What if me and a number of my friends get together and form a collective and we all vote to ride your brother's bike whenever we want to?

Is that OK? I mean, he doesn't know any of us individually, and he has no incentive to let us ride his bike, therefore he won't listen to us.

I mean, it is OK that we band together to take his private property simply because we are in a union?

Because if you can understand why your brother doesn't want our little union to take away a part of his private property and why we have no right to demand that, you can understand why corporations don't want your union to take away a part of their private property and why you don't have the right to demand that.

OK...go out and have your gang legally recognized as a labour or trade union with it's own constitution, political structure and by-laws. Then we'll talk.
Until that point, this is nonsense.

What if me and a number of my friends get together and form a collective and we all vote to ride your brother's bike whenever we want to?

Is that OK? I mean, he doesn't know any of us individually, and he has no incentive to let us ride his bike, therefore he won't listen to us.

I mean, it is OK that we band together to take his private property simply because we are in a union?

Because if you can understand why your brother doesn't want our little union to take away a part of his private property and why we have no right to demand that, you can understand why corporations don't want your union to take away a part of their private property and why you don't have the right to demand that.

OK...go out and have your gang legally recognized as a labour or trade union with it's own constitution, political structure and by-laws. Then we'll talk.
Until that point, this is nonsense.

It's not nonsense because you sez so. Here, I'll start it for you, "this is nonsense because...." Or here, "It is OK to take private property from people who aren't my brother because (insert reasoning here), but it is not OK to take private property from my brother because (insert reasoning here)."

You see, both the motorcycle and the shares of stock are private property. If you believe that one or the other are not private property, then you must present that argument, "A (motorcycle or stock shares) are not private property because...." You seem to think it is OK to take some private property as long as you agree with it, but then also seem to think that it isn't OK to take other private property when you don't agree with it.

That's inconsistent and hypocritical and deeply undermines your position. That some organization happens to create a self-serving constitution, political structure, and by-laws does not make taking private property any more right.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What if me and a number of my friends get together and form a collective and we all vote to ride your brother's bike whenever we want to?

Is that OK? I mean, he doesn't know any of us individually, and he has no incentive to let us ride his bike, therefore he won't listen to us.

I mean, it is OK that we band together to take his private property simply because we are in a union?

Because if you can understand why your brother doesn't want our little union to take away a part of his private property and why we have no right to demand that, you can understand why corporations don't want your union to take away a part of their private property and why you don't have the right to demand that.

OK...go out and have your gang legally recognized as a labour or trade union with it's own constitution, political structure and by-laws. Then we'll talk.
Until that point, this is nonsense.

It's not nonsense because you sez so. Here, I'll start it for you, "this is nonsense because...." Or here, "It is OK to take private property from people who aren't my brother because (insert reasoning here), but it is not OK to take private property from my brother because (insert reasoning here)."

You see, both the motorcycle and the shares of stock are private property. If you believe that one or the other are not private property, then you must present that argument, "A (motorcycle or stock shares) are not private property because...." You seem to think it is OK to take some private property as long as you agree with it, but then also seem to think that it isn't OK to take other private property when you don't agree with it.

That's inconsistent and hypocritical and deeply undermines your position. That some organization happens to create a self-serving constitution, political structure, and by-laws does not make taking private property any more right.

That's rubbish.
While owning a bike is property of private goods - like a bicycle, a coat, a game... Things actually used by the person who possesses them.
Owning shares of stock is property of some sheet of paper that tells you that you own a part of production means. You don't use these sheets (except when selling/buying them), you don't (normally) use these production means - and the gambling with them on the Stock Exchange does not only affect a few persons person but can affect thousands.

Imho all enterprises with more than a handful employees never should be owned by a few people or by banks. Simply because the workers are not treated as humans anymore but just as items on the cost list. Put all bigger enterprises in common property, let the community/ State/ country/ government possess all stocks (or at least most) of all shares that are not given to the employees of that particular company - then maybe there will be more justice.

But anyway: this stock gambling must be stopped immediately, because it has brought too much misery and poverty to the people.

---

Account frozen...

