The problem of Capitalism

Dishonest nonsense. I didn't claim that paying for a car according to a leasing agreement is a violation of anyone's rights. This isn't about me, anyways. I was merely elaborating and now you start an irrelevant tangent.

To make it simple:
If I already paid the lease I have for the month of July, whether July is the entire lease or not, which is irrelevant to the point anyways, then I already have the right to have the car for July. Having to pay AGAIN for July or being dispossessed would be a violation of a right that I ALREADY HAVE.

If there is a NATURAL liberty right that one ALREADY HAS, and that without ever having to obtain it by the very definition of what natural rights are, then being made to pay for exercising that right would be a violation thereof.

Our claim is that making into property land, natural resources, atmospheric air, the sunlight, or human beings for that matter, is a violation of rights.

 

You are changing the subject. The Question asks how the landowner's privilege of charging others for what government, the community and nature provide AIDS PRODUCTION. Not how it helps him pay for his kid's braces.

No, it is a privilege issued and enforced by government, as it does not exist in nature.

Free men would not include men whose rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them without just compensation and given to others as their private property, whether those others own all of one person's rights to liberty or one of all people's rights to liberty. Likewise, free trade would not include paying the owner of one's rights for permission to exercise them.

 

It's more complicated than that. The ranchers and homesteaders both have a right to own what they have produced. Neither has a right to own what they have not produced -- but both of them WANT to own something they have not produced. If they were wise, honest, informed and courageous, they would both agree to make just compensation to the community for excluding others from opportunities that would otherwise be available. In practice, that would mean the ranchers would gradually have to yield the land to the more productive farmers.

 

There are lots of factors that contribute to people ending up homeless, often mental illness and/or addiction are involved; their own choices often contribute, but that does not justify inflicting institutionalized injustice on them as well. If a man earns $500/month and has to pay a landowner $300/month for permission to exist within commuting distance of his job, $100/month for food, and $50/month for bus fare to get to work, leaving $50 for everything else, and he spends $100/month on cigarettes, resulting in his becoming homeless, you may claim that it is his own fault for wasting his money on cigarettes. But the landowner steals three times as much from him in return for doing and contributing nothing, yet you hold the landowner blameless!

They most certainly and indisputably do.

The fact that some people are strong enough to run a race carrying someone else on their back does not mean that those who aren't strong enough to do so are somehow to blame for not being able to run while carrying others on their backs, or that no one is riding on their backs.

GET IT?????

 

Yeah, nope. You were busted in a nonsense. Suck it up

 

1) He shouldn't smoke. He shouldn't live alone. He shouldn't pay market rent (which he won't, if he resides with family/friends). He shouldn't try to live in an area he can't afford. These are the very choices that make or break us, when we're hand to mouth. You can call them 'minor' if it salves something in you regarding nil-responsibility, but when you're close to the wire a 'minor' choice can have major impact. The Evil Landowner is waaaaaaay down the list of persons responsible for this man's homelessness .. if the landowner makes the list at all.

2) Exactly. That's why we should not live alone, smoke, drink, do drugs, gamble, etc, AND why we should all take responsibility for our own. We need to care enough to do whatever it takes to secure those amongst our number who are less able than ourselves.

 

One really has to be very, very careful. Some posters will use any chance they can get their hands to misconstrue one's position and make dishonest and/or obtuse claims about what one has written. Especially dishonest when all the context is snipped that would further clarify the point that was being made.

I have repeatedly in this thread stated my claim that one can exchange the fruits of ones labor in consensual transactions to obtain a property right to something; while also respecting third parties' rights, of course. Leasing is not even owning, and not paying according to the lease agreement would result in the loss of the right to the car. On the other hand, being made to pay for a second time for a period that was already paid for would be violation of a right to the car that one ALREADY HAS for that period.

^^^ I merely used this example before to elaborate how paying to exercise a right one already has would be unfair and a violation thereof. It was a means to an end. That's why I said crank went off on a tangent. I could use other examples.

NATURAL rights, like the right to liberty, would be something that one ALREADY HAS as soon as one exists. Making land, natural resources, atmospheric air, the sunlight, or human beings themselves someone's property would be a violation of the victims' natural right to liberty.

 

you cannot agree that nature respects life??? Ok, I see the problem here... You assume I am saying that nature grants and respects right to life... Would that sum up your objection of the comment???

