: OK, lets try it this way- if we abolished capital, would they have an income? Simple enough definition, come the revolution, they'll find out...
erm....goodbye RD hello Marcos?
: Indeed, which is what stops them becoming full out capitalists, i.e. the defining factor being the attemoted increase in capital, accumulation. Such people are still living to consume, C-M-C, not livign to make more money.
Theyre not CMCing, they make neither more money nor labor themselves.
: Imagine a man, nice looking dude, going round the maternity ward,.............
This example is dissimilar to the earlier model. The act of a person handing out lolipops isnt analogous to a person with a basket of candy. Now if the families in whom the children were born all had candy of varying quality and safety we wouldnt blame 'the system' but perceive only the families.
Now you may ask "is it unjust to take candy from the families which currently have nice candy and replace the bad candy in the poor families with it, thus depriving baby of candy and its parents of choice in seeking to 'up' same in the otehr families. Cant do it without 'breaking some eggs' and I thought you were persuaded toward non agression?
: Isn't it? Surely the point being where we must have authority, we must have it, but the presumption should be against it.
Who is "we" and who provides said authority? why would the two be apart. If they are not apart then it is as I described.
: But again, you centre on the child, look above, I am removing a guilty *system*, and I'm not 'lowering' their status, i'm raising them from master to equal. there can be no freedom, even for the masters, among slaves. Byron.
As much as I agree with Byron regarding that quote (there is no one more dependant than a leader) a 'privaliged' baby is one born in an average family in Utah (or Lancashire!) when compared to one born to the average Ethiopian family. Were not talking a few millioanires here.
: Why should we allow the child privellege? Should it continue to be allowed treatment before all others?
Again, who is this "we" and the assumed "them" and who is going to decide what is 'allowed'. Distrurbing authoriatrian streak RD.
:: Unknowingly receiving stolen goods means she simply must accept their return to the actual owner, its not her fault its yours.
: And this difers from the Baby, how?
as you believe, it seems, that all property is theft I quite understand that you would refuse to see any difference between a burglar and someone who had worked trading value for value in support of said baby.
: Very Georgist of you.
Who in turn, whether they like it or not, seem vaigly anarcho-capitalist and capitalist-minarchist in some of their beliefs. geolibertarians are well into homesteading btw, get your horses ready...3...2..1..go! Regardless, ones who want it have something to gain (land) ones who dont have something to lose (now what is it...oh yes, land).
The major point is that if you want to change the structure to either socialism or AC you have to 'break some eggs' and suspend non agression for awhile. Unless it was achieved with overwhelming support, especially among those 'privileged'.
: But if the baby has done nothing to earn its rewards, it is not injust to remove those rewards Imagine this:
Which is therefore the same as hobbling kids with good legs, or in sci fi terms farming out the genes!
: Dinner time, and careless uncle comes round, he leaves a chiocolate bar on teh seat, which Twin 1 gets, because twin 1 was nearer. this chocy sweet will spoil their dinner, and its upsetting twin 2 who ahsn't got one, do you remove the sweet, got undeservednly and through pure chance?
No, and who am I in this context anyway? Where is my authority to overule uncles choices coming from, what do I do with choc later one? Why does kid 2 deserve half of it any more than kid one deserves all o it?
: From teh point of view of teh new-born, but from our point of view, it was given seaties by a deranged man (see above). it gets its wealth through human action, action we can change, we can't vchange genetic profiles.
Which brings you back to the need to break some eggs etc, to be authoritarian in forcing change, or waiting for agreement.
: But it precisely through such systems that social injustice continues and is propogated.
Which system? - the system which allows parent choice in according resource to their children by their choice, or in seperating children from that choice?
: Indeed, 'Humans make their own history, but not in conditions of their own choosing', however, at birth I was not able to shape my economic conditions.
And it wasnt your fault, or your neighbours. come the bourgious revolution I am sure they wont punish you for it. hmmm.
: But surely all competition is a desire to attain a certain self-hood (not to have more than everyone else, per se).?
Yes, and the attainment of such can mean getting control of things other people also want control of.
: the point of socialism is that it permits such abundance of goods for all to be able to attain self-hood and satisfy their desire for recognition of the Other. You transcentalise the desire to out do each other, without basis.
The abundance is available under any system if people want it, and want others to have it too.