Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Yes, exactly like oxygen atoms.

Yes, by your logic that owning what has been created by nature removes others' rights to liberty, owning oxygen, or gold, or iron, or any other atom removes others' rights to liberty. Do you see how silly your theory is now?

Refuted? We agree. Owning atoms removes others' rights to liberty.

Land is abundant.

 

So you agree your claim was false.

If I say, "I decline to speculate about the names of left-handed Italian chefs," that's not the same as saying, "There are no left-handed Italian chefs."

GET IT?????????

It's VERY much harder when you are the FIRST with an idea.

But people who are first with ideas are as superior to those who just attack new ideas as eclairs are to excrement.

 

I've got news for you. Labor doesn't produce anything. It simply moves stuff around from one place to another. Stuff that has been provided by nature. You take some gold atoms and move them around to make a ring. You haven't produced anything. You have simply re-arranged the atoms provided by nature. For you to prevent me from accessing those atoms that you didn't produce is stealing.

Into products of labor by the power of labor.[/quote]
Labor doesn't produce anything. Labor moves matter around. Labor doesn't produce gold atoms, and when you take gold atoms and form them into a ring and then prevent me from accesing the gold atoms in that ring, you are depriving me my right to what nature povided.

How do you remove gold atoms from nature? Matter can't be created or destroyed.

Gold atoms ARE scarce, and I would like to access the ones in your gold ring.

I have no gold atoms, and the gold monopolists own them all. They are stealing them from me.

Gold atoms ARE scarce.

You can't turn gold atoms into anything other than gold atoms. If you own gold atoms, you are depriving others of access to that which nature has provided.[/quote]

 

Because they are abundant, and otherwise available where nature put them.

No, because they never had any liberty to use atoms others have removed from nature and made into products of labor. Their liberty was only to use what was already there. Atoms removed from nature were not already where they are now.

So you stand refuted.

No, I only see how silly and disingenuous your absurd attempt to pretend that, "produced by labor," means, "produced ex nihilo," is.

You stand refuted.

No, only owning atoms they were naturally at liberty to use does, because they never had any liberty to use the removed atoms where they are now: they weren't there.

You stand refuted.

It's price proves it isn't.

You stand refuted.

 

You quoted me asking this, "Why can't I otherwise have the gold atoms in my neighbor's wedding band? They were created by nature, and if he weren't preventing me access to them, I could otherwise have them."

You didn't answer my question at all.

If someone owns gold atoms, which are a gift of nature and not created by labor, then they are denying me that which I would otherwise have a right to.

 

The inevitable descent into absurdity.

It's always the same. Those who presume to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil always end up trying to rescue their proved-false and disingenuous absurdities with ever-falser, ever-more-absurd, and ever-more-disingenuous absurdities.

That is what "produce" MEANS.

The inevitable descent into absurdity.

No, because you were never at liberty to use those atoms where they are now in the first place, so you are not being deprived of anything you would otherwise have; there are lots more atoms for you to use where nature put them (unless landowners stop you from using them); and for you to deprive me of the ones I have removed would deprive me of what I would otherwise have.

You stand refuted. That will not be changing.

 

Labor can't make an atom into anything other than an atom. Atoms are a gift of nature, and just because you move them doesn't mean you created them. They were created by nature, and each of us has an equal right to them.

All atoms have already been there from before man existed.

Atoms can't be removed from nature. Atoms are, and will always be, part of the natural world.

I understand what you mean by "product of labor". You mean moving atoms around. But that doesn't really produce anything that hasn't already been provided by nature. And it is a violation of others' rights to deny them what nature provided.

The price of iron proves it isn't.

 

Production by labor does not mean production ex nihilo. Your pretense that it does is absurd and disingenuous.

Only where nature put them.

No, that's objectively false. Only the ones that are STILL there have always been there.

YOU KNOW THIS.

Blatant equivocation fallacy. YOU KNOW that removing atoms from their natural places does not mean removing them from the physical universe.

Then why are you pretending it means created ex nihilo?

The inevitable repeat descent even deeper into absurdity. In order to avoid knowing the facts about production, you are now claiming there is no such thing as production.

 

Why should you have access to what he legally owns due to payment for the product? Yours is a crazy question.

Nature neither grants nor withholds. Nature is not a being. It's a principle. So gold naturally occurs and anyone who performs the work of legally extracting and purifying it may legally own it within the law.

ALL commodities we have in this or any society have their origin in natural resources. To take your assertion to its logical end, we must say then that each of us has a right to all commodities, and that ownership of any constitutes deprivation of those commodities to those who "have a right to them". Obviously this is the purest of nonsense.

 

It doesn't matter where the atoms have been moved to. The atoms were not created by labor. They are a gift of nature, so therefore nobody has a right to deny access to what nature has provided.

 

I am merely applying @bringiton's criterion. If something is provided by nature (land or atoms), then nobody has the right to deny others access to what nature provided.