Empirical evidence supports the claim nature respects life; due entirely that nature does not kill indiscriminately. Once you observe nature, you notice that killing is for purpose either to survive or to protect. Once two are established even natural mortal enemies in nature will co-exist without the need or compunction to kill…

Yes I do mean “threat of violence” but without the intent to act in violence the threat is meaningless.

How you police the rights and morals you grant to your individual populations are entirely up to you. Sure the law determines if you infringe on others as an individual and punishes punitively for that infringement. Also, legalities deciding if you have forfeited your own rights in any way, the right to survive, the right to walk in the streets and so on. All is done in the aspect of insular and internal aspect of group concern.

However, just in your example of the illegal invasion of Iraq, you have to understand that you’re no longer discussing in the insular but the entirety. You are trying to impose the internal aspect of your point to the aspect to include the world. At this point you have to understand that the war in Iraq was USA and other like-minded nations trying (and succeeding ) on impressing their moral beliefs AND their claim to righteous beliefs on another nation who did not and still does not hold the same values people are trying to attribute.

To put it simply, if you could go back to 1925 and sort out Hitler and kill him, would you be morally correct to do so??? The fact is that in 1925 he had not committed tremendous atrocities and it may not have even crossed his mind but if you do, you would be marked a criminal for the rest of your life. Who is morally correct???

As for Bush/Blair… simply pointing the finger because you don’t like the act doesn’t make them guilty of a crime. I too understand they acted on lies but they also had good reason to accept those lies had the possibility in truth. You cannot wait for the bombs to start flying to then decide what to do. So their culpability is in question, while others are set in stone. As in the point I made, the victors set the story and the standards they wish to believe. I would suggest since the facts past, it would appear the nature of these current governments remain the same…

And these are the corruptions I talk about. I don’t disagree with them some are necessary, but there is force for debate as to just WHAT corruptions are necessary and what is just to promote the growth of the rich over the cost to the poor.

My point is that everything being complained about is what corruptions imposed on the capitalist system. Rights for this and that are possibly the most deluded…

 

Believing in human rights is not the point here, is it??? You either understand what rights you have and how you have them or you show yourself to be a moron who should never move out of their own insular world. IT is like the git, who decided he had the right to meet the most isolated people in the world today, and they killed him. I believe they had the right to say go away…

Nah, it is right.

Again, your comments are not facts just your beliefs… again showing the credibility of the comment and commentator.

Way to go there buddy, it has everything to do with your comments and your claim of how capitalism works…
But the very point of claiming NOW it is about the definition of capitalism is complete crap.

I know, it dawns on you just how stupid that stance is. The fact is, just as the last comment you made, you have now changed your stance from the sanctimonious self-righteous claims to “The subject was the definition of capitalism”
Moving the goal post to suite your agreement because you realise you cannot hold your previous.

Irrelevant, you clearly show what you think… thanks for admission of your stance even though you now want to argue severity not the fact.

Bawhaha, How can that be wrong??? It is not a definition of rights. In fact YOUR comment does not refute my comment… it is comment on HOW you get your rights and nothing more…

Again, you think the community owes you… It does not. I think the trend of right and wrong is definitely not on your side here… BUT unlike you I’ll let others decide that. One thing is for sure, that piece of paper you think is all powerful and pervading, and it cannot stop a bullet from killing thousands in your own nation… The fact is, at any time somebody else can end your rights completely… what is your complaint then, “the constitution said you cannot take my right to life.” ??? what a moron…

either it is capitalism or it isn’t… either your part of the market or you’re not. Since I see you on computer, one I can safely assume you did not build yourself from parts you made yourself I can assume you’re part of the market. Since in a capitalist market it is the market who sets the price I can safely assume YOU are part of that market. BUT not only that, your claiming that individuals within the market have no rights to purchase this nor that thus rendering the market price… So again, you fail to meet your own standards.

no I didn’t make it up, it is the very point you are trying to claim, now you’re trying to run away from it.

Err no, that is wrong again, since it is the government (or community of your land) who decide what can be owned and what cannot, then it is government NOT capitalism that create the locations.
Clearly, you don’t like the truth…

Yeah you cannot refute we know.

No it doesn’t. You see (or maybe you still don’t) your rights are granted by the group. They are not universal or automatic. Again rights are afforded due entirely to the ability and will of the group to enforce.

