then you're not only for slavery.  You're for sex slavery.  Fantastic argument.  I can't imagine why everyone isn't rushing to sign up for your "evict your kids so they can whore themselves out in a desert wasteland to survive" philosophy.

What the fuck are you talking about? Slavery? Sex slavery? I think you've gotten me confused with someone else. Put down the crack pipe and talk to me when you're sober.

[benjamindees]

How do you think Las Vegas was built?  It was built by criminals and gangsters.  And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.  Do you see any manufacturing plants or farms to produce goods for export?  How would you earn a living in a desert?

You haven't really thought through the consequences of your philosophy in a world of finite resources.  "Homesteading" is not some universal answer to everything.  Are you really under the impression that the vast majority of productive property on Earth is not already owned, or soon will be?  Should people homestead the moon?

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

So please address this question.

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

[MoonShadow]

How do you think Las Vegas was built?  It was built by criminals and gangsters.  And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.

This is generally true with just about every city.  Those things are illegal in Vegas as well.

[NghtRppr]

And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.

Cirque du Soleil is a crime? Damn, you must hate anything cultural. What the hell does that have to do with slavery though? Like I said, put down the crack pipe. Also, please stop pretending that Las Vegas is the model for all desert cities that are flourishing. It was a just a single example.

How would you earn a living in a desert?

I'm a computer programmer. I can work from anywhere. There are lots of ways to work from home. There's also the possibility of commuting. Of course, how you survive isn't my concern. You're a big boy. You figure it out. What's the alternative? Do you think I should provide you a way to survive?

Are you really under the impression that the vast majority of productive property on Earth is not already owned, or soon will be?

Go read up on homesteading. Simply saying "I own sea to shining sea" isn't enough to homestead it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of land hasn't been homesteaded. I don't actually know that though since I haven't done the research. I'm betting you haven't either. Let me know if you have then you can make some meaningful claim.

Should people homestead the moon?

Eventually.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

Of course it applies. Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

[MoonShadow]

Go read up on homesteading. Simply saying "I own sea to shining sea" isn't enough to homestead it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of land hasn't been homesteaded. I don't actually know that though since I haven't done the research. I'm betting you haven't either. Let me know if you have then you can make some meaningful claim.

Well, that's not true with the US as a whole, but more than half of Utah, by area, is "legally" the property of the Federal government.  This sounds rediculous, but it is so.

[benjamindees]

Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

And you think that's a good thing?  So what makes you think anyone would choose to homestead the moon over, say, your back yard?

Have I not made this argument perfectly clear by now, or are you just that dense?  You support slavery.  You want future generations to have to do something ludicrous, like colonizing a desert or the moon, by force, so that current generations can benefit by not having to care for them or compete with them for scarce resources.  That's the philosophy that you are advocating, taken to it's logical conclusion -- inter-generational slavery -- disguised as "anarcho-capitalism".  In actuality, it's the opposite of capitalism.  Since, what you advocate has only ever led to the destruction of capital throughout history.  But it's in your immediate interest and it produces "profit" on paper so you can find ways to intellectually justify it.

Also,
http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-places-infant-son-in-rocket-to-escape-dyin,2495/

[TiagoTiago]

Just wait till global warming triggers the next ice age and you will have enough solid surface for every individual to live the rest of their lifes without bumping on anyone else

[BCEmporium]

Just wait till global warming triggers the next ice age and you will have enough solid surface for every individual to live the rest of their lifes without bumping on anyone else

Doesn't work! There's a bunch of folks who always seams to be out of parking space and therefore just keep pushing to create a bigger Empire...

[NghtRppr]

Well, that's not true with the US as a whole, but more than half of Utah, by area, is "legally" the property of the Federal government.

Is it homesteaded? No? Then it's not owned. Chattel slavery was also once legal. So, it seems to me whether or not something is legal is a fairly worthless concept.

And you think that's a good thing?

Yes. It's unwise to force people to be responsible for children they don't want. It's better for a child to be with a family that will love and care for them.

So what makes you think anyone would choose homestead the moon over, say, your back yard?

My backyard is already homesteaded. You can only homestead unowned property. If you took the time to educate yourself on homesteading then we could avoid wasting time with pointless questions like this.

You support slavery.  You want future generations to have to do something ludicrous, like colonizing a desert or the moon, by force, so that current generations can benefit by not having to care for them or compete with them for scarce resources.

