Exploitation

[DaComm]

Simple Question, what is the best rebuttle to the Capitalist argument of thier defending Exploitation as moral by saying that "we own the machines"?

[syndicat]

And how did they get the money to buy the machines? Profits are based on workers being forced to take jobs at wages and under conditions the employers offer. Profits are only possible because of this. And if private ownership by a minority enables them to dominate others and scarf up profit from this relation of domination, then that private ownership of the machines is illegitimate, because it's a means to oppression and exploitation.

[Adil3tr]

The native Americans owned their land, but apparently they had to go for the sake of progress, so the capitalists should give up their machines so that humanity can make the enormous leap forward to socialism.

[Kotze]

When somebody argues from a capitalist point of view, like how "natural" ownership of the means of production in private hands is, it is not the best idea to mention objections which are based on completely different ethics. It is better to get somebody to your conclusion based on his own assumption of what is just.

Like this:

A: When an entrepreneur hires workers he is getting richer from hiring them, but so what? They agreed to a contract and he owns the factory after all.

B: Did he build the factory?

A: Well, he either built it or he bought it. I know what you are getting at, he bought it from a consenting rational adult, okay. We are not talking about little kids, we are not talking about retards. I believe that normal people are capable of taking care of themselves, okay. Maybe a few people are not, but that doesn't imply they would be better off with big mama government, when you create a huge bureaucracy it starts a life on its own.

B: Okay, let's change the topic. (<-Lie.)

A: Good to see you are coming to your senses.

B: You have a nice bike, looks very unusual.

A: Heh, of course. I essentially made it myself from scratch. You have no idea how much work went into this.

B: Suppose your bike gets stolen. Given that it's a unique bike, when some day you see somebody riding it, you instantly recognize it. What do you do?

A: I quickly draw my trusty cellphone, take a photo of his mug, and call the police.

B: The guy says he didn't steal it.

A: Liar!

B: He bought it from another guy.

A: Whatever. I am getting my bike back.

B: What about the guy who bought it?

A: Well, it's a thing between him and the thief.

B. What if the other guy also bought it?

A: It's the same principle, duh. The thief is guilty, I get my bike.

B: What if I owned all the land?

A: What if, what if, what if. What if you didn't smoke pot? Then we wouldn't have this discussion.

B: Seriously. What if I owned it?

A: I don't see how this is relevant to anything in the real world. No matter how rich somebody gets, nobody could ever buy all the land.

B: What if I became the president of the world, and I took all the land, with the majority's approval?

A: The majority doesn't smoke pot, but whatever. You would be a thief, no matter what the majority said. This is really getting annoying. Look, my principles are just and simple: When something changes hands and both parties agree to it, it makes them both happy, okay. If there is a chain of voluntary exchanges, lots of people get happy. As a commie you may not know this, but if somebody steals something, that isn't called a voluntary exchange, and it doesn't become just if you tack on voluntary exchanges between the thief and other people. In the beginning of such a chain of voluntary exchanges, there has to be production of the thing, not theft.

B: So... who produced the land?

A: FUCK OFF!

The end.

The core of the "Free Market" myth are these 3 claims:
1. People own the fruits of their efforts.
2. Exchange between consenting rational people makes them happy.
3. Therefore, our society is just (WTF).

"Free Market" philosophy is ahistorical for a reason: History is full of examples where this change of hands wasn't consensual (wars, slavery). Through an invention called inheritance of wealth many people who are rich today still profit from incidents in the past that we call atrocities today. Given that nature is full of stuff that is not produced by humans, these things belong to everybody in equal measure. Taking from the rich is not stealing, it's taking back what they stole.