Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.

From: michael price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/01/05 

Date: 28 Feb 2005 22:01:28 -0800

"Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote in message news:<1109598864.283602.243800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > > These "some rent collectors" are the elite.
>
> > Then so are the "some workers".
>
> I don't follow, the rent collecting elite make huge unearned incomes
> from Rent, how are "some workers" the elite?

  Well you claimed that the "some rent collectors" were the elite.
Therefore all the others who benefit must also be the elite. So
your claim that this was a "class war" was false.
>
> > Clearly you can't keep your lies straight.
>
> My "lies?"
>
> Why the acrimony? I'm just stating my opinions.
>
  No you're lying. If you weren't you'd admit that the example
of tarriffs proves that the State doesn't work for property owners
and thus is not the servant of a particular class.
 
> > If property owners were the elite they wouldn't get
> > shafted in the interests of some workers. They do.
>
> Again, I do not follow, what property owners do you imagine are getting
> "shafted" in the interest of "some workers."

  Well for example the owners of GM, Ford and Chrysler got shafted
in the interests of steelworkers. If you don't follow the simple
idea that tarriffs benefit some workers at the expense of some
capitalists you must be pretty thick, and I don't think you are.
>
> I've lost track of what you are taking about.
>
  Deliberately.

> > > Because the State is the apparatus of the elite, created
> > > and designed by them to operate in their interest.
>
> > That's your contention but you're thin on evidence.
>
> Umm. Ok. Its too bad you decided to stop trying to make this a serious
> discusion. I thought it was going well.

  Oh grow up.
>
> > > This is not my claim, my claim is that land should not be private
> > > property.
>
> > Your claim is that private property costs too much. It costs
> > less than attacks on it.
>
> No, that is not my claim, I support private property, just not of land.

  And you claim that private property in land costs too much. In fact
protecting all private property costs less than attacks on it.
>
> When I state my claim clearly, and rather than debate it you instead
> claim that I really have some other claim, that is called evasion.
>
  You did claim that private property costs too much.

> Please allow me to speak for myself.

  I did. You're not worth the bother.
<snip>

Relevant Pages
Quantcast