That's not slavery. Also, nobody is likely to be forced to go to the moon. People could buy a condo in a skyscraper and get an ordinary job. As long as humans have desires, there will be jobs. The problem is, you're not actually looking for solutions. You're just looking for objections, even if they are ridiculous and take only a few seconds to come up with a reasonable answer.

Are you related to JA37?

[benjamindees]

Of course no one is likely to go to the moon.  That's the point.  They're likely to just kill you and take your property instead, regardless of what claim you think you have to it.  And, of course, this is likely to happen after you're dead and gone anyways, so it will be some other poor sucker who receives the blowback from your ill-thought-out political philosophy.  You're writing a mortgage that you know will blow up on some future sucker.

What makes you think "ordinary jobs" pay for condos in skyscrapers?  Are you living in some economic fantasyland, like New York?

Forcing others to work for your benefit is not slavery?  Really?  What do you call that then?

What makes you think there will always be jobs for humans?  In case you haven't noticed, Cirque du Soleil and Vegas aren't doing so hot lately.  Neither is Detroit.  Of all the professions that can be more effectively done by humans than by machines, only a handful qualify as productive work.

Have you ever studied history?  Physics?  I already know what the solution is.  And I'm trying to point it out to you.

[NghtRppr]

Forcing others to work for your benefit is not slavery?

The only way anyone is ever forced to work is by threat of violence. Simply saying, "I won't feed your lazy ass for nothing." isn't slavery. It's time for the children of the world to grow up and learn to take care of themselves. Mommy and daddy aren't always going to be around to feed you and wipe your ass.

What makes you think there will always be jobs for humans?

"There is as much work to be done as there are unfulfilled desires. Since human desires are, for all practical purposes, limitless, the amount of work to be done is also limitless. Therefore, no matter how much work the eager young man completes, he cannot possibly exhaust or even make an appreciable dent in the amount of work to be done.

To assume that human desires can be fully and finally satisfied is to assume that we can reach a point at which human perfection — material, intellectual, and aesthetic — has been fully realized. Paradise? Perhaps. If it were somehow achieved, then certainly there would be no "unemployment" problem — for who would need a job?" --Block

In other words, the only way that there could be no jobs is if all human desires are satisfied, in which case, nobody needs a job. I'm not saying it will never happen but it's unlikely to be an issue for a very long time.

Physics? History? How about learning some economics since you seem to be fairly ignorant of that.

[benjamindees]

The only way anyone is ever forced to work is by threat of violence.

So, you would consider exposing a child on a mountaintop to be an act of violence?  Or you think the child would not be forced to work to survive?

"There is as much work to be done as there are unfulfilled desires. Since human desires are, for all practical purposes, limitless, the amount of work to be done is also limitless. Therefore, no matter how much work the eager young man completes, he cannot possibly exhaust or even make an appreciable dent in the amount of work to be done.

To assume that human desires can be fully and finally satisfied is to assume that we can reach a point at which human perfection — material, intellectual, and aesthetic — has been fully realized. Paradise? Perhaps. If it were somehow achieved, then certainly there would be no "unemployment" problem — for who would need a job?" --Block

Yeah, this is a completely nonsense definition of work.  Digging holes only to fill them back up again is not work.  And productive work is thermodynamically limited.  Resources are finite.  Infinite amounts of human labor won't change that fact.

I've studied economics.  On the whole, I found it to be a rather unimpressive collection of unrealistic false assumptions and deliberate mangling of common terms put to fraudulent ends.

[NghtRppr]

So, you would consider exposing a child on a mountaintop to be an act of violence?  Or you think the child would not be forced to work to survive?

Are you so hysterical that all you can think about are extreme cases? I would personally volunteer to take in a single child and care for him or her if someone abandons them on a mountaintop. I'm sure millions of childless couples would do the same. The point is, such choices regarding charity should be voluntary and not done at gun point or with threats of imprisonment.

Yeah, this is a completely nonsense definition of work.  Digging holes only to fill them back up again is not work.

I just got done explaining to you that jobs are created by human desires. Who the fuck desires a hole to be dug up and then refilled? Nobody, except maybe government agencies trying to create "job programs". The things you're saying are becoming more idiotic with every post. If you don't smarten up, I'm just going to ignore you.