And only a moron only believes there is only on belief of righteousness in the world… Apparently that is you…

Actually there isn’t. if nobody can secure their rights, or the rights they believe then they will lose them regardless of their crying and sobbing because they think they have them.

Ahh, a creationist the world exists because it was always here… look it up all you like… the only way it can exist in your argument is if it just existed since the dawn of time…

provide a source that refutes otherwise you failed again.

Yeah you did…

again, Yeah you did, even in this comment you repeat the claims.

So now it goes from somebody who freely found and used the tree while your asleep to the right to be able to use it without others forcing their beliefs, that you have no right because you have a right to liberty…
No, you don’t have the right if you don’t contribute…

Hahaha, yeah buddy and the world does no wait with baited breath to hear the facts you claim come from the verbal crap you spout.

yes, they can, they also have to pay taxes and certain other things. BUT it does not mean they got it for nothing and they provide nothing, it just means your jealous of the fact they have it and you don’t.

Yes it does, unfortunately. You might not like the facts, but there it is. But that is why we corrupt the system, to remove these issues

So, the problem here isn’t capitalism BUT government. Get it right.
So you not happy about the returns, go to your government and demand change. Don’t cry about the problems here. IF you haven’t got the guts to put forward the people who not only steal from your system, but corrupt it don’t complain about the system not working the way it should. Clearly, your just wimping out by trying to blame inanimate objects and processes for your lack of ethics.

Doesn’t matter if they pay more tax or less, the claim made previously is completely devoid of any economic understanding what so ever. IT stands to condemn the commentator as ignorant of these facts comepletely

Nah, again in this comment you state you expect it and not only that but want to argue the severity…

So you’re trying to be deceptive and manipulative by misrepresenting comments and continually repeating the same boorish crap you want to vomit out about rights and who provides what.


Simple to say, it would appear to me and many others you simply about the envy of what others have and achieved. You want and demand others give you everything by simply taking from those who work hard and simply giving it to you.


Honestly, I can see why you’re on a forum like this. It is clear you have no credibility on your own world so you want to try impress your own form of ignorance on the world.


Get back to me when you can source and provide decent supporting evidence of your claim (which I know you will never find) and have something other than your own ignorant facts to expound on the world. I have shown the fool you are, and you are doing nothing but denying it to show even more…

 

I'll omit your first paragraph (too complicated at this stage: "ashamed that they 'own' the most wealth disparity in the Western World"...OK, if you insist.

2nd) So you - a Conservative and a capitalist (on the Right) - agree with me (with values as defined), me being a social democrat with a yen for public (government) oversight of capitalism

So apparently we are disagreeing on the means of achieving the agreed value set.

3). I have never said Sanders, a social democrat by his own mouth, is a socialist or a communist. I hope you understand that now.
Social democrats accept capitalism as the most efficient system for production of consumer goods - but not necessarily the distribution. eg, market failure is an egregious occurrence in capitalism, and 'goods' represent only a fraction of the community's well-being, vitality and creativity.

4).

I note you omitted the word "equality" in front of "opportunity"... some one else has expressed the problem in terms of being strong enough to succeed while carrying an extra burden.
eg, schooling is vital, but poverty ghettos result in poor health education etc. and failure to deal with entrenched drug dealing and violent crime in the local area etc. etc.

Eradicating poverty requires totalitarianism?

So I need to refute this defeatist assertion, which is based in neoliberal "trickle down" theory. Here's a quick lesson refuting neoliberal orthodoxy.

It's a matter of resource allocation:

a). Government is the issuer of its own (fiat) currency, and can directly determine the money supply (denominated in that currency) via account creation in the central bank.
b). So government (the public sector) can never "run out of money", unlike households and private commercial banks (the private sector) who are users of the currency.
c). Hence the orthodox insistence on balanced government budgets - and the resulting entrenched poverty - "we don't have enough money to eliminate under-employment' " eg via a Job Guarantee to soak up excess available labour in a downturn - is wrong.
d). Note: government does not need to tax in order to spend, or IOW, government can purchase whatever is available for sale in the economy (including labour).
Now since resources (including services people are willing to supply) are idle in the downturn, these can be purchased by government - to counter the insufficiency of private sector activity (in the downturn), without demand inflation arising. As full resource use is reached, taxation or regulation of specific sectors may be ennacted as required.
(A brief introduction to MMT...)

5). How is the above public sector intervention (oversight) into private sector capitalism in any way 'totalitarian'?
As outlined above, government is merely implementing policies agreed by the electorate.
In fact, it's the illiberal nature of neoliberal 'trickle down" orthodoxy with it's sham artificial constraints (aka austerity) on public-utility policy, that is the problem.

6). Bernie still thinks he has to levy taxes to spend, ie to buy the necessary AND available (currently unemployed) services/resources from the private sector,
to implement his policies.

​

 

Yes. I notice this a frequent problem in this thread, debaters are often actually agreeing on a specific point, but their interpretation of the meaning of the words is different.

OK.

OK.

By which I take it you mean: "You" in that sentence is the government via rule of law (since the individual never 'grants' rights).

Yes.

I understood that when I made the statement.

Correct: because I believe in rule of law via government instituted to deal with the specific jurisdiction, from local to international.

I take it you do believe in rule of law. (I know Starjet does not: he thinks he is entitled to destroy any individual or group that disagrees with his own concept of 'rights').

BTW, if the UNSC was reformed so that the veto was eliminated (and perhaps Japan and Germany added to the current 5 permanent members), war between nations would - at long last, God help us - be criminalised/delegitimized, and eliminated and law agreed (by vote) in this SC would be enforceable.
[I envisage a concurrent massive educational program teaching eg there is only One God, tribalism and other separative tendencies are based in the 'dark matter' of our instincts, not objective reality. ie we are One Species before One Reality; what's all the fighting about, other than a squabble over access to resources?

OTOH, you and I would not notice any difference (immediately) in our lives within our own countries, because none of our own countries' laws would be affected. But of course the disappearance of the industrial military complex would change the world for the better, in an infinity of ways.

Here's the thing: with an international rules based system in place, a Hitler could/would not arise (BTW, WW2 was a continuation of WW1; Germany was never destroyed in WW1, just humiliated and subject to impossible reparations payments; and WW1 itself was an imperialist struggle, no 'morality' in that).

See above, so I don't have to answer that question. But certainly the brave German patriots who plotted against Hitler in 1944 *were* moral (and fate is strange, if the bomb had been placed a little further to the Left under the table, the plotters' lives along with millions of others' lives would have been saved, and Germany would have escaped with Dresden's architectural heritage still intact...)

All addressed above.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, have a look at my brief explanation of MMT in my prior post: we can have the advantages of capitalism, while maintaining 'justice' between rich and poor (by eliminating poverty, but while not violating the natural differences in abilities - and rewards - between individuals).

Can you enter the missing word in the first sentence? eg ( "what corruptions ARE imposed...?).

My concerns are not primarily based on conceptions of rights, rather my concerns are utilitarian, ie, if eradication of poverty is possible, why not do it? (Crank thinks this is impossible except under totalitarianism. I believe I have refuted this in my prior post.)

 

The purpose of morality is not to teach one how to serve the community, which is slavery, but to teach one how to live one’s life happily, which happily is with reason.

 

I most strenuously object to your assertion that an owner’s rents is a privilege granted by others; it’s a right not to be violated.

You are playing “deuces wild” with the Universe, something that, as Einstein remarked, not even God can do—though fiction writers can for the right reasons.

 

All this angst over such a simple concept? All those things you fret and sweat over--land, and air, and oceans, and the stars in sky, and sewage in the sewers, and the seaweed clogging the turbines--belongs to whoever can act morally to obtain it, within reason.

For example, who will own Mars? The first humans that can get there and develope it. They don't have a right to Mars, they only have the right to go and make of it what they can. And then, it's theirs.

Let me make this clear: No. No one can land on Mars and claim it for themselves, or their nation, or their God, or their community. They can only claim that which they developed on the land, from the land, from underneath land, above the land, wherever.


No man can lay claim to all the land, but he can claim by right the land he develops, the gold he pans, the air he breathes, the sunlight that shines on him, the stars in his eyes, the sewage he gathers for fertilizer, the seaweed he removes from his ship's turbines.

According to your definition, nobody has a right to anything because everybody has a right to everything. And that's absurd.

How do we build things? On the land, with minerals and materials from the land, which we obtained by reasonable methods. That's the moral, not your absurdity. Life is not granted permission by God, Nature, or the collective. It's lived by the living, and it's their right to do so

 

1) Yes, ashamed. Progressive cities have the greatest wealth disparity, yet Progressives claim to care the most about ... WEALTH DISPARITY. Shameful.

2) I am neither a conservative, nor a Rightist. You are quite confused, I think. Either way, I have no interest in any more 'public oversight' of capitalism than currently exists. We're already creeping towards things like Thought Police, and that's terrifying enough.

3) Distribution is not and should not be decided by govt (beyond the essentials of equal opportunity .. education, welfare, healthcare). Distribution beyond that is up to the individual/family/group etc.

4) EQUAL opportunity is exactly what we have. Everyone has equal right to exploit opportunities, as they see fit.

5) Of course it involves some kind of totalitarianism. How else are you going to take the wealth of those who don't want you to have it? By asking nicely?

6) Can we please never mention Bernie again? I'm not even a tiny bit interested in that crusty old capitalist.

 

Ah, no, that is not what happened. Reread the thread. GZ busted you in a logical fallacy. Suck it up.

 

You guys are being hammered, but it's good to see you still have enough spark left for a 'ner ner'

 

Distribution is inherently decided by government, as government is the issuer and enforcer of privileges such as land titles, bank licenses, and IP monopolies -- i.e., distribution from the productive to the greedy, unproductive, privileged, parasitic rich. You just don't want government doing any distribution in the other direction.

Such claims are just false and absurd. When some people own everyone else's liberty rights to access the opportunities, and others must pay them full market value just for permission to access such opportunities, it can be called many things, but "equal opportunity" is not one of them. Some people being being born on the treadmill, and others born on the escalator that treadmill powers, is not equal opportunity, sorry.

That is an absurd non sequitur. Restitution of stolen property does not imply totalitarianism. Give your head a shake.

 

Wrong. He shouldn't have been forcibly stripped of his right to liberty without just compensation.

I see. So, if a protection racketeer is shaking down a greengrocer for $1K/month, the first place you look to find out why his business is failing is his own choices?? He shouldn't be paying his employees more than minimum wage? He shouldn't stock fresh fruit and vegetables that perish before they are sold? He shouldn't pay extra for a pest-control company that doesn't use poison? He shouldn't take holidays? He shouldn't work less than 16 hours a day? He shouldn't be paying extra to live in a decent neighborhood so his kids can be safe? He shouldn't buy his wife anything nice? Is that about it? It's all his fault, and the protection racketeer is just going about his business?

Disgraceful.

No. The landowner is at the very top of the list, and it is his massive, legalized thieving, above all, that makes the poor poor, the homeless homeless, the wretched wretched, the unemployed unemployed, etc. Your disingenuous blame-the-victim filth is despicable, sickening, and grotesque. You are literally blaming the victims to rationalize and justify an evil that has enslaved most of humanity for thousands of years, and still kills 12-15 million people PER YEAR.

Really? But the landowner's something-for-nothing -- which means others get nothing for something -- gets a pass??? Really???

 

Yes, it is. And you obviously don't.

I know the difference between natural and legal rights. You don't.

False.

Calling facts beliefs does not alter the fact that they are facts.

Which is correct according to dictionary definitions of capitalism.

Let me know if you ever decide to write a grammatical English sentence that one could understand and thus respond to.

False. Your claims are unrelated to anything I said.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

By being contrary to fact.

Maybe you think that is responsive to something I said.

Wrong. Rights are exactly what the community owes its members, by both the community's own choice and natural law.

Were you under an erroneous impression that the existence of crime could be relevant to rights???

Impenetrable gibberish.

Yes, you did.

No, it is a strawman fallacy that you made up to evade the facts.

That is another objectively false claim from you. Government only administers possession and use of the locations, it does not create them. And you know that.

I certainly cannot refute meaningless, ungrammatical gibberish.

You are conflating natural with practical and legal rights.

Actually, there is.

More strawman fallacies and non sequitur nonsense. The world exists because of natural forces, not human effort, and has existed since long before any human beings existed.

YOU never provided a source other than your claim, and Google does not provide any matching online source.

False.

Nope. Which is why you do not provide direct, verbatim, in-context quotes to support your claims about what I have said.

<yawn> How can one contribute if one has no right to access the materials needed to contribute, hmmmmmm?

Like a protection racketeer.

I didn't say they got it for nothing. One can't expect to obtain a license to steal for nothing. But buying and then exercising a license to steal doesn't mean you are contributing anything, and a landowner qua landowner, comatose or otherwise, is by definition not contributing anything.

Ah. I knew it wouldn't take you long. Few acts are more evil than accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it.

No, it most certainly and indisputably does not, though I understand why you wish to believe that a protection racketeer is contributing something in return for his profits.

I am content to let readers judge your claim that a protection racketeer is making a contribution just because he pays his thugs, pays his taxes, etc.

Capitalism by definition requires private ownership of land, which can only be established by government.

Uh, do you know what this site is called....?

Incomprehensible.

It most certainly does.

That's rich, coming from someone who obviously knows no economics whatsoever.

Gibberish.

I have misrepresented nothing. I have stated the relevant facts and their inescapable logical implications.

Accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it is just evil, sorry.

That is a fabrication on your part. I have never claimed anything but my rights.

Absurd ad hominem filth.

Which one? I doubt you can even quote me accurately.

I am content to identify the relevant facts, however much you hate the truth.

No, I have demolished and humiliated you, and you know it.

 

1) Those are universal laws, which apply to all. Distribution is a private matter - decided by families, individuals, communities, coorporations, etc. Whoever owns the 'wealth' decides how it will be distributed. If 'greedy' people (whether poor, middle class, or rich) are failing to distribute whatever wealth they have in support of their own, they are who you need to lecture to. Personally, I've met few rich people - if any - who didn't distribute their wealth to family. Perhaps you know particularly awful people?

2) In a First World democracy with nationalised healthcare and education, ALL OF US are free to exploit those resources. Not one of us is prevented from accessing those resources. When the tools for financial security exist .. yet we don't exploit them .. then we've freely made the choice not to. As for luck of birth ... some of us are lucky enough to have been born to families who took financial security seriously, and some of us gain financial security the hard way - as I did. And the latter would not be possible if equal opportunity did not exist. I was ONLY able to access the education I needed to work my way out of poverty because I was not prevented from doing so. Any obstacles to my education were first my parents' doing (by not taking education seriously enough .. god love 'em), then my own, once I'd reached adulthood. No external agency or force prevented me from working days at a minimum wage job, while studying at night. All it required was my own intestinal fortitude to endure, and the self-discipline to live below my means (ie, no bad habits, no unaffordable rent, no living alone, no fast food, no holidays, no car, no air conditioning, etc etc etc). All choices.

3) So how do you plan to acquire the rights to the land and/or wealth of the citizenry? By ASKING NICELY?

 

The purpose of morality is to reconcile self-interest with inclusive fitness.

Nonsense. Slavery is labor compelled by force.

Nope. That does not explain how morality arises in the first place, how the human species even possesses the faculty of moral reason. My analysis does.

 

1) Yes, it IS disgraceful (and sad) when poor people attempt to live above their means, and indulge luxury habits. We're all responsible for our own choices, Dear. I'm not responsible for yours, and you're not responsible for mine.

2) Landowners are also people. It seems you forget this. And they ARE doing something for those less able, because they're helping their families stay out of poverty!

You keep screaming that this is what you want, and then condemn people who actually do it. I seriously don't think this has occured to you. It hasn't, has it?

 

Nope. You are just wrong as a matter of objective physical fact. A landowner has no right to charge others just for permission to exercise their rights to liberty. He has nothing but a government-issued and -enforced PRIVILEGE of doing so. What stops others from just using the land, as our ancestors did to survive for millions of years? The owner of a product of labor has a right to charge rent for it, but not an "owner" of something that was already there anyway.

Nope. I am identifying the relevant facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.

 

But not when rich, greedy, privileged parasites rob them of their rightful earnings....?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

We are not responsible for other people being legally entitled to steal from us, dear, sorry.

When did I choose to be forcibly stripped of my right to liberty without just compensation? Who is responsible for that, hmmmmm??

Blank out.

Huh?? Obviously they are people. All evildoers are people. Only people are capable of committing evil. Duh.

Huh??? Whose families, their own? Protection racketeers also help their families stay out of poverty -- BY FORCING OTHER FAMILIES INTO POVERTY. That doesn't mean they are making a contribution. Hello?

Huh?????? Do what? Force others into poverty? That's not what I want, and you know it.

I'm sure there is a lot of absurd, disingenuous nonsense that has never occurred to me.