Are wealthy people unethical?

[Roy L]

Get what?

The fact you refuse to know.

You see you have a problem - called "being a crackpot".

<yawn> That must be why you can't refute anything I say....

You hate that Trump earns more in a minute than you in 10 years.

No, I hate the evil institutions that enable him to get that much money WITHOUT earning it.

You do not believe Trump "deserves" his money. Am I right? I know I am right about that.

Indeed, I have stated it explicitly. Even the most cursory examination of the man's business dealings and career confirms that he makes money by relentless self-promotion, elaborate scams, and political manipulation, not commensurate productive contributions. He is a huckster.

But you know who you really hate?

Yep: lying apologists for greed, privilege and injustice, because they are the ones who make massive, systematic, institutionalized evil possible.

It's not the Trumps or billionaires - because there is no way they get their money unless someone gives it to them.

I have identified how people "give" it to them: under duress, usually applied by government. Or are you talking about all the banksters and other rich crooks who have been given billions BY government?

Now you don't complain about the guy who gives YOU money - you like that guy, and if tomorrow he gives you more, you like that even better.

If I dropped by and gave you a million$, you'd cheer and sing my praises and might even buy me a beer.

Actually, I have despised and detested some of the rich people who have given me money, because I knew they were going to turn the work I did for them to dishonest gain.

But you HATE that guy who had to give Trump money; you disagree -not with Trump- but the guy who believed Trump was worth more in a minute then 10 years of your earning.

I can only pity anyone who imagines Trump is worth anything at all.

That's the real roots of those that hate the rich - they really hate those that valued what the rich were doing or selling so much that they gave money to them.

No, that's just more stupid garbage from you. The rich don't have to do or sell anything to make others give them money. They just have to own the legal privilege of taking value that others produce.

[Roy L]

It obviously earned your comment, so it must have!

Non sequitur. I often comment on stupid, meaningless garbage.

You have two, and only two means to provide yourself the goods you need;

Earn, by profit and trade
or
Steal, by guns or government.

BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT. You missed the one that is prior to all the rest: production. You missed it because it is not a part of your understanding of economic relationships. To you, the producer is a non-entity the rich can rob with impunity: you think the producer's product goes to the rich without having to be produced by anyone.

I sense you prefer that latter to the former.

Well, at least you are consistent in being wrong.

I know YOU do not know, but I know damn well he does.

No, you don't even know that production has to come before profit, trade, or robbery.

Duh, one guy doesn't have it all....

OK, so you admit that wealth does people no good unless they have some. Good. Maybe you are capable of understanding something.

Whereas I have no love for institutions, I find it funny that I guy just a post or two above disparages wealth but here demands contributions to its creation.

I didn't disparage wealth, that's a fabrication on your part. I disparaged the wealthy, because they are mostly a bunch of greedy, privileged takers.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

There is one flaw in your logic, well, more than one actually:

1st: You mentioned something about "forcing people",

Firstly, no, I didn't say that, please quote me where I've said "forcing people"

I never said that, nor did I say anyone was "entitled" to anyone's money, merely pointed out that the whole "Get a job and your problems will be solved" idea is a myth,

Expecting that they should get more than what their skill can command IS making an etitlement argument since you think they "deserve" more while I think the markets have allocated them what they deserve because nobody but markets can decide what someone truly deserves through forces of supply & demand

I never said getting a job solves all the problems or anything close to that, I just said, it's better than government-socialism or even charity, people producing goods & services which are needed leads to more prosperity for everyone than there otherwise would be

and saying people are always getting paid what they are worth is also a myth. Think of people who work in nursing homes, I'd say they provide a pretty important service and have alot of responsibility on their hands yet they are paid very little, you can make an employer alot of cash, doesn't mean they are going to reward you proportionately.

There's nothing mythical about supply & demand, the supply of those nursing-home workers is high enough in relation to their demand to only get what they're getting, if they were worth more then employer would've to pay them more to hire them

You forget there would've been no work had the employer hadn't put up the initial capital, whatever he gets is a return on that capital & again, if the venture had failed, would those workers have worked for him for free? NO, their compansation is fixed irrespective of the success of the venture but the same can't be said of the employer & that's why whatever is made over & above, what is paid to workers & other costs, belongs to him

2nd: The house thing, I already dubunked that, true the man building his rediculous sized home employs some people, but had he not let those workers go they would have hired those construction workers to do work on their homes, also think of how much money those layed off workers spend on other products - cars, toothpaste, food, etc.

I don't think you debunked anything, he didn't think he could make profits from the venture, meaning that markets were asking not to waste the resources there because the demand is dropping & better to save those resources for now If there was a legitimate demand he'd have gone on with his venture or someone else would've so your point about the construction workers & toothpastes & cars is irrelevant

You're using government/Keynesian logic, like they say - if people aren't spending then government should - yes, but they aren't spending because that's what markets are demanding so taking money from people or inflating is ridiculous
Now, before you misconstrue me , I NOT saying you necessarily support government-spending BUT the logic you're using is similar that he should spend (waste) resources even though markets are suggesting otherwise, sure, it'll push toothpaste/food/car-sales but the bottomline is that the capital spent on keeping his workers is a waste because markets are suggesting that they are so it would be BETTER if he lets them go & they should take up other jobs where there IS market-demand & buy toothpaste/food/cars with money they earn there, as I've said before, a society grows rich by production of goods & services that are needed, not by paying people just for the sake of it

3rd: If billionaires were constantly recirculating their money that'd be one thing, but many of them don't, they hold onto it like Scrooges, look at that guy who Anna Nichole married, he had billions when he died, how was the money growing the economy sitting there? How about that trillion or so overseas right now just sitting because they don't want to bring it back here and be taxed on it, how is that helping the economy?

What do you think they do with their money? Do you think they sleep in it or something? They either spend it or invest it, either they can invest directly or through the banking-channel

And aren't those trillions helping produce goods & services there? US economy isn't isolated, economies must be seen as a whole, if they produce goods & services there then that has an impact on lowering US prices too as all prices are interlinked, it's a cumulative system & the more goods & services are produced in the world the more it helps the world as a whole

Besides, as I've said before, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to keep their money from being stolen by thieves so nothing wrong with them not bringing it in, it's the market that decide that it'll be more fruitful there than it will be here & even Ron Paul perfectly understands this & therefore, what's his solution to that? - Don't tax it & they'll bring that into US

4th: My tax idea was not the "Socialist" view, I actually follow Ron's view that no one should be taxed, however, if there are taxes, everyone should have to pay equally, that's all I was saying.

It IS socialist-thinking to believe that government has any legitimate right to steal from anyone, you're merely justifying it because you are being stolen from

Let me put it this way, if you happen to have a burglary at your house or office or whatever, do you wish & think it's "fair" that others should get burgled too?

Besides, Ron's view on ALL taxes is pretty obvious from the picture so I don't think he'll chase every tax-evader to every corner of the Earth & if he reduces taxes as much as he'd like to then cost of hiding money will outweigh just paying whatever little is needed & be done with it


image hosting gif

5th: I don't know where your notion of "working for free" is coming from, working for free goes well beyond charity, working for free would bring someone to ruin, a CEO living a slightly less luxurious lifestyle due to charity would not bring him/her to ruin.

And how is charity not the same as working for free? Let's say there are poor people you want to help & you make them food
OR you could just pay them so they could buy it from someone who's selling it
In essence, you've "worked for free" for them, even if you didn't do so "directly"
You may be an engineer or whatever you get paid for that, & that part of your money which you earned to pay those poor people with, that labor of yours was essentially exchanged for the labor of whomever made the food that they bought with the money you've given them so there's no difference between charity & working for free

Besides, the point was that self-interest is what drives markets to optimum resource-allocation so the CEO not wanting to continue the venture is because markets don't want the resources to be wasted there & the resources & labor needs to be allocated elsewhere

I'm just wondering what you might be saying to a socialist person you're trying to convert when they might argue that "the evil rich" need to be taxed more to pay for the poor because you know it won't matter if they live a less luxurious lifestyle!
Or if they say, the workers are being paid too little & hence we need minimum-wage laws to "fix" that!
Or that, those tax-evading companies & individuals need to be punished & taxed!
And so on, I mean you don't seem to understand how markets allocate resources in an optimum manner then how can you convince anyone else, especially socialists, that free markets would be better & therefore they should vote Paul???

I mean there might never be an absolutely perfect society or a perfect "free market", there will always be corruption & "greed" & all that, but understanding the market's resource-allocation gives us a better perspective on things that whether markets are free or not, they always allocate resources better, it's just that freer they are the better for people

P.S. Already watched that Stossel thing before, good show, but I don't always agree with John.

No two people agree on everything I guess but you'd agree with a lot more than you do now if you'd look into the market-process a little bit more
Google, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" if you don't know already; Bastiat will give more insight into market-process

Here's couple of good videos (find the subsequent parts on right side in related videos)





Here's the book given in the video - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
That's a must read for all of us who want to learn the market-process

[Black Flag]

Roy,

You're boring

[Brian4Liberty]

Are wealthy people unethical?

The answer to that would be collectivist. All people are individuals.

It would be a gross generalization, but it often seems that those who are on the "wrong side of the law", and also on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic scale seem to tend towards self-destructive levels of honesty. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there seems to be an utter lack of honesty in any situation. This would be one aspect of "ethics", and there seems to be a trend.

[Butchie]

Firstly, no, I didn't say that, please quote me where I've said "forcing people"



Expecting that they should get more than what their skill can command IS making an etitlement argument since you think they "deserve" more while I think the markets have allocated them what they deserve because nobody but markets can decide what someone truly deserves through forces of supply & demand

I never said getting a job solves all the problems or anything close to that, I just said, it's better than government-socialism or even charity, people producing goods & services which are needed leads to more prosperity for everyone than there otherwise would be



There's nothing mythical about supply & demand, the supply of those nursing-home workers is high enough in relation to their demand to only get what they're getting, if they were worth more then employer would've to pay them more to hire them

You forget there would've been no work had the employer hadn't put up the initial capital, whatever he gets is a return on that capital & again, if the venture had failed, would those workers have worked for him for free? NO, their compansation is fixed irrespective of the success of the venture but the same can't be said of the employer & that's why whatever is made over & above, what is paid to workers & other costs, belongs to him



I don't think you debunked anything, he didn't think he could make profits from the venture, meaning that markets were asking not to waste the resources there because the demand is dropping & better to save those resources for now If there was a legitimate demand he'd have gone on with his venture or someone else would've so your point about the construction workers & toothpastes & cars is irrelevant

You're using government/Keynesian logic, like they say - if people aren't spending then government should - yes, but they aren't spending because that's what markets are demanding so taking money from people or inflating is ridiculous
Now, before you misconstrue me , I NOT saying you necessarily support government-spending BUT the logic you're using is similar that he should spend (waste) resources even though markets are suggesting otherwise, sure, it'll push toothpaste/food/car-sales but the bottomline is that the capital spent on keeping his workers is a waste because markets are suggesting that they are so it would be BETTER if he lets them go & they should take up other jobs where there IS market-demand & buy toothpaste/food/cars with money they earn there, as I've said before, a society grows rich by production of goods & services that are needed, not by paying people just for the sake of it



What do you think they do with their money? Do you think they sleep in it or something? They either spend it or invest it, either they can invest directly or through the banking-channel

And aren't those trillions helping produce goods & services there? US economy isn't isolated, economies must be seen as a whole, if they produce goods & services there then that has an impact on lowering US prices too as all prices are interlinked, it's a cumulative system & the more goods & services are produced in the world the more it helps the world as a whole

Besides, as I've said before, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to keep their money from being stolen by thieves so nothing wrong with them not bringing it in, it's the market that decide that it'll be more fruitful there than it will be here & even Ron Paul perfectly understands this & therefore, what's his solution to that? - Don't tax it & they'll bring that into US



It IS socialist-thinking to believe that government has any legitimate right to steal from anyone, you're merely justifying it because you are being stolen from

Let me put it this way, if you happen to have a burglary at your house or office or whatever, do you wish & think it's "fair" that others should get burgled too?

Besides, Ron's view on ALL taxes is pretty obvious from the picture so I don't think he'll chase every tax-evader to every corner of the Earth & if he reduces taxes as much as he'd like to then cost of hiding money will outweigh just paying whatever little is needed & be done with it


image hosting gif



And how is charity not the same as working for free? Let's say there are poor people you want to help & you make them food
OR you could just pay them so they could buy it from someone who's selling it
In essence, you've "worked for free" for them, even if you didn't do so "directly"
You may be an engineer or whatever you get paid for that, & that part of your money which you earned to pay those poor people with, that labor of yours was essentially exchanged for the labor of whomever made the food that they bought with the money you've given them so there's no difference between charity & working for free

Besides, the point was that self-interest is what drives markets to optimum resource-allocation so the CEO not wanting to continue the venture is because markets don't want the resources to be wasted there & the resources & labor needs to be allocated elsewhere

I'm just wondering what you might be saying to a socialist person you're trying to convert when they might argue that "the evil rich" need to be taxed more to pay for the poor because you know it won't matter if they live a less luxurious lifestyle!
Or if they say, the workers are being paid too little & hence we need minimum-wage laws to "fix" that!
Or that, those tax-evading companies & individuals need to be punished & taxed!
And so on, I mean you don't seem to understand how markets allocate resources in an optimum manner then how can you convince anyone else, especially socialists, that free markets would be better & therefore they should vote Paul???

I mean there might never be an absolutely perfect society or a perfect "free market", there will always be corruption & "greed" & all that, but understanding the market's resource-allocation gives us a better perspective on things that whether markets are free or not, they always allocate resources better, it's just that freer they are the better for people



No two people agree on everything I guess but you'd agree with a lot more than you do now if you'd look into the market-process a little bit more
Google, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" if you don't know already; Bastiat will give more insight into market-process

Here's couple of good videos (find the subsequent parts on right side in related videos)





Here's the book given in the video - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
That's a must read for all of us who want to learn the market-process

You seem to give me credit that I'm not advocating force from govt but then keep on trying to subtely pigeon hole me into that mentality. You're claim that by my employing the man that I don't exactly need I'm somehow hurting the economy because I'm not investing those dollars and the market tells me he's not useful and he's not worth what I pay him, this is false. The money I use to pay him is purely out of my profits, I spend it, he spends it, what's the difference?

He is in a wheelchair, I honestly don't know what other job he would do, and I admire him that he wants to work instead of sitting around leeching off the govt.

You still are twisting the "working for free" thing, obviously no one would work for free for me because they could not live off of nothing, if I was a billionaire could I give away half my fortune and still live - absolutely, and I'd still live very well, that is not a fair comparison.

On the taxes we agree - No taxes, where we disagree is I say if we do have them, as we currently do, all should pay a fair %, but ofcourse, my preference is get rid of them all together, TRUST ME, if you ever try to farm you know I am all for getting rid of taxes.

I don't have a perfect solution to wealth inequality in society, and I do believe in capitalism, but I will never agree it is right for a small percentage of people to hoard all the wealth and for you to claim there is some system to balance that is not true, the wealthy will always have advantages the poor do not, (lookup Preston Tucker and Nikolas Tesla) there is no for sure formula to get rich, two people can be just as smart, just as hard working one can get rich one go broke.

Govt redistribution is obviously not the answer, but I have to ask, when you watch "It's a Wonderful Life" are you voting for George or Mr. Potter?

[Travlyr]

Nope. People do all those things just fine without owning land.

From whom do they lease their land?

No one owns land in Hong Kong, but it is a thriving, free and prosperous city. No one owns land in China, but it accounts for the lion's share of world production of rare earth minerals.

No one, RoyL? No one owns land in Hong Kong? Do they pay rent? If so, then who do they pay it to? If not, then that would make them the landowner.

You need to find a willingness to know the fact that you are wrong as a matter of objective, physical fact, while I am objectively correct.

Okay. Either the land is collectively owned or it is individually owned. Right?

But in fact, many people do those things just as well on land they do not own as others do on land they do own.

How so? If you own your land, then nobody can kick you off of it. If someone else owns the land where you sleep, then they can evict you if they want. Specifically, how is not owning land just as good as owning it?

Oh, really? Who misunderstands the world: the one who thinks Hong Kong cannot possibly be more prosperous than Bangladesh, or the one who understands why it is?

I live in America. If you wish to live in Hong Kong, that's fine with me. Here in America some of us embrace land and property rights. We are willing to fight for it.

The Empire State Building was built on leased land.

Who is the leasee and who is leasor?

That fact proves you wrong.

Huh?

Now it is up to you to find a willingness to understand the world you live in.

And here we come to the source of violence caused by misunderstanding our worlds. A man who cherishes his right to natural resources (me) and a man who does not respect my natural right to resources (RoyL). Therefore, when I make my land claim by staking the boundaries, then it is up to me to protect my claim against people like RoyL who do not believe I have that right. First, I might put up a fence to keep RoyL and others from trampling my crops and taking my livestock. If the fence doesn't work, then I must protect my claim by even more force. See how that works? Hatfield vs. McCoy.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You seem to give me credit that I'm not advocating force from govt but then keep on trying to subtely pigeon hole me into that mentality. You're claim that by my employing the man that I don't exactly need I'm somehow hurting the economy because I'm not investing those dollars and the market tells me he's not useful and he's not worth what I pay him, this is false. The money I use to pay him is purely out of my profits, I spend it, he spends it, what's the difference?

He is in a wheelchair, I honestly don't know what other job he would do, and I admire him that he wants to work instead of sitting around leeching off the govt.

I'm DON'T mean to tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your money, you can spend it any way you want & charity isn't necessarily a bad cause at all BUT all I'm not trying to make you realize is that "use of force" isn't the ONLY argument against waste of capital but the fact that EVERYONE in the society is less better off than they otherwise would be

"I spend it, he spends it" argument can just as well be made by the socialists & they do all the time, government says they'll spend if people aren't spending but that's just waste because they spend frivolously
And socialists don't mind use of force either but they may reconsider their position if you show them FACTUAL arguments that destruction of capital doesn't help the society as a whole because the money is given away without production of goods/services worth the money

You've have to understand that "money" isn't capital, it may represent it but not in it's entirety, "capital" is created when a person foregoes his consumption, because every time we buy/spend it creates demand & raises prices & therefore when we save, we're instead making that "purchasing-power" available to others so that they could produce more goods & services & the whole society is better for it because all prices affect each other because it's a cumulative system

You still are twisting the "working for free" thing, obviously no one would work for free for me because they could not live off of nothing, if I was a billionaire could I give away half my fortune and still live - absolutely, and I'd still live very well, that is not a fair comparison.

May be you would have given away half of your fortune but that does NOT mean society would've been better off, they may THINK that is the case but all it'll have done is bid up the prices of LIMITED, EXISTING goods & services without the production of goods & services of that worth; on the other hand, saving it would mean lower prices & making that purchasing-power available to others to produce more goods & services which helps everyone in the LONG-RUN, if every millionaire & billionaire gave his money away, it'll have only destroyed capital & there will less goods & services in the future & the society will be poorer for it

On the taxes we agree - No taxes, where we disagree is I say if we do have them, as we currently do, all should pay a fair %, but ofcourse, my preference is get rid of them all together, TRUST ME, if you ever try to farm you know I am all for getting rid of taxes.

Again, if your house gets burgled, do you hope & think it's "fair" that others should have their homes burgled too?

I don't doubt your dislike for taxes but the view that just because you (or anyone else for that matter) is worse off in some way then it's "fair" that others should also be worse off similarly

I don't have a perfect solution to wealth inequality in society, and I do believe in capitalism, but I will never agree it is right for a small percentage of people to hoard all the wealth and for you to claim there is some system to balance that is not true, the wealthy will always have advantages the poor do not, (lookup Preston Tucker and Nikolas Tesla) there is no for sure formula to get rich, two people can be just as smart, just as hard working one can get rich one go broke.

There will ALWAYS be "wealth inequality" because all people are NOT alike, their skills they're born with aren't & certainly not intelligence, sometimes, you're just lucky to be born in a society that has a high demand for your skill

The question is where all those poor would be if there are no "evil rich hoarders" - well, likely much worse off than they otherwise had been because again, there can be no prosperity without capital & capital only comes from savings (not from "printing presses" as Keynes & many mainstream economists believe ), the capitalist is rewarded by the market to the extent he's helping produce goods & services & making everyone better off than they otherwise would be, that's why poorer countries usually have fewer capitalists - no savings (ah! "hoarding"), no capital to undertake ventures & have SURESHOT wages to employees irrespective of success or failure of the venture

Again, I'm not saying wealthy don't have their advantages but merely the fact that capitalism is the best deal for EVERYONE because it helps everyone to be better off than they OTHERWISE would have been

Govt redistribution is obviously not the answer, but I have to ask, when you watch "It's a Wonderful Life" are you voting for George or Mr. Potter?

Media that always depict capitalism as the "evil guy" is one of the reasons why the country is moving towards an Orwellian nightmare led by socialism; but what's difficult to see for public is that a billionaire who merely squanders money by way of charity (I'm NOT saying there should be no charity AT ALL) will only leave the society poorer than the the "evil hoarder", that's why socialism & tyrannism reigns & capitalism, free markets are sneered at

Again, I urge you look at the video & the book I've posted, it may give better perspective on things; keep the "moral" argument of "force" aside for a moment, it may convince some but most WON'T be convinced & then focus on the real economic argument that is to be made regarding "evil capitalists", without which people won't accept capitalism because as I've said people are self-interested so unless they're shown the FACTS about how capitalism makes EVERYONE economically better off they'll keep choosing socialism & tyranny by making emotional arguments

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

[Butchie]

I'm DON'T mean to tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your money, you can spend it any way you want & charity isn't necessarily a bad cause at all BUT all I'm not trying to make you realize is that "use of force" isn't the ONLY argument against waste of capital but the fact that EVERYONE in the society is less better off than they otherwise would be

"I spend it, he spends it" argument can just as well be made by the socialists & they do all the time, government says they'll spend if people aren't spending but that's just waste because they spend frivolously
And socialists don't mind use of force either but they may reconsider their position if you show them FACTUAL arguments that destruction of capital doesn't help the society as a whole because the money is given away without production of goods/services worth the money

You've have to understand that "money" isn't capital, it may represent it but not in it's entirety, "capital" is created when a person foregoes his consumption, because every time we buy/spend it creates demand & raises prices & therefore when we save, we're instead making that "purchasing-power" available to others so that they could produce more goods & services & the whole society is better for it because all prices affect each other because it's a cumulative system



May be you would have given away half of your fortune but that does NOT mean society would've been better off, they may THINK that is the case but all it'll have done is bid up the prices of LIMITED, EXISTING goods & services without the production of goods & services of that worth; on the other hand, saving it would mean lower prices & making that purchasing-power available to others to produce more goods & services which helps everyone in the LONG-RUN, if every millionaire & billionaire gave his money away, it'll have only destroyed capital & there will less goods & services in the future & the society will be poorer for it



Again, if your house gets burgled, do you hope & think it's "fair" that others should have their homes burgled too?

I don't doubt your dislike for taxes but the view that just because you (or anyone else for that matter) is worse off in some way then it's "fair" that others should also be worse off similarly



There will ALWAYS be "wealth inequality" because all people are NOT alike, their skills they're born with aren't & certainly not intelligence, sometimes, you're just lucky to be born in a society that has a high demand for your skill

The question is where all those poor would be if there are no "evil rich hoarders" - well, likely much worse off than they otherwise had been because again, there can be no prosperity without capital & capital only comes from savings (not from "printing presses" as Keynes & many mainstream economists believe ), the capitalist is rewarded by the market to the extent he's helping produce goods & services & making everyone better off than they otherwise would be, that's why poorer countries usually have fewer capitalists - no savings (ah! "hoarding"), no capital to undertake ventures & have SURESHOT wages to employees irrespective of success or failure of the venture

Again, I'm not saying wealthy don't have their advantages but merely the fact that capitalism is the best deal for EVERYONE because it helps everyone to be better off than they OTHERWISE would have been



Media that always depict capitalism as the "evil guy" is one of the reasons why the country is moving towards an Orwellian nightmare led by socialism; but what's difficult to see for public is that a billionaire who merely squanders money by way of charity (I'm NOT saying there should be no charity AT ALL) will only leave the society poorer than the the "evil hoarder", that's why socialism & tyrannism reigns & capitalism, free markets are sneered at

Again, I urge you look at the video & the book I've posted, it may give better perspective on things; keep the "moral" argument of "force" aside for a moment, it may convince some but most WON'T be convinced & then focus on the real economic argument that is to be made regarding "evil capitalists", without which people won't accept capitalism because as I've said people are self-interested so unless they're shown the FACTS about how capitalism makes EVERYONE economically better off they'll keep choosing socialism & tyranny by making emotional arguments

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Your thief analogy doesn't hold up. Being robbed is a random act of crime, which is illegal. Like it or not (and I don't like it) there is an Amendment which gives the govt the power to tax (rob) us, I don't agree with it, but it is legal, so that is my argument. That is not the same as a burglar.

One key component you seem to forget about capitalism tho is - charity, when Ron is asked what happens to people without insurance what is his answer? Well, the community, churches, charities will help them out. I think what you are doing is confusing charity with handouts, I don't believe in enabling anyone to be lazy or dependent, but there are times when people legitimately need a helping a hand.

I will watch your video but trust me I've read/watched tons of stuff on Capitalism and there always are holes in it, ie I remember when someone asked Peter Schiffe what they should do if their boss doesn't treat them right or pays them an unlivable wage, he says "well you can quit"??? Seriously, just quit your job, that is insane, someone living paycheck to paycheck should just quit their job.

Lastly, sorry to tell you, I deal with the big time farmers all the time, trust me, they are every bit the "evil capitalist", those guys would step over their own mothers to make a buck. I think the real issue you are having with me is likely you are so used to debating this issue with socialists that you are putting me in that box, you seem to suggest things that are a bit more extreme than what I am saying, making money is fine, investing that money is fine, buying some nice things for yourself is fine, but there comes a point where it's like "how much more money does one person need, would it kill you to give your workers a raise, or a Christmas bonus?"

[Roy L]

From whom do they lease their land?

You seem to have somehow found a way to delete from your brain the fact that people did all those things before anyone ever owned any land. I'm curious: how do you go about removing such facts from your brain? I've never been able to remove facts from my brain the way apologists for landowner privilege habitually do.

If land has been forcibly appropriated as property, then the producer must pay whoever the community privileges to collect the land's community-created value.

No one, RoyL? No one owns land in Hong Kong?

Correct. There is no private landownership in HK, and hasn't been for 160 years.

Do they pay rent? If so, then who do they pay it to? If not, then that would make them the landowner.

They pay for a lease from the public land authority, and a number of real estate associated taxes.

Okay. Either the land is collectively owned or it is individually owned. Right?

No. Land all started out UNowned, and there has never been an event that could rightly have made it anyone's property. Individuals and collectives often claim to own it, but such claims are never based on anything but forcible appropriation and are therefore invalid.

How so? If you own your land, then nobody can kick you off of it.

Joke, right? "Owning" land is never based on anything but forcible appropriation, and is therefore just as rightly overturned by forcible appropriation.

If someone else owns the land where you sleep, then they can evict you if they want.

No, of course they can't, don't be stupid. They are required to observe the terms of any lease or rental agreement you may have. That is why many people do just fine using rented land.

Specifically, how is not owning land just as good as owning it?

That depends on the terms of ownership. In most places, the landowner is so exorbitantly subsidized at the expense of the productive that not owning land is equivalent to taking a vow of perpetual poverty. That is why you like to own land: you want to continue to pocket your welfare subsidy giveaway at others' expense. But in places like HK where no one owns land, not owning land works very well all round.

I live in America. If you wish to live in Hong Kong, that's fine with me.

You blankly refuse to know facts that prove you wrong. No surprises there.

Here in America some of us embrace land and property rights. We are willing to fight for it.

Of course, just as greedy, privileged, evil filth who lived in America 150 years ago embraced their property "right" in human flesh and were willing to fight for it.

Who is the leasee and who is leasor?

The land is currently owned by Prudential Insurance; after a complicated history, Malkin Holdings has emerged as owner of both the building and the land lease.

Huh?

Go back to sleep.

And here we come to the source of violence caused by misunderstanding our worlds.

Right: the violence initiated by those who seek forcibly to remove others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.

A man who cherishes his right to natural resources (me)

What "right to natural resources" would that be? A right forcibly to deprive others of their liberty to use natural resources, perhaps? You are obviously not satisfied with the liberty right to use natural resources non-exclusively, which our ancestors exercised for millions of years. No. You are not actually interested in exercising your valid natural liberty right to use natural resources at all. What you seek is a "right" to remove MY natural liberty right to use natural resources -- i.e., to initiate the use of force against me should I wish to exercise my right to liberty on land you claim is "yours."

and a man who does not respect my natural right to resources (RoyL).

Oh, but now, inevitably, you are just deliberately lying about what I have plainly written, like any evil, lying apologist for greed, privilege and injustice. I absolutely respect your valid natural liberty right to USE natural resources. What I don't respect is your outrageous and indefensible claim that you have a "right" to remove MY natural liberty right to use natural resources.

Therefore, when I make my land claim by staking the boundaries,

I.e., when you claim you have removed my right to liberty, and declare your intention to initiate violent, aggressive, physical coercion against me should I try to exercise it.

then it is up to me to protect my claim against people like RoyL who do not believe I have that right.

No, you will go crying to government for help, just as slave owners did when their property "rights" needed enforcing against their victims, who only sought to exercise their rights to liberty. The privileged always know they are reliant on government to secure for them their privileges of pocketing unearned wealth at the expense of others' rights.

First, I might put-up a fence to keep RoyL and others from trampling my crops and taking my livestock.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Your crops and livestock are quite safe. They are products of labor and thus rightly yours. But you can't expect the rest of us to just give up our liberty rights to use that land you want to exclude us from without just compensation.

If the fence doesn't work, then I must protect my claim by even more force. See how that works? Hatfield vs. McCoy.

Master vs slave, you mean... Yes, I see how it works everywhere land is privately owned, and government does not intercede to rescue the landless from the slavery-like conditions they would otherwise be consigned to.