[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but can you point at me where I said that bosses' salaries are "based only on hierarchy"?
Because I had the idea that my opinion was that wages are based on demand and expediency, which I argue do not equate in any way to fairness or hard work. But hierarchy?

Looking back, I think it was actually Saya who was going nuts about Hierarchy, did I misunderstand when you said this:

Originally Posted by Alan

Private ownership of the means of production is an idolatry to an arbitrary sense of merit that has no justification grounded in reality, and creates injustice

Because I took that "arbitrary sense of merit" to refer to hierarchy. Did you mean "demand and expediency" when you said it?

However, this is completely beside the point. What I cited is no doubt an example of a just wage, as well as just ownership of private property (in this case, a world-renowned music venue) resulting from a capitalistic corporation.

Wow. What a stupid argument.
Anyone can turn that simile back on you so simply. Your argument is even dumber than blaming the crash victim when its car failed. That's like ignoring the fault on the engine and simply jumping to the conclusion that the driver must have been drunk or distracted.

Wow, you took a simile I made to punctuate my argument, and then altered it so that it meant the inverse, and claimed that because you were able to do this my argument was "stupid". BRILLIANT. You haven't invalidated the argument. You have only attacked my choice of simile.

See, I backed up what I was saying, with good, sound logic. I pointed out that you, in fact, were not hostile to the concept of capitalism, but to its negative applications. You simply blame capitalism for the inequalities you see in the world because you think dogmatically, because you are a fundamentalist.

I mean look at this:

Originally Posted by Alan

Your simile doesn't help you at all and in fact brings a strong point on my favor. I'd recommend you to read Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Form of Capitalism to get yourself out of that idealistic out-of-touch mindset you have of capitalism and come to the real world.
Just like Shai Feldman from Tel Aviv University comments that his country's economy could not function "without manpower provided by the West Bank and the Gaza strip," some day you might learn that the actual standard of living of the first world could not happen without the exploitation of most of the world.
Wanna keep with the analogies?
Your argument is even dumber than pointing at a castle and remarking on what an amazing economy everyone there must have, when only a hundred people live in the castle and ten thousand in shacks.
Wait, nah, it's not dumber. It's just the same. Exactly the same.

Alan, there's no argument there. You're just making assertions and name-dropping to add ethos to your side which does not exist.

Originally Posted by Alan

So it's not like anyone that doesn't work a parcel of land can own that land, right? Because there's no labor in it.

There's plenty of labor involved in owning land, even if you just buy the land. That money had to come from somewhere: labor.[/quote]

And surely no one can own a river.
Most certainly someone cannot OWN the work of anyone else. Right?
Tell me your opinions.

Great, now you're trying to get me to make some broad, sweeping generalization, so that you can attempt to trap me with it later by altering question. Jillian, my answer to those questions depends upon the specific situation in question.

Originally Posted by Alan

Oh, I think [Adam Smith] and I would get along quite perfectly.

I doubt it. Guy didn't think dogmatically like you do (which is why you agree with him on some points). Regardless of what similarities you have, you're actually saying you'd get along with one of the foundational thinkers of free-market economics? A system which you have attacked as being utterly without merit?

Yeah, Jill, you and I agree on alot of stuff, that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Alan

Yeah. Awesome. People still find value in art. Reason why I don't lose my faith in humankind.
But try to feed and clothe people with music. Does it then make sense to justify unfairness as the norm because of the exceptions?

For the record, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that work to feed and clothe people, and plenty of for-profit, capitalist institutions that donate large portions of the funds by which these organizations are able operate on.

I'm not going to take the bait on whether or not fairness is the norm, as you have constantly pulled this discussion away from practice and into theory, you need to make a strong case for why private property is indefensible. You have thus far failed utterly. Now stop trying to derail the discussion and make your case. I'm still waiting.

Actually I mean to the documented fact that almost no Bracero was paid the promised amount after the end of their contracts and return to Mexico, a reality that still presented lawsuits and is even mentioned in the wikipedia article you quoted.
But why would we expect any different? A business's purpose is to make profit. Why should the business pay them if they can, you know, not pay them?

I fail to see how this is in any way an endorsement of the dismantling of private property. Yeah, it sucks they didn't get the wages they should have, but that's not because of capitalism, that's just people being greedy, opportunistic, xenophobic assholes. If anything this would be more likely to happen in an anarchistic society because there would be absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening apart from public opinion, and as we've already seen public opinion was against the migrants to begin with.