GRcade

Moggy wrote:As a more serious answer, do you consider that people actually own anything? Everything we have once “belonged to nobody” and what gave companies the right to mine materials to make anything that you “own”?

I think the only thing a person an legitimately trade or give away is their own labour (physical or mental), so the value of raw materials should be the value of the labour needed to extract them and the value of a product made from said materials should be the labour needed to produce said product. People getting paid for the stuff they mine up is fine but people being paid simply for 'owning' the land on which stuff is mined is not fair. Ideally a mine would be a cooperative venture, with the state taxing the company (thus compensating the rest of the population for the use of common resources in order to pay for public services) and profits from the company being split amongst workers and managers according to their agreed salaries. Rival cooperatives would compete own a larger share of the market for that resource to ensure efficiency and competitive pricing. This would be sort of a 'mutualist' arrangement. Like mutualists, I would argue that property needs to be redefined in terms of use and occupancy rather than possession.

Of course, this is all academical. The fact is we live in a world in which lords and kings once claimed ownership of the land and now we're still paying for it. We have made progress though, with the dawn of capitalism and the end of serfdom and all that, but I think human history has a long way to go before we live a society based entirely on personal merit and fairness.

kommissarbaubles wrote:

1xmassy1 wrote:

kommissarboris wrote:You can try.

I bet I am younger than you, I will just wait patiently.

Also I need to think this, otherwise I can't complain about the Maori's complaining.

I'll throw a spear at you if you come near my land.

I'm good with a spear.

I will club you with a tewhatewha.

1xmassy1 wrote:

kommissarbaubles wrote:

1xmassy1 wrote:

kommissarboris wrote:You can try.

I bet I am younger than you, I will just wait patiently.

Also I need to think this, otherwise I can't complain about the Maori's complaining.

I'll throw a spear at you if you come near my land.

I'm good with a spear.

I will club you with a tewhatewha.

Is that slang for knob in middle earth?

It's not used for golf.

its a stick

can you throw it?

kommissarbaubles wrote:its a stick

can you throw it?

No, I will try and hit you on the head with it.

Scary.

I already stole Martin Clunes land, you are next.

As I said, I'm pretty good with a spear.

I'll also invest in a Helmet.

Infact, now that I think of it I already have a Helmet.

Balls in your court frodo.

I will use my own spear then.


And I would come out on top, because I can play dirty. You are British, so can only be a gentleman.

hmmm.

Your playing dirty didn't really work out first time round for yall did it?

But you're on, I'm going to build a castle on my land, and throw spears from my keep at you.

kommissarbaubles wrote:hmmm.

Your playing dirty didn't really work out first time round for yall did it?

But you're on, I'm going to build a castle on my land, and throw spears from my keep at you.

strawberry float that as they say old chum, we'll be sipping tea and enjoying our scwuns while the hired help throws spears at him.

StayFrosty wrote:

kommissarbaubles wrote:hmmm.

Your playing dirty didn't really work out first time round for yall did it?

But you're on, I'm going to build a castle on my land, and throw spears from my keep at you.

strawberry float that as they say old chum, we'll be sipping tea and enjoying our scwuns while the hired help throws spears at him.

Oh yeah.

Thats the Irish, scots and whelsh then.

You're boned 1xmassy1.

StayFrosty wrote:

kommissarbaubles wrote:hmmm.

Your playing dirty didn't really work out first time round for yall did it?

But you're on, I'm going to build a castle on my land, and throw spears from my keep at you.

strawberry float that as they say old chum, we'll be sipping tea and enjoying our scwuns while the hired help throws spears at him.

I probably can get the local Maori for a cheaper rate than you can get Knights. We will see how well your keep holds up against clubs.
strawberry float, I forgot about the Scots and Welsh. However, I am sure I could get the Irish to turn against you.

(No DML, you can't make a game out of this.)

Meep wrote:

Moggy wrote:As a more serious answer, do you consider that people actually own anything? Everything we have once “belonged to nobody” and what gave companies the right to mine materials to make anything that you “own”?

I think the only thing a person an legitimately trade or give away is their own labour (physical or mental), so the value of raw materials should be the value of the labour needed to extract them and the value of a product made from said materials should be the labour needed to produce said product. People getting paid for the stuff they mine up is fine but people being paid simply for 'owning' the land on which stuff is mined is not fair. Ideally a mine would be a cooperative venture, with the state taxing the company (thus compensating the rest of the population for the use of common resources in order to pay for public services) and profits from the company being split amongst workers and managers according to their agreed salaries. Rival cooperatives would compete own a larger share of the market for that resource to ensure efficiency and competitive pricing. This would be sort of a 'mutualist' arrangement. Like mutualists, I would argue that property needs to be redefined in terms of use and occupancy rather than possession.

Of course, this is all academical. The fact is we live in a world in which lords and kings once claimed ownership of the land and now we're still paying for it. We have made progress though, with the dawn of capitalism and the end of serfdom and all that, but I think human history has a long way to go before we live a society based entirely on personal merit and fairness.

How do the workers raise the money to build the mine in the first place? And before the mine how are there workers of the mine to build it in the first place?

Ecno wrote:

Meep wrote:

Moggy wrote:As a more serious answer, do you consider that people actually own anything? Everything we have once “belonged to nobody” and what gave companies the right to mine materials to make anything that you “own”?

I think the only thing a person an legitimately trade or give away is their own labour (physical or mental), so the value of raw materials should be the value of the labour needed to extract them and the value of a product made from said materials should be the labour needed to produce said product. People getting paid for the stuff they mine up is fine but people being paid simply for 'owning' the land on which stuff is mined is not fair. Ideally a mine would be a cooperative venture, with the state taxing the company (thus compensating the rest of the population for the use of common resources in order to pay for public services) and profits from the company being split amongst workers and managers according to their agreed salaries. Rival cooperatives would compete own a larger share of the market for that resource to ensure efficiency and competitive pricing. This would be sort of a 'mutualist' arrangement. Like mutualists, I would argue that property needs to be redefined in terms of use and occupancy rather than possession.

Of course, this is all academical. The fact is we live in a world in which lords and kings once claimed ownership of the land and now we're still paying for it. We have made progress though, with the dawn of capitalism and the end of serfdom and all that, but I think human history has a long way to go before we live a society based entirely on personal merit and fairness.

How do the workers raise the money to build the mine in the first place? And before the mine how are there workers of the mine to build it in the first place?

dude.

Its a mine.

Ropes and pulleys.

They don't need money, they're working class, they'll just steal the gooseberry fool they need.

Ecno wrote:How do the workers raise the money to build the mine in the first place? And before the mine how are there workers of the mine to build it in the first place?

Silly question really, you don't need wealthy landowners to finance businesses, people can do it themselves so long as they are issued a loan borrowed against future proceeds.

Let's face it, people only deserve to earn money from their own sweat and blood or in helping others to do the same, because that's all anyone is born with in the first place. The land is natural common property and still would be if warlords and tyrants had not stolen it all those thousands of years ago. That is not capitalism, it is against the principles of capitalism and fair play, a feudalistic hang-up from when might equaled right. The only way to achieve a pure meritocracy, where everyone's fortunes are decided by their own effort alone, is to correct that historic wrong. The fact that it happened a long time ago is not really an excuse.

Remember, wealth is only created through human ingenuity and effort, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a liar.

Meep wrote:

Ecno wrote:How do the workers raise the money to build the mine in the first place? And before the mine how are there workers of the mine to build it in the first place?

Silly question really, you don't need wealthy landowners to finance businesses, people can do it themselves so long as they are issued a loan borrowed against future proceeds.

Let's face it, people only deserve to earn money from their own sweat and blood or in helping others to do the same, because that's all anyone is born with in the first place. The land is natural common property and still would be if warlords and tyrants had not stolen it all those thousands of years ago. That is not capitalism, it is against the principles of capitalism and fair play, a feudalistic hang-up from when might equaled right. The only way to achieve a pure meritocracy, where everyone's fortunes are decided by their own effort alone, is to correct that historic wrong. The fact that it happened a long time ago is not really an excuse.

Remember, wealth is only created through human ingenuity and effort, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a liar.

Out of curiosity, how moral is it to provide for our children so that they do not need to struggle as we did?

Meep wrote:

Ecno wrote:How do the workers raise the money to build the mine in the first place? And before the mine how are there workers of the mine to build it in the first place?

Silly question really, you don't need wealthy landowners to finance businesses, people can do it themselves so long as they are issued a loan borrowed against future proceeds.

Let's face it, people only deserve to earn money from their own sweat and blood or in helping others to do the same, because that's all anyone is born with in the first place. The land is natural common property and still would be if warlords and tyrants had not stolen it all those thousands of years ago. That is not capitalism, it is against the principles of capitalism and fair play, a feudalistic hang-up from when might equaled right. The only way to achieve a pure meritocracy, where everyone's fortunes are decided by their own effort alone, is to correct that historic wrong. The fact that it happened a long time ago is not really an excuse.

Remember, wealth is only created through human ingenuity and effort, anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a liar.

But loans charge interest. He gets the interest on the loan? That person hasn't had to work directly for that money.

Ecno wrote:But loans charge interest. He gets the interest on the loan? That person hasn't had to work directly for that money.

Not as such, but you'd still have to work for money before investing in a pension or so forth, which would be used to fund such loans. Think of it as a way of one generation investing in the future of the next and being able to retire on the returns of that investments. Besides, it's not exactly theft; you are providing a service and making a personal sacrifice of money you earned in order to invest.

Skar-Hohoho wrote:Out of curiosity, how moral is it to provide for our children so that they do not need to struggle as we did?

Let me put it this way, how moral is it to steal from future generations? Because that's what you do when you sell off land to private individuals. You are denying future generations of human beings the right to the planet they live and work on. Even if everyone bought the land paid for it through their own work, you have denied future generations the possibility to do the same because its finite whereas humanity will continue near indefinitely.

It depends on what you mean by 'our children'. If you mean giving some members of future generations unfair advantage other other members of future generations then no, that is immoral as you are deliberately disadvantaging people who have not even been born yet, before they have even had the chance to complete. That is evil. If you mean protect the natural wealth of the land for all and investing over time in better infrastructure and technology to improve the conditions under which future generations live and work, then it's a moral imperative. Unfortunately our current societal model is failing in that respect. The next generation estimated to be less well off than their parents, which in my view is the definition of societal failure. Regression in living standards.

I promise this is the last post I make in this thread, seeing as this wildly off topic.

Before the concept of money, people were part of small communities and tribes, they pooled their workforces together to do things.