: C-M-C (Commodity-Money-Commodity) for the working class (i.e. I have a commodity, I sell it for money, I buy more vcommodities - my means of living).
: M-C-M for the capitalist class (i.e. I take money, invest it in a commodity, I get more money).
And people who achieve income from both methods (yes, they do exist and are increasing, early retirees are the biggest group, but so are various stockholders who work aswell)?
Are these either / or to the point where a $10 a year dividend means youre a capitalist even if the other $19990 comes from labor? What if You garden for $10 a year but your stocks produce the other $19990?
If it isnt either / or then how do you avoid contradictions?
: My point I I think you have a contradiction between your radical side and your conservative side- all talk of the market as 'natural' and defense of privellege by birth seems at odds with your radical liberalism- thusly your defense by natural law, etc. Also, you ahve accepted notions of totality, which is at odds with your idea that the market is natural- beyond human control.
If the market is natural it is because man is natural (hence not 'beyond control' per se), really it is naughty of me to say the government 'artificially' does this or that to the currency rates, it is also 'natural' but some words carry ones meaning more succinctly.
The idea of what a market or anything would look like without counter liberty interventions is to ask whether an action initiates the use of force against others - which can be defined specifically, or drawn out to include just about any possible effect one might have on another (a process which leads to everyone having to walk on eggshells for fear of causing anyone or anything harm, forever begging 'permission' fom every neighbour to undertake any act, and one regulated by subjective opinions not objectively demonstrable reality)
Privilege at birth is guiltless just as more intelligent parents may better teach a child, the child is not guilty of learning more. He is not beholden to the other. In a society which has private property (which I consider as natural as one that considers your body and mind as yours, property being meaningless without the above two) is held then a child receiving more of it from parents is guiltless and not beholden.
I dont think thats particularly conservative in the political sense, as conservatives still tend to proceed from the premise that your body/mind (and thus the rest) somehow 'belongs' or is beholden to others whether that be your lovely racial community, your 'nation', a god or whatever.