You see, both the motorcycle and the shares of stock are private property. If you believe that one or the other are not private property, then you must present that argument, "A (motorcycle or stock shares) are not private property because...." You seem to think it is OK to take some private property as long as you agree with it, but then also seem to think that it isn't OK to take other private property when you don't agree with it.

That's inconsistent and hypocritical and deeply undermines your position. That some organization happens to create a self-serving constitution, political structure, and by-laws does not make taking private property any more right.

That's rubbish.

To you, maybe.

While owning a bike is property of private goods - like a bicycle, a coat, a game... Things actually used by the person who possesses them.
Owning shares of stock is property of some sheet of paper that tells you that you own a part of production means. You don't use these sheets (except when selling/buying them), you don't (normally) use these production means - and the gambling with them on the Stock Exchange does not only affect a few persons person but can affect thousands.

All you've done here Thorin is note that there are differences between motorcycles and stock certificates. Duh. You've noted that they are used at different times and in different ways. Duh. But that doesn't mean that they aren't each private property, or that they do not belong to those that own them. The fact that that motorcycle will spend 90+% of it's useful life sitting unused and parked does not mean that the owner owns it any less, any more than the fact that a stock certificate may spend nearly 100% of it's ownership unused means its owner owns it any less.

Again: both the motorcycle and the shares of stock are private property, albeit different kinds of private property. If you believe that one or the other are not private property, then you must present that argument, "A (motorcycle or stock shares) are not private property because...."

Imho all enterprises with more than a handful employees never should be owned by a few people or by banks. Simply because the workers are not treated as humans anymore but just as items on the cost list. Put all bigger enterprises in common property, let the community/ State/ country/ government possess all stocks (or at least most) of all shares that are not given to the employees of that particular company - then maybe there will be more justice.

But anyway: this stock gambling must be stopped immediately, because it has brought too much misery and poverty to the people.

It won't be stopped because everyone that owns stocks disagree with you and they don't care what you think. As usual, you can open your own company and run it however you wish, but no one in their right mind would run it that way--that doesn't mean you aren't entitled to, just that it makes no sense.

Even those that do ostensibly agree with you, oh, say the pension and retirement funds of the UAW are stock and shareholders of these companies and they expect a return on their investment--they want profits as well.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I suppose one could buy shares in the motorcycle and then you could take a turn around the block.

The analogy to shares is dumbfoundingly simplistic.

The motorcycle is 100% privately owned by a human being.
Stocks are publicly traded and available to everyone with disposable income they are willing to risk.

While I do recall riding the motorcycle, I have no memory of taking possession of anyone's stocks.

I have to assume you understand the concept of theft and that it doesn't apply to union negotiations with the employer if that's the angle you intend to pursue.

Imho all enterprises with more than a handful employees never should be owned by a few people or by banks. Simply because the workers are not treated as humans anymore but just as items on the cost list. Put all bigger enterprises in common property, let the community/ State/ country/ government possess all stocks (or at least most) of all shares that are not given to the employees of that particular company - then maybe there will be more justice.

But anyway: this stock gambling must be stopped immediately, because it has brought too much misery and poverty to the people.

I think along the same lines when it comes to the industries essential to national security and to utilities we all need to live.

I'd socialize oil, water, electricity, telephone (land lines only), roads, highways and natural gas for starters.
I'd socialize the means of provision also. Transmission lines, pipelines, refineries, all publicly owned.

The security provided by reliable sources of supply and production would be a poke in the eye to the CEO worshippers and a Godsend to the general public.

I suppose one could buy shares in the motorcycle and then you could take a turn around the block.

If you wished. What if your brother says no?

The analogy to shares is dumbfoundingly simplistic.

Why, because you sez so? Provide your reasoning. Here, I'll help you again: "The analogy to shares is dumbfoundingly simplistic because...."

The motorcycle is 100% privately owned by a human being.
Stocks are publicly traded and available to everyone with disposable income they are willing to risk.

This applies to both items. Each stock is 100% privately owned by a human being. Similarly, motorcycles are publicly traded and available to everyone with disposable income they are willing to risk.

Again, both are 100% owned by human beings. Both are publicly traded and available to everyone with disposable income they are willing to risk. Hence, they are both private property.

