Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're conflating property in general with real estate. My point is at a MUCH less specific level. Your property is whatever you exchange your labor for.
A tree could be property, but a tree isn't some abstract idea. It is literally rooted to the ground. A shirt can be property, but a shirt is made of cotton or wool, and those need land to grow. Food can be property, but food has to come from somewhere.
Labor is not property, but it is possible to exchange labor for property if you can find someone to agree to it.
As it pertains to labor, we usually refer to either the gain of property or the value added to property from labor as "The fruits of your labor". It isn't that "your labor" is property which you own. Rather, you are property, which either you own, or someone else owns. Just like a cow or a horse or a sheep is property.
If a horse owns himself, then he owns his labor. If you own a horse, then you own his labor. If you own a sheep, then you own his wool, his meat, etc.
Throughout much of history, humans were implicitly thought of and treated as property. From slaves to serfs to servants.
No, I'm not. You're injecting something which isn't related to my point and then blaming me for it.
I was discussing wages and prices, you were discussing trade and the production of goods and services.
You are correct that trade is not a zero sum game. If you are producing products to sell, then your labor is creating something that wouldn't otherwise exist. But whether you are paid $1 an hour, $5 an hour, or $100 an hour, doesn't by itself increase or decrease total production.
If I hired you to mow by lawn. Whether I paid you $10, $20, or $50, the number of services rendered is exactly the same. The only difference is how much money I get to keep in my pocket vs how much you get to put in your pocket. The more you get, the less I have.
"Today's generation doesn't know how real capitalism works"
Because the "teachers" never knew.
They ONLY know what was taught to them by people who never worked in the real wold and were also taught by other teachers who didn't know.
Their books were written by "academics with NO real business experience.
Older generations always complain about the younger generations. But the fact is, they advance our country like every generation does. I wish you guys would stop complaining about them.
Is there a punch line that I missed? You are working way, way too hard.
Western style capitalism offers much more freedom than any form of socialism and/or communism. All one needs to do is study economic history for 15 minutes and it's clear.
Lenin is one of the greatest frauds in history. He, with a lot of help from other psychos, created a fear state through rape, murder, gulags, starvation etc.
Quoting one of histories great scumbags wrecks your case.
He starts quoting Lenin, which pretty much invalidates everything he states.
He starts quoting Lenin, which pretty much invalidates everything he states.
Why would it invalidate anything? For instance, take this quote...
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Lenin
Is that true? Is it not true? Let's pretend that instead of Lenin saying that, it was Winston Churchill. Would that make it true? What if it was Alexander Hamilton. Would that make it true?
What about this quote by Lenin.. "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world".... Or this one, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
Is that not true? And what is my purpose for saying it? Might it be as a warning to conservatives? If so, why wouldn't it be valid?
Why would it invalidate anything? For instance, take this quote...
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Lenin
Is that true? Is it not true? Let's pretend that instead of Lenin saying that, it was Winston Churchill. Would that make it true? What if it was Alexander Hamilton. Would that make it true?
What about this quote by Lenin.. "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world".... Or this one, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
Is that not true? And what is my purpose for saying it? Might it be as a warning to conservatives? If so, why wouldn't it be valid?
There is no such thing as evil. The only monsters that have ever existed are Machiavellians.
But aren't all governments fundamentally Machiavellian? You think this government wouldn't kill you if you became a threat?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-29-2022 at 08:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
