Why Charity Isn't Enough

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Okkkk

Whats your point?

You lied, then tried to shift the window.

You can't come into a dialogue and talk about "Oh I meant the economist-socialist-400 level class definition " when you say generic shyt like "I don't believe in private property"

Drop the bullshyt.

 

[Madvillain]

You can't come into a dialogue and talk about "Oh I meant the economist-socialist-400 level class definition " when you say generic shyt like "I don't believe in private property"

Except this is what is meant by "private property" in any serious discussion about the matter. All these studies you claim to read and you don't know this?
You cling to dude being in college to attack his worldview, but you can't even keep up with terms econ & academia have been using forever

But then again,

Didn't Apu say economics was bullshyt and made up?

 

[Tate]

Whats your point?

You lied, then tried to shift the window.

You can't come into a dialogue and talk about "Oh I meant the economist-socialist-400 level class definition " when you say generic shyt like "I don't believe in private property"

Drop the bullshyt.

My point is that despite your ignorance on what private property refers to in economic discussion, the term has a strict meaning that I was clearly referring to then. And being that I'm a Marxist, and clearly speak from a Marxist perspective, and Marx laid out his views on private property and personal property ~10 pages into Capital, and that's clearly the same stance I alluded to in my post, where's your disconnect here? I lied when? Exact post.


"In economics, property is usually considered to be ownership (rights to the proceeds generated by the property) and control over a resource or good.Many economist effectively argue that property rights need to be fixed and need to portray the relationships among other parties in order to be more effective"- Property rights (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption."- Private property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cynic]

Money can buy food & resources what's not to understand about that?

So if you're a billionaire think about how many people you can feed.

If me being a billionaire means others are starving then

My other billionaire peers going broke should off set this injustice, right ? :usherlol:

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My point is that despite your ignorance on what private property refers to in economic discussion, the term has a strict meaning that I was clearly referring to then. And being that I'm a Marxist, and clearly speak from a Marxist perspective, and Marx laid out his views on private property and personal property ~10 pages into Capital, and that's clearly the same stance I alluded to in my post, where's your disconnect here? I lied when? Exact post.


"In economics, property is usually considered to be ownership (rights to the proceeds generated by the property) and control over a resource or good.Many economist effectively argue that property rights need to be fixed and need to portray the relationships among other parties in order to be more effective"- Property rights (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption."- Private property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're playing semantics when you chose not to tailor your discussion. Stop trying to pretend to be more enlightened because you read Das Kapital. We all did

 

[Tate]

You're playing semantics when you chose not to tailor your discussion. Stop trying to pretend to be more enlightened because you read Das Kapital. We all did

Yes, how semantical basic grammar can be. If you actually read Das Kapital, which we both know you haven't, and you still couldn't grasp the cornerstone of the entire tome, I question your reading level. But given your WOAT status and consistent illogical blubberings through this and other threads, that would explain a lot.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yes, how semantical basic grammar can be. If you actually read Das Kapital, which we both know you haven't, and you still couldn't grasp the cornerstone of the entire tome, I question your reading level. But given your WOAT status and consistent illogical blubberings through this and other threads, that would explain a lot.

Semantics matter when you're speaking in generalities (which still haven't been resolved) since you want to take your pretentiousness to mean that since you read Das Kapital (and you're not the only one to have done so and its outright insulting, if not so outrageously sad to suggest that you're privy to some elite knowledge from a failed manifesto) you get to misrepresent basic english. I bet you read the original german too. Continue to impress us, big man

So yeah, when you say DUMB SH!T like "I don't believe in private property" and then try to backtrack with "oh I meant it how Marx meant it" then pretend that we're supposed to be clued into some nuanced version of a term that is never used simply because you think we're impressed that you can google page numbers.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I didn't mean private property. I mean private property.

Didn't you read Marx's journal writings?

I bet you don't even know who Engels was

Von Mises? More like Von Misery to people who don't agree with me

fukk outta here thinking you're legit

 

[a man of the people]

Semantics matter when you're speaking in generalities (which still haven't been resolved) since you want to take your pretentiousness to mean that since you read Das Kapital (and you're not the only one to have done so and its outright insulting, if not so outrageously sad to suggest that you're privy to some elite knowledge from a failed manifesto) you get to misrepresent basic english. I bet you read the original german too. Continue to impress us, big man

So yeah, when you say DUMB SH!T like "I don't believe in private property" and then try to backtrack with "oh I meant it how Marx meant it" then pretend that we're supposed to be clued into some nuanced version of a term that is never used simply because you think we're impressed that you can google page numbers.

The man explains to you what he meant and you're like "no, you don't know what you meant, I'll tell you what you meant".

Also, I get it that you don't like Marxist terminology, but for fukk's sake, the man has a picture and user name of Karl Marx and you're going to act all surprised when he uses Marxists terminology?
And yes, this is very basic, normal and expected normal terminology, the distinction between personal and private property is important in that framework, this is not some shyt he made up to win an argument on the internet.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The man explains to you what he meant and you're like "no, you don't know what you meant, I'll tell you what you meant"..

Because he wasn't clear, then tries to pretend like despite all of his attempts at appearing to impress others he forgot to speak clearly and he had to correct himself. He can't admit he's wrong.

So yeah, i'll drop it, when he drops it.

Also, I get it that you don't like Marxist terminology,

I don't dislike Marx. But his fan club is what I have problems with.

but for fukk's sake, the man has a picture and user name of Karl Marx and you're going to act all surprised when he uses Marxists terminology?
(and yes, this is very basic, normal and expected normal terminology, the distinction between personal and private property is important in that framework, this is not some shyt he made up to win an argument on the internet)

Doesn't matter. Dude wasn't clear, backtracked, then played dumb.

THEN tried to hold HIS MISTAKE over the heads of others. As if people are thinking about marx's single definition of the word, and not the common parlance of the term.

It signifies how insular and possibly socially maladjusted someone like @Swavy Karl Marx could possibly be when he talks about this stuff.

You're not going to hear me drop the latin terms of species or speak about complex biology on a message board where like 60% of people on here couldn't pass high school science.

 

[a man of the people]

Are you really going to bytch and moan about a post you didn't understand?
Even after he explained to you pretty damn clearly what he did mean?

And for the record, I think his post was plenty clear, at least to people who are familiar (even in passing) to Marxists thought, especially since he straight up said "I'm saying he has no right to own others work".

Either way, this is fukking pointless, now that you understand what he means, can we move on and talk about what the thread was and not about how this one guy post something you didn't understand once?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Really sad to see an ignorant person who knows they are wrong, increasingly dig their heels in trying to not admit it

Truly the WOAT

 

[Yapdatfool]

I agree. Charity has just as many hoops to jump through to qualify for as gov't assistance does.

is some instances even working a minimum wage job can be a detriment too, based on the major lack of help you can receive while working. Working is always better than not, but shyt can be tough no matter how you slice it.

In WI, gov't assistance quits for single no child having folks when you make more than 970 per month. You work 40 hours of minimum wage per week as a single person, your on your own.
Charity has hours and certain days they can help you, odds are if your workin 40+ hours, your ain't got time to go get that help.

 

[Robbie3000]

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use force to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right.

But forcing people to provide for "common defense" is okay right? You have no problem with the state forcing a person sacrifice their life for the state, but taxing to help to fellow human beings is such an egregious violation of freedoms by the state right?

Libertarians are children.

 

[Tate]

Semantics matter when you're speaking in generalities (which still haven't been resolved) since you want to take your pretentiousness to mean that since you read Das Kapital (and you're not the only one to have done so and its outright insulting, if not so outrageously sad to suggest that you're privy to some elite knowledge from a failed manifesto) you get to misrepresent basic english. I bet you read the original german too. Continue to impress us, big man

So yeah, when you say DUMB SH!T like "I don't believe in private property" and then try to backtrack with "oh I meant it how Marx meant it" then pretend that we're supposed to be clued into some nuanced version of a term that is never used simply because you think we're impressed that you can google page numbers.

I'm sure lots of people here have either read Kapital or have a passing understanding of it. You just aren't one of them. That's really clear here for everyone, hold your L and move on. It's pathetic at this point