THEY HAD ALL THE MONEY... they had to invest it somewhere.
ingliz wrote:So for all your blathering you have now decided to agree with me, and the owners of capital were the lawmakers.
No, you are again, as usual, "misstating" what I have plainly written. I have corrected your erroneous claim that the owners of capital were the lawmakers, because they were not. It was the owners of land who were the lawmakers.
Let me try to explain this to you so clearly and simply that even a Marxist will be unable not to understand it: those who owned land but not capital made laws; those who owned capital but not land did not make laws; therefore, it was the owners of land, not of capital, who made the laws.
I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. Possibly there is no way to state it so clearly and simply that you will consent to know it.
"the worst conditions they can get away with"...
Self-serving crap! You must know you can do some very bad things and get away with it when you are the one making the rules?
Of course; and landowners, who were making the rules while capital owners were not, got away with removing people's rights to liberty, and thus their bargaining power, and subjecting them to conditions much worse than capital owners could have if landowners had not removed their rights to liberty.
are not something they are responsible for.
Collective Moral Responsibility: A taxonomy of collective responsibility arrangements
(a) “Whole groups can be held liable even though not all of their members are at fault...”
But as I have proved to you, repeatedly, the group in question is indisputably landowners, not capital owners, because
all landowners
ARE at fault:
every single landowner inherently abrogates others' rights to liberty. NO capital owner ever abrogates anyone else's rights qua capital owner, because no one is made worse off by his capital owning than if he had never existed. You merely refuse to know these facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.
(b) “A group can be held collectively responsible through the fault, contributory or noncontributory, of each member.”
It is the landowner's participation in economic activity that is in every case non-contributory, never the capital owner's, as already proved. Therefore, landowners as a group are collectively responsible for the working conditions for which you falsely blame capital owners. No member of the group of capital owners is ever at fault qua capital owner, but only insofar as he is a landowner or member of some other privileged group.
(c) “Group liability” through the contributory faults of each and every member”
Each and every member of the landowning class abrogates others' rights to liberty BY owning land. No member of the capital owning class
ever abrogates anyone's right to liberty, or harms them in any other way, BY owning capital, because no one is made worse off than if the capital owner had never existed.
(d) “Through the collective but non-distributive fault of the group itself" it bears liability independently of its members”
The only such group that actually acts as a group is the House of Lords, which is a landowners' group.
Feinberg (1970) Doing & Deserving; Essays in the Theory of Responsibility
All very well, but as you refuse to know who is doing what, you cannot understand who deserves what.