Microtom [none/use name] @ Microtom @hexbear.net

Posts

1

Comments

8

Joined

2 yr. ago

Employer pensions don't make sense. If you want to forgo some of your purchasing powers to keep money for your later years, nobody is stopping you. There aren't any advantages in letting your employer do that for you.

Obviously, you can't say I can do this action that will give me wealth because I want to be given wealth. The action can't be used as an argument to justify itself. It's a simple circular reasoning fallacy.

Other than a few rare cases of natural occurrences, wealth exists exclusively because it's produced. To have a reasonable justification to be compensated with wealth, you need to produce it. Either you produce your own personal wealth, or in a system of division of labor, you produce wealth you don't necessarily need and trade for an equivalent amount. The value of price of wealth is simply determined by consensus. There are no other ways.

A sole ownership isn't a production of wealth. An ownership of wealth will never reasonably justify a compensation in wealth, no matter how the bargaining power is obtained.

To

Shooting people isn't black and white illegal, you make a mistake here. You can have a legal justification.

You don't have a legal justification to exploit the cost of producing redundancy. There are no laws that protects your capability to generate profits from the sole ownership of anything. But the law prevents you from legally generating profits without a reasonable justification. To have a reasonable justification to seek a compensation, you necessarily have to produce wealth in equivalent amount, for the simple reason that wealth is exclusively produced if we exclude rare cases of natural occurrences.

The law is a real consensus that has to be followed or altered. Being followed is its function.

No. A cop would only shot a person in order to prevent a crime of equal or higher degree, making the shooting justified.

A person using property ownership to exploit the cost of producing redundancy doesn't have any reasonable justification.

If consumers don't pay the unjustified portion of the price, but still use the captured good or capital, that will be understood as theft since the owner has the right to property. The problem is that the property is owned solely to commit the crime of extortion rather than, say, fulfill the owner 's demand. The unjustified portion of the asked price doesn't have to be paid because a reasonable justification has to exist for payment to be legal. So the protection of the extortionists ' rights to property is a mistake by law enforcement and the judiciary. This protection is also itself part of the extortion act because the acts committed by them is violence, menaces, threats and accusations, such as arresting, imprisoning, etc.

but I disagree that capitalism does anything innately that protects the environment.

I say that neither socialism nor capitalism do anything to attain sustainability.

It really isn't, though. Read my reply.

No economic system is sustainable or unsustainable. They just don't pertain to that. Concerns of sustainability requires ethics or judicial system. If anything, socialism is less sustainable than capitalism because it eliminates distributive injustices that cause a reduction of productivity. For example, capitalists would hoard land to seek ransoms in exchange of its access. This causes land unaffordability and under usage. If socialism eliminates that, more land might be used and there might be more environmental destruction as a result. So you need a system that protects land from environmental degradation. Socialism doesn't do that by itself. You need specific laws to protect the environment.

We want socialism because it's more fair and isn't literal extortion like capitalism is, not because it's more sustainable. We also want sustainability, so we want a strong and fair judicial system to go with our social economic system.