Re: Capitalism, Private Property, etc (was Re: Sweatshops)

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 17:55:05 MDT

Michael Lorrey wrote:

> Mark Walker wrote:
> >
> > -----
> > From: Michael Lorrey <>
> > To: <>
> >
> > > The failure to permit the laborer to keep and use the fruits of his
> > > labor as he would any tool (used to generate a return on investment) is
> > > slavery, pure and simple.
> > >
> > Obviously--unless, of course, you believe otherwise. Why won't tools and
> > other means of production be held in common rather than as private property
> > in the socialist's utopia? I think I am beginning to see why socialists et.
> > al evade your charge of an inherent contradiction. ;)
> Show me one good reason why the community should own my computers.

Well, if you gave it to it, some community organization, so that you had
actually donated it to the library or something, after that then they could
claim it as their property.

I offer that as an example because otherwise, the computer is completely yours,
and as non "real" estate is completely invulnerable to eminent domain. For
example, if the community was building a highway, it has the right to buy the
road, in many cases.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:47 MDT