Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

It's natural law.

Legal rights were instituted to protect natural rights, however many seem to conflate the two and seem to think ones rights originate from a legal system for some reason.

 

I've not seen Marxists quiblle this much since the check came for dinner at an Socialist Party of America get together.

 

The purpose of the legal system is to resolve disputes peacefully. It is a tool towards that end.

If it is used to steal from other people, the opposite effect will occur.
Property is to be respected.
Or else.

Law of the jungle.

 

Did he purchase the equipment with his own money?

 

Does the person he got it from agree that it is his?

If ownership is not disputed, it is his. No question.


If you seek to dispute ownership, will a jury of his peers rule in your favour?
Or are you physically able to take it by force yourself?

If the answer is neither. It is his. No question.

If a jury of his peers rule an ownership dispute in your favour are they or you able to take it from him by force.

If the answer is no. It is still his.


If he agree's it is yours. it is. No question.


So transfer of ownership is valid when both parties agree to it.
The previous owner and the new owner.

Abide by this simple rule and you will do fine.

 

In many, if not most cases of business in capitalist USA, a person either uses his own money or takes out a bank loan to pay for a small operation, and then hires people to work in his business with the equipment. He makes a profit and eventually has enough to buy more equipment and expand his business. He does this repeatedly, as well as using earnings (income, "profit") to diversify and to upgrade and make his business more profitable.

With the exception of his own initial investment or bank loan, the money he uses is "legally" his in our system of capitalism, but it is actually money earned collectively by his workers' productivity and his own management of the business.

So, in a real sense, "did he purchase the equipment with his own money"? No. He purchased it with THEIR money.

 

In SMEs its often "our" money. You need to be less rigid in your Marxism 101

 

workers got paid in full for their productivity or would not keep working, managers and investors too got paid in full or would not keep working and investing. Its peace and love since there is no violence. What you propose is all violence and it already got 120 million killed. Are you worried about your after life?

 

Neither orthodox or heterodox economics agrees with that statement. What do you have in defence? What your mate Bob reckons?

 

in a free country why would workers work if they did not get paid in full for their productivity

 

That's a good question (ironically). Orthodox economics focuses on bargaining power and how it generates monopsonistic power. Heterodox economics typically argues its worse than that (e.g. post Keynesian analysis building on classical economics and how underpayment, or exploitation, is created through a lack of bargaining power)

 

Income, in the form of taxes, is redistributed from taxpayers both middle class and especially the wealthy to low and/or non-income earners who undeniably are living beyond their means which as you said "enhances and increases consumption, which enhances and increases sales, which enhances and increases profits". But this is NOT caused by capitalism, this is the effect of welfarism applied to capitalism.[/QUOTE]
And I said it is not a cause, but an effect and a symptom, AND it is much less than the welfare given to corporations!



That is completely irrelevant! Citing inflation rates doesn't prove our problems are cause by living beyond our means and you are apparently unable to see that.



Perhaps you should give relevant answers!

It's time for you to either PROVE your assertion that welfare is the cause of social division, unaffordable education, dysfunctional healthcare system, outrageous income and wealth accumulation of the top 0.1%, ocean pollution, global warming, gerrymandering, low minimum wage, immigration dysfunction, racism, our unfit and degenerate "president", gun insanity, mass shootings, tax burden being shifted off the rich and onto us, and our other problems, or give up.[/QUOTE]
Up until the early 20th century capitalism functioned quite well. What changed that?

 

Oooo, use of colour, font size and bold. That'll work!

 

So natural that you hide like a mouse

 

From whose bank account was the check to purchase the equipment written?

 

That you can't come out with an involved economic question just shows how irrelevant your opinion is

 

You have made no effort to understand what I've shown you, and rather than try to focus attention on identifying the source of our problems, your responses have only broadened the discussion into areas related to the consequences which only grow larger as a result.

 

I answered your question. "It was THEIR money". You're going back to structures that ensure we are only talking about our capitalist law so you can say "this is legal" and "that is illegal". If you disagree, tell me about your disagreement: what do you find to be wrong with what I said?

 

CAPITALS means stuff doesn't it?

 

so??? all 340 million buyers sellers workers managers owners investors etc all have bargaining power or the lack thereof at any point in time. The market will sort it out far more quickly and accurately than a Nazi army of bureaucrat monopolists[120 million dead so far] guessing from Washington at true price for billions of transactions each day. 1+1=2

 

Calm down dear boy. You're coming across as tantrum orientated. Why haven't you referred to the economics? Be it neoclassical monopsonistic analysis or post-Keynesian consistency with classical economics? Go on, just for once. Refer to economics

 

What law(s) specifically are you referring to?

 

Ownership can exist without law, as long as one can exert adequate defense of ones property. What was the old saying? "Possession is nine tenths of the law."
Laws created by governments can make ownership more certain and protected from loss by unlawful means.

 

Admittance that ownership is really just power. No notion of rights.