: I was referring to them as buy houses, get rent and use it to buy food. They are not capitalists, therefore, because they aren't investing money for the sake of getting more money.
Although by your standard they are living off the labor of others?
: Again, you're seeking to elide teh agency of the system, and duck the point.
Its not ducking, its focussing on what you would actually have to do in order to alter it, the need to alter parents decisions (even in economically equal families) and to overcome resistence, aswell as to show that the childs circumstances must be chnaged without his.her culpibility or deservedness in either case.
: I don't believe we need murder or violence to effect re-distribution.
You either rely on reforming via ever increasing state intrusion like various state socialists and greens which achieves very little in anyones favor or overcome said resistence, not just from a few millionaires but just about every family in Europe, America and the far east.
:1:Will you accept that privellege is the result of human agency?
Yes, in both economic and upbringing.
:2:Will you accept that wealth is different from genetic propensity?
Will you accept that a child experiences privilage as naturally as genetics? Only we ,outside looking in, are making 'its not fair' judgements. Babies dont like you to take candy, whatever the next baby has - theyre right to perceive that they are being lowered from their viewpoint. boo hoo, they go.
: The humans who need it.
And who gets to decide who needs it? Circular isnt it.
: We are, we are talking about depriving wealth from the expropriators- a familly in Lancashire is not expropriating wealth from a familly in Ethiopia. the exproriators and their interests are holding back ethioopias development. I hear there are 6 million millionaires world wide..(in dollars I presume)
And a new one every week I hear your lottery advertise! The above leaves the ethiopian worse off than the lancashire family, whose house, nearby school etc makes them privilaged by comparison. That kind of inequality acceptable?
:Is it authoritarian to prevent murder?
Thats turning it around and strictly speaking, yes it is. Its logical extreme is imprisoning newborns incase they might one murder, so as to stop that from being possible. unless Ive grasped the wrong end of the stick in terms of meaning.
: No, my analogy was precise, in both set ups someone is the unearning recipient of the system.
In the babies case by virtue of parents productivity and choice to bestow such on child, in burglars case by the theft of anothers product.
: Or with the overwhelming support of the working class, 90% of the popuation...ther emaining five and a bit billion of the world...
Consider the Ethiopian example, even the 'lowliest' working man in Spain is far better off than the average Ethiopian, and is (to an Ethiopian) very much priviliged. The resistence wouldnt be from 6 million millionaires, but about 1-2 billion Americans, Europeans and Asians who live at 'western' standards even while being 'poor'. As you have correctly occluded national socialism you must persuade these near 2 billion to forego their privilige to make things even with the 3rd world.
: Sorry, I was presuming you were the parent, or society in general ('Everyman') Uncle didn't give it, he just left it lying around. Why does Kid one deserve it in the first place?
He found it. Kid 2 didnt. Oh dear. Kid 2 says 'therefore I deserve half of it', a leap from what happened to what kid 2 thinks ought to happen.
: Or having a revolution, 'dictatorship of the proetariate' anyone? Just coz I want a good size majority, doesn't mean I'm giveng the capitalists a say in the matter.
a non inclusive democracy? Like a revenge. Whats the acceptable percentage, i once read a novel in which an imaginary government had to have a 90% vote for an issue even to be discussed - not many laws were passed. Same 90+ for you?
: The system that means some parents have more to give their kids than others.
All systems do that, even 'equal' parents can bestow different things on their children with the outcome that one is better prepared for life than the other.
:: The abundance is available under any system if people want it, and want others to have it too.
: No, Capitalism is based on scracity and enying access to goods.
You demand enough food and shelter to save the world and businesses line up to compete for your effective demand. And you know its affordible, if people only wanted to do that!