If it's wrong to take your brother's private property without his blessing, then it's wrong to take someone else's without their blessing.

Yet you seem to think you are entitled to part of those shares, even when the owner is not willing to give you that blessing.

While I do recall riding the motorcycle, I have no memory of taking possession of anyone's stocks.

You rode the bike because your brother willingly let you use some of its value. You did not take full possession of it, your used part of its value. Similarly, a union does not take full possession of anyone's stock, they use part of the value of stock. The difference being that your brother gave you that part willingly. However, you have a real problem if the shareholder isn't willing to give you part of the value of their stock simply because you formed some organization and wrote some bylaws for it.

I have to assume you understand the concept of theft and that it doesn't apply to union negotiations with the employer if that's the angle you intend to pursue.

It isn't theft if GM, for example, can cease to use union labor tomorrow. Can GM choose to cease to use union labor tomorrow, Robert? Is that OK with you? Can the shareholders choose to use their private property as they see fit?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think along the same lines when it comes to the industries essential to national security and to utilities we all need to live.

I'd socialize oil, water, electricity, telephone (land lines only), roads, highways and natural gas for starters.
I'd socialize the means of provision also. Transmission lines, pipelines, refineries, all publicly owned.

Hmmmm, lets see. A monopoly such as Microsoft is wrong even when it really isn't a monopoly (given the choice of Mac, Linux, BSD, et cetera).

Yet, you think it's a good idea to to create an actual monopolies, enforced by the power of law, taking choice away from the individual and stifling creativity. What a smart plan.

The security provided by reliable sources of supply and production would be a poke in the eye to the CEO worshippers and a Godsend to the general public.

Heh. You and Thorin had better get busy on building that wall.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think along the same lines when it comes to the industries essential to national security and to utilities we all need to live.

I'd socialize oil, water, electricity, telephone (land lines only), roads, highways and natural gas for starters.
I'd socialize the means of provision also. Transmission lines, pipelines, refineries, all publicly owned.

Hmmmm, lets see. A monopoly such as Microsoft is wrong even when it really isn't a monopoly (given the choice of Mac, Linux, BSD, et cetera).

Yet, you think it's a good idea to to create an actual monopolies, enforced by the power of law, taking choice away from the individual and stifling creativity. What a smart plan.

The security provided by reliable sources of supply and production would be a poke in the eye to the CEO worshippers and a Godsend to the general public.

Heh. You and Thorin had better get busy on building that wall.

I can dream can't I?

Remove the gigantic profits from these industries and run them as a non-profit to keep costs down for the users.
Lots of jobs and reasonable, affordable rates.

You don't like it because no one gets rich.

I can dream can't I?

Hell, you can do more than that. You could open your own companies and run them however you see fit.

Remove the gigantic profits from these industries and run them as a non-profit to keep costs down for the users.
Lots of jobs and reasonable, affordable rates.

So do it. No one says you have to use the Nike or GM model. Newman's Own and Sesame Workshop manage to do pretty well without shareholders. Get everyone who thinks as you do and open a company and run it however you want to. Pay your employees 3 or 5 times what they work is worth.

You don't like it because no one gets rich.

I don't care either way. You run your companies as you see fit, others will run their companies as they see fit. They couldn't care less what you think, or what I think. And I don't care whether they get rich or go bankrupt, that's on them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I can dream can't I?

Remove the gigantic profits from these industries and run them as a non-profit to keep costs down for the users.
Lots of jobs and reasonable, affordable rates.

You don't like it because no one gets rich.

So your answer is to legalize stealing everything. Maybe you'd feel much better and more at home in a nation like Venezuela under a dictatorship that advocates such thorough practices. The horrors you advocate are only possible under a dictatorship.

Why is it that wherever the practices you advocate are implemented do the people you supposedly advocate for suffer the most? Do you ever think of such things or do those types of questions just not matter? Facts shmacts!. Logic shmogic!

I think it's downright laughable you consistently advocate against the reason of proven economic law and then demand above that you want 'lots of jobs at reasonable rates.

Of course, in the socialist countries that actually practice any degree of what you propose the unemployment rates are high and the standard of living much lower than in the relatively capitalistic u.s.a.

Somehow you refuse to recognize such facts. Perhaps they're inconvenient to your ethical structure. This is why this thread is a philosophic one. It's designed that way to address such glaring silliness.

Remember, when millions upon millions have suffered and died and people still, after decades and decades, insist upon giving those statist systems 'one more try' then I assure you that your veneer of motivation for the best for humanity wears thin. Not only does it wear thin; it disappears altogether.

You're motivated by something else. The verbiage is just a scam. Perhaps it has something to do with one of those stunted personality disorder types you spoke of earlier.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

So your answer is to legalize stealing everything.

You mean like having a greedy landlord raise the rent of an unemployed person 3 times in less than 6 months? Yea, that would NEVER happen under YOUR system, eh? ;)

(Hmm, I wonder if I would win in a court of law. 'cause of course, our legal system works too.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

So your answer is to legalize stealing everything.

You mean like having a greedy landlord raise the rent of an unemployed person 3 times in less than 6 months? Yea, that would NEVER happen under YOUR system, eh? ;)

(Hmm, I wonder if I would win in a court of law. 'cause of course, our legal system works too.)

You equate stealing with changes in rent rates? Did this happen to you, Jeffrey? Sounds like you should do what most people do and sign a lease. In a capitalist system you're protected under that vanishing principle known as the sanctity of contract. That's where the rules don't change in the middle of the game....you know....the rules the socialists are always trying to change that hurt everyone so much?

If you're going month to month, and are in such a dire situation financially I think you would be wise to realize that in any other system you wouldn't have had a cot to sleep on in a boiler room even for probably quite a while. It's only in non capitalist nations that there's such a thing as housing shortages.

You call yourself the Seti forum heckler. Have you ever thought of choosing a different avocation?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Did this happen to you, Jeffrey?

How about those 'corporate training programs' that charge you $4000+ to go through their 3 week course while offering no obligation of employment upon completion... I can name a company that has over 2 million dollars of lawsuits against those bankrupt and unemployed people they scammed... That would NEVER happen under YOUR system, eh? ;)

(Want more? I've got plenty. Isn't it nice to see your wonderful system in action? Nothing like watching the rich prey on the poor, eh?)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Did this happen to you, Jeffrey?

How about those 'corporate training programs' that charge you $4000+ to go through their 3 week course while offering no obligation of employment upon completion... I can name a company that has over 2 million dollars of lawsuits against those bankrupt and unemployed people they scammed... That would NEVER happen under YOUR system, eh? ;)

(Want more? I've got plenty. Isn't it nice to see your wonderful system in action? Nothing like watching the rich prey on the poor, eh?)

'Just say No'.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

'Just say No'.

Sorry man, not an option, we gots bills to pay... And the capitalists want their money NOW... ;)

(Next time you decide to bring up 'feelings', please spare us. Capitalists only have one emotion, GREED. What an ugly word.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

'Just say No'.

Sorry man, not an option, we gots bills to pay... And the capitalists want their money NOW... ;)

(Next time you decide to bring up 'feelings', please spare us. Capitalists only have one emotion, GREED. What an ugly word.)

Jeffrey, say something meaningful. Either you claim to have been 'scammed' by giving $4000 dollars for a training program which up front did NOT offer you job placement as part of the package or you did not.

Heckling is a nuissance to many.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Heckling is a nuissance to many.

So is watching someone defend a system that allows innocent men women and children to be murdered in the name of money... ;)

(You support THAT system don't you? When are you gonna appologize for THAT!?)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Heckling is a nuissance to many.

So is watching someone defend a system that allows innocent men women and children to be murdered in the name of money... ;)

(You support THAT system don't you? When are you gonna appologize for THAT!?)

Which form of statism would that be? Because surely you don't mean capitalism. As has been stated several times before, the capitalism I and others here advocate is the system where the initiation of force and fraud is prohibited by law.

Explain to me how that is consistent with allowing innocent men, women, and children to be murdered in the name of money.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

the capitalism I and others here advocate

My bad... I hadn't realized that 'capitalism' came in many forms, while 'socialism' does not... [rolls eyes]... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .