: Well ...I detect a certain ahh...smugness in your applying selfish motivations to behavior. It is of course technically correct, but since the way you have defined the term, it can be applied to ALL behavior, and therefore loses all meaning and becomes rather pointless.: "... you would, if you had the power decide how others would spend their hard earned money. You proved it in your own example. This person doesn't need another video game they can pay for someone else. It is you through the guise of compassion that justifies theft."
:
: As with many people who have presumably "made it", you seem obsessed with the rights of private property and view various redistributive programs as "theft". Many on this board recognize that "theft" also may be applied to forms by which capital (as well as much personal wealth) has been generated. All Surplus Labor may be regarded as theft as long as those wage earners who have produced this surplus value have nothing to say about where or how it is to be invested.
: Those who control the culture and economy also control the way we assign meaning to words. Thus to say that an investor "earns" his income by having his money "work" for him, has corrupted the meaning of both these words.
Actually that was excactly my point about selfishness. It can be used to explain most behavior. I am glad you picked that up I am sure Dennis did not.
I am obsessed with property rights. You better believe I am, but I wouldn't say that I have made it yet. Property rights are the cornerstone of freedom and pursuit of happiness. When you take propery you take away freedom and self determination (more selfishness).
You brought up an interesting point regarding surplus value. I suppose this is the foundation of socialism and communism. That explains a lot. when you build on a faulty foundation you can expect problems with the structure. This is why we see socialism crumbling around us. From France to Cuba we see slow economies poor productivity or high unemployment.
When a wage earner is paid for work they are not paid by the number of hours but by the value they put into that hour. This iswhy those that add more value to the hour are paid more. How much are you willing to pay for someone to sweep the floor vs. how much for someone to repair your severed arm. Obviously the value put into an hour of surgery is not the same value as an hour of sweeping.
If surplus value is theft then profits are theft. I believe this must be your premise. This means that when a wage earner is paid, the business owner can not pay him less than the total value recieved from this work. This completely ignore the factor of risk and that is why it does not work in a practical sense.
If the person owning the business or an investor in the business is not compensated for the risk such ownership entails then there will be no ownership or investment. The government will be the owner of all business and capital. Centrally planned economies have not worked in the past. How would you get around this?
