: : It's interesting that in a economy that Deathy describes as "capitalist" (whatever that means) he describes the 'unsweated-for" profits of capitalists as "exploitation". Yet, under what he describes as a "socialist" society a person who is physically incapable of working and yet partakes in the social product is not "exploiting" the workers. This does not follow and displays the whole force of Deathy's arguements as the moralizign it really is.
: Precisely, better to just say "i think this is moral so there" and be done with it, rather than cloaking it.
: : I am not denying moralizing as I do it as well.
: I have a whole ranch of high horses myself!
Personally I have no trouble taking moral positions. I'm glad to see that you both admit to similar tendencies. In fact, nine-tenths of your arguements are embedded in moral defenses of property and freedom from coercion.
As for a sentence such as: "Yet, under what he describes as a "socialist" society a person who is physically incapable of working and yet partakes in the social product is not "exploiting" the workers."
To regard welfare as a form of "exploitation" by those dependent on others takes theories of possessive individualism to its limits. What motivates behavior when it comes to caring for an infant? Do you take out a calculator and balance the costs of food and shelter against potential future return before responding to an infant's need?