[Beren]

raising kids is hard work but that doesn’t make anyone wealthy.

Raising kids may be hard, but it's not work. Animals in the wild do it either and it's hard for them too, but they don't work.

What do you think a capitalist is? The Marxist anti-concept seems to be anyone who owns anything that could yield a return.

I think a capitalist is someone who privately owns and actively runs a company or business for profit, while owning something passively for a return only makes someone an owner, which anyone could be basically.

[Wellsy]

Raising kids may be hard, but it's not work. Animals in the wild do it either and it's hard for them too, but they don't work.

It’s not paid work unless you work a daycare or are a nanny. And such work is not productive in the economy unless it produces a surplus/profit.

I think a capitalist is someone who privately owns and actively runs a company or business for profit, while owning something passively for a return only makes someone an owner, which anyone could be basically.

I can agree with the distinction, between someone involved in their business compared to someone who has a passive income through property.
The issue still remains that no one individual is creating such wealth single handedly and that their wealth.

What a capitalist brings to production largely is their capital both in means of production and money. And this is thought to not have to be limited to a class in its function. But of course there are limited in roads on that front.

This is why a defense of a capitalists wealth has to be based on some justification of merely respecting their property rights and not questioning it, as well as tendencies to treat every capitalist as the ideas man that is a a genus to a big company and thus deserve the wealth. But even this frames big companies still as small businesses and misses how there are workers who fill in the r&d of big companies or how they simply buy out competitors.

A managing and running of a company is no doubt long hours and work but to the personal benefit of some in the millions and billions?
The idea here is whether they perform productive labor, that is labor that produces value and a surplus at that and what this surplus is. A security guard at a concern for example is unproductive even while necessary in defending the product, access to the concert. Similarly one can help manage operations and even improve production but when it comes to the actual commodity, there has to be a more direct relationship even while it is dependent on the necessary although unproductive labor of others. Raising families, infrastructure for logistics/transport all help but their importance doesn’t directly create value unless one simply ignores the development of exchange value and sees only use. But we don’t live in a world of production for use unless we ignore money and see it as a neutral and more efficient form of barter.

[Truth To Power]

Raising kids may be hard, but it's not work. Animals in the wild do it either and it's hard for them too, but they don't work.

That is incorrect. There is a difference between work and labor in the economic sense. Animals do work, but in economics, labor is defined as human effort devoted to production (relief of scarcity). Raising children is definitely labor because it is human effort devoted to production of responsible, contributing adults. It is just (usually) unpaid. It is absurd to say that raising children is labor when done by daycare employees for money but not when done by parents for their own reasons.

I think a capitalist is someone who privately owns and actively runs a company or business for profit,

That's a proprietor.

while owning something passively for a return only makes someone an owner, which anyone could be basically.

The Marxist anti-concept "capitalist" is different from a mere owner, and involves the (claimed) exploitation of employees.

[Truth To Power]

It’s not paid work unless you work a daycare or are a nanny. And such work is not productive in the economy unless it produces a surplus/profit.

Profit is just revenue less expenses. The notion that labor is not productive unless it yields profit is absurd.

I can agree with the distinction, between someone involved in their business compared to someone who has a passive income through property.

What do you call them, then?

The issue still remains that no one individual is creating such wealth single handedly and that their wealth.

Of course wealth creation depends on the whole infrastructure of civilization. But we already pay landowners full market value for all those advantages, which is the reason land is so expensive.

What a capitalist brings to production largely is their capital both in means of production and money. And this is thought to not have to be limited to a class in its function. But of course there are limited in roads on that front.

Again, as a Marxist, you have no concept of the difference between contributing producer goods and just owning privileges.

This is why a defense of a capitalists wealth has to be based on some justification of merely respecting their property rights and not questioning it, as well as tendencies to treat every capitalist as the ideas man that is a a genus to a big company and thus deserve the wealth.

Again: as a Marxist, you have no concept of the difference between rightful property that secures individual human rights and wrongful property that violates them.

But even this frames big companies still as small businesses and misses how there are workers who fill in the r&d of big companies or how they simply buy out competitors.

Size is irrelevant to the economic relationships.

A managing and running of a company is no doubt long hours and work but to the personal benefit of some in the millions and billions?

Again: the amount is irrelevant to the economic relationships. A billion dollars obtained by commensurate contributions to production is earned; a dollar obtained by legally depriving others of what they would otherwise have is unearned.

The idea here is whether they perform productive labor, that is labor that produces value and a surplus at that and what this surplus is.

Invalid definition. Labor is human effort devoted to production.

A security guard at a concern for example is unproductive even while necessary in defending the product, access to the concert.

Wrong. Such labor is productive as it relieves scarcity.

Similarly one can help manage operations and even improve production but when it comes to the actual commodity, there has to be a more direct relationship even while it is dependent on the necessary although unproductive labor of others. Raising families, infrastructure for logistics/transport all help but their importance doesn’t directly create value unless one simply ignores the development of exchange value and sees only use. But we don’t live in a world of production for use unless we ignore money and see it as a neutral and more efficient form of barter.

Totally confused. As the C-M-C and M-C-M nonsense shows, Marxism does not understand money, value, or production.

[Wellsy]

@Truth To Power

I’m gonna bow out. I’ve seen you argue for several pages with another poster about the same things to no avail.

Ultimately I only see reformism, a partial critique.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

If Henry George declares land-monopolization to be the sole cause of poverty and misery, he naturally finds the remedy in the resumption of the land by society at large. Now, the Socialists of the school of Marx, too, demand the resumption, by society, of the land, and not only of the land but of all other means of production likewise. But even if we leave these out of the question, there is another difference. What is to be done with the land? Modern Socialists, as represented by Marx, demand that it should be held and worked in common and for common account, and the same with all other means of social production, mines, railways, factories, etc.; Henry George would confine himself to letting it out to individuals as at present, merely regulating its distribution and applying the rents for public, instead of, as at present, for private purposes. What the Socialists demand, implies a total revolution of the whole system of social production; what Henry George demands, leaves the present mode of social production untouched, and has, in fact, been anticipated by the extreme section of Ricardian bourgeois economists who, too, demanded the confiscation of the rent of land by the State.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch08.htm

Only this much is correct: Assuming the capitalist mode of production, then the capitalist is not only a necessary functionary, but the dominating functionary in production. The landowner, on the other hand, is quite superfluous in this mode of production. Its only requirement is that land should not be common property, that it should confront the working class as a condition of production, not belonging to it, and the purpose is completely fulfilled if it becomes state-property, i.e., if the state draws the rent. The landowner, such an important functionary in production in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, is a useless superfetation in the industrial world. The radical bourgeois (with an eye moreover to the suppression of all other taxes) therefore goes forward theoretically to a refutation of the private ownership of the land, which, in the form of state property, he would like to turn into the common property of the bourgeois class, of capital. But in practice he lacks the courage, since an attack on one form of property—a form of the private ownership of a condition of labour—might cast considerable doubts on the other form. Besides, the bourgeois has himself become an owner of land.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
I’ve seen you argue for several pages with another poster about the same things to no avail.

Right, because when I prove socialists and capitalists are objectively wrong, they just refuse to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove they are objectively wrong.

Ultimately I only see reformism,

Because you refuse to know the objective facts that prove the proposed reforms solve the problem.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm
If Henry George declares land-monopolization to be the sole cause of poverty and misery,

He doesn't. That is nothing but another stupid, childish, and despicable Marxist fabrication. There are four main causes of poverty and misery: misfortune, crime, personal choices, and unjust institutions, of which the last is by far the most important. Landowner privilege is the principal, though not the only, institutional cause.

he naturally finds the remedy in the resumption of the land by society at large.

Not resumption in the sense of nationalization, but administration of its possession and use so as to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Now, the Socialists of the school of Marx, too, demand the resumption, by society, of the land, and not only of the land but of all other means of production likewise.

Right, because unlike geoists, they refuse to know the indisputable fact of objective physical reality that unlