Are wealthy people unethical?

[heavenlyboy34]

From whom do they lease their land?


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.

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


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?


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.

Who is the leasee and who is leasor?


Huh?


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.

Welcome to the imaginary land of Cognitive Dissonance that is Roy L's utopian, idealistic world.

[Travlyr]

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.

I think you got it! Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings are the owners whether you like it or not. They control that property with guns.

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

Exactly! Just like the Hatfields and McCoys

I make my claim forcibly against you just like Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings do at the Empire State Building. If you don't like it, then that's too bad. It is good for me and my family because we can have a home to live in and feel safe, secure, warm and dry. I will defend my family and my right to own land with a weapon if necessary.

[Roy L]

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

??? Huh? Who do you imagine gets the money when you spend it on a product, other than the producer?? The best way to put money in the hands of producers who can invest it most productively is to buy their products. It's not up to consumers to refrain from consuming in the hope that some producer somewhere will be able to use their savings productively. It's up to producers to allocate the money they receive for their products so as to produce more as efficiently as they can.

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,

Oh? Then why can't you answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

that's why poorer countries usually have fewer capitalists - no savings (ah! "hoarding"),

OTC, poor countries often have rich (especially landowning) elites with lots of savings. It is almost proverbial in many poor countries that people who need to borrow money go to the local landowner, who brings out a box stuffed with it.

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

Not if you compare capitalism to liberty and justice.

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;

ROTFL! Nonsense. It is rapidly becoming fascist, not socialist. The signs are everywhere.

[Roy L]

I think you got it! Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings are the owners whether you like it or not. They control that property with guns.

No, they control it by government decree.

Exactly! Just like the Hatfields and McCoys

I make my claim forcibly against you just like Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings do at the Empire State Building. If you don't like it, then that's too bad. It is good for me and my family because we can have a home to live in and feel safe, secure, warm and dry.

People are actually safer in HK. Why can't you ever remember that HK refutes you?

I will defend my family and my right to own land with a weapon if necessary.

IOW, you can't justify your claim to own land by any means other than the one slave owners used to justify their ownership of slaves. Thought not.

[Travlyr]

IOW, you can't justify your claim to own land by any means other than the one slave owners used to justify their ownership of slaves. Thought not.

Right again, except land is not a living breathing human. I don't know how you missed that. I don't justify to you. I justify it in my mind and that is all I need. It is natural for me like my right to eat. I don't care what you think about it. You don't have to own land if you don't want. I do, and we enjoy it.

[onlyrp]

Easy answer : rich people are ethical if they're also Ron Paul supporters or libertarians, because then they're real capitalists. But if they are not, then they're immoral corporatists who want freedom for themselves, but taxes and regulations on everybody else. What decides your morality isn't how much money you have, but how you got it and how you allow other people to compete with you.

[Roy L]

Right again, except land is not a living breathing human.

Neither is the sun. So what? Does that mean it must be OK for someone to own the sun? If not, then you have admitted that the fact land is not a living breathing human is irrelevant to whether it can rightly be owned, and you were just engaging in a dishonest ignoratio elenchi fallacy: i.e., changing the subject.

You need to take a couple of months off work to figure out what rights are, and how making the sun into private property would violate them. If you can figure that out, you might be minimally qualified to participate in this discussion.

I don't know how you missed that.

If you were thinking, you might be able to figure out that I "missed" it because it is stupid, dishonest and fallacious crap.

I don't justify to you.

Which might be because you can't.

I justify it in my mind and that is all I need.

Like slave owners' justification for owning slaves.

It is natural for me like my right to eat.

But you can't justify it any more than the socialists who think it is natural to confiscate privately produced wealth.

I don't care what you think about it. You don't have to own land if you don't want. I do, and we enjoy it.

You enjoy being unjustly privileged. What a surprise. I'm sure slave owners did, too.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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.

"Laws" are IRRELEVANT to liberty, Patriot Act & NDAA even for indefinite detention & even killing of people, so just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's proper, same with taxes, just because taxing is "legal" does NOT mean it's not burglery, it IS, there are no two ways about that

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.

As I've said, I'm NOT against charity but the recognition that it IS waste of capital when people are given stuff without them ADDING more goods & services to the society
Just giving away, adds little & only increases demand & prices of EXISTING LIMITED goods & services while saving it allows others to use that purchasing-power to PRODUCE, that's what capitalism is about & that's what makes it beter than socialism
For example, you may've a socialist society completely bereft of force & they'd still be worse off that a capitalist society bereft of force because socialist one won't be saving much & redistribution, (even consensual) only succeeds in raising demand & prices & destroyes capital

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.

Again, nobody "deserves" a particular wage, they get what they get because that's what their skill is worth at that point in time

Why do you think doctors make more than a bricklayer? Because doctors services are valued more by the society & there's a lower supply of his services compared to its demand & hence his "price" gets bidded up, which is an indication by the market to show that there's low supply & more people need to become doctors to meet demand but unfortunately becoming a good doctor is beyond most people but even still, you'll see in places like India or China there's a glut of doctors & that's why their "prices" are much lower & many in the West can travel & vacation there & get the desired treatment, all with the same money or less than what it would cost in the West, where there's less competition because of big labor & welfarism & what not but just to make the point that prices are market-indicators of supply & demand, higher the supply, less the price & higher demand, higher the price

If someone gives others "livable wage" (& that's pretty subjective most of the time anyway) irrespective of the services & productivity provided by them then he'll be giving more to them than the value of goods & services, they'll consume more goods & services than the value of services they've provided to the society

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?"

Actually, I am used to debating socialists because world is ripe with them & also tyranny for the same, because they don't or can't understand what goes on "behind the scenes", they just see the "evil capitalist hoarder" but don't see that if he just gave money away, most of that will just be spent of consumption & thereby bidding up LIMITED EXISTING goods & services without producing the equivalent amount in goods & services

I guess you "want" to support capitalism but you don't because I'm sorry but you're stuck in a socialist paradigm
It's NOT a question of "how much money does one need", but people fail to see that by not just spending it or just giving it away for others to spend, he SAVES purchasing-power & thereby demand & prices for goods & services are lower than they otherwise would be & thereby he creates "capital" & then he makes that purchasing-power available to other productive people who want to be produce MORE goods & services & prosperity of a society as a whole depends ONLY & ONLY one thing - availability of more & more goods & services so that prices would be lower than they otherwise would be & more people can enjoy them

There are three parts to the video-series I think & I'd HIGHLY recommend this free e-book, it's written in simple English, no complex jargon or stats, etc & it's not very lengthy either - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

[Black Flag]

Again, nobody "deserves" a particular wage, they get what they get because that's what their skill is worth at that point in time

Exactly.

When anyone says "He doesn't deserve that pay" --- what they are really saying is "the guy who gave him that pay is really stupid" because no gets paid unless someone else gives them the money.

Their complaint, then, is bizarre.

They are judging -not the guy getting money but - the guy GIVING the money!

But what right do they have to judge what others spend their money on?
It's not their money to judge!!

[Roy L]

Exactly.

When anyone says "He doesn't deserve that pay" --- what they are really saying is "the guy who gave him that pay is really stupid" because no gets paid unless someone else gives them the money.

Their complaint, then, is bizarre.

They are judging -not the guy getting money but - the guy GIVING the money!

But what right do they have to judge what others spend their money on?
It's not their money to judge!!

Come on, people, are you really that ignorant of basic economics? Google "rent seeking behavior" and start reading.