 

"Crippling welfare" is indeed evil. In fact, a functional economic system would eliminate the necessity/existence of welfare entirely, given that every individual can potentially contribute positively in some manner, not necessarily within the confines of the private sector, to the totality of the community's quality of life.

A public sector that creatively utilises labour that is not required by competitive (sustainable) private sector activity is NOT welfare.

It's creating socially useful employment, eg, policing/security, health-aides, teacher aides, environmental protection/maintenance, not to mention potentially-valuable pure research jobs - jobs that will otherwise go begging because governments cannot afford to fund them.

It's ironic you talk about 'reverse evolution'.
The quickest way to reverse high growth rates amongst the poverty-stricken is to get rid of poverty - not by natural processes of starvation or resource denial, but by adoption of employment policies designed to eliminate poverty.

BTW, this is a global issue. It's well known that population growth rates fall as living standards rise; and btw the first world should not expect to continue plundering the best and brightest from the third world, which will only result in the necessity to adopt Trump's solution to dealing with external poverty, ie, building walls.

 

private economy can utilize all labor because supply=demand. Econ 101. Public sector can hire any % of workforce it wants by taking away productive private sector jobs Econ 101.

 

if you artificially support the least and encourage them to reproduce most you have reversed evolution
liberals are anti science so they do this

 

Econ 101?. Mostly simplistic theory that is divorced from real world economic processes and real world needs.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/04/economics-students-overhaul-subject-teaching

You say the private sector CAN (?) utilise all labour? Why doesn't it?

Every individual has something to contribute that will enhance the community's quality of life.

Private sector does not recognise the 'value' of much of this quality of life enhancing activity, examples of which I gave in a previous post.

We both agree welfare is evil.

You are not artificially 'encouraging the least to reproduce' by ensuring that they participate in the economy.

Rather, it's only by actually being on the ladder to prosperity, through the experience of earning one's own above poverty level income, that the real consequences
of unaffordable breeding are felt.

 

it utilizes all bananas because govt doesn't interfere. Supply is allowed to equal demand. In labor market it does interfere paying millions not to work. I have explained this to you 23 times now yet you keep asking? Why??

 

but liberals rioted when Republicans switched welfare to workfare so every individual could contribute??

 

if I disagreed I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet??

 

what on earth are you trying to say?????

 

Yes, of course it does. Atoms moved by labor into more useful locations is what we MEAN by "product of labor."

You are again just trying to change the meaning of "produced by labor."

Already refuted. They were only a gift of nature WHERE nature provided them. Once removed by labor, the atoms are no longer what nature provided.

 

Bare assertion.

Only nature can provide atoms.

 

The basic resource requiring to be utilised in an inclusive, modern, global economy is working-age labour, rewarded with above poverty level wages. Private sector fails this basic requirement.

Your Econ101 supply and demand orthodoxy is obsolete in a world with the technology to house, clothe and feed everyone.

Eg, to some of the sillier effects of supply and demand orthodoxy: there is currently an oversupply of food in India as a result of a bountiful harvest, causing a price crash - meaning farmers are unable to repay debts and are committing suicide (1600 so far this year, thousands over the past decade). Meanwhile millions are currently at risk of starvation in Africa. A human catastrophe, resulting from slavish adherence to an obsolete 'Econ101'.orthodxy. In fact, Africa itself could be self-sustaining within 10 years, given a global bank that could print the necessary funds (all the resources are currently available. Ask the big resource companies who are currently closing mines and winding down activity due to Eco101 orthodoxy which says there is currently a 'lack of demand' for their products. Madness).

well those liberals were ignorant, or the 'workfare' on offer was part time, below poverty level stuff, or both; and my proposal to free-up and sustainably maximise resource allocation on a global basis, through public - private sector co-operation, is certainly not part of Econ101 orthodoxy that both sides of politics are currently labouring under at present, with both sides condemned to the fruitless tax or no tax dispute.

Can you rephrase that?

Anyway, beware of contradictions, eg, I'm sure you would not wish to say that it's not necessary, in the absence of wellfare, to participate in the economy.

(That would be as silly as Longshot's assertion that labour doesn't produce anything!)

If you are earning an income that at the least provides a relatively basic but sufficient standard of living, independence from handouts or welfare or charity, and the freedom to pursue other interests, you are not likely to want to jeopardise all that because of unaffordable propagation.

 

People's actions don't create matter. They take existing matter and re-arrange it into a new form.

Ore is removed from the ground. Iron is removed from the ore. The iron is mixed with carbon to create steel. The steel is formed into a useful shape.

No matter was actually created in this process. Matter was merely re-arrange and re-organized.

 

So it isn't the atom's themselves that you are concerned with. Merely how they are re-arranged?

If someone mow's the grass, is that grass now a product of their labor? After all they re-arranged those atom's into something more useful(In their eyes).

 

if you have evidence I will pay you $10,000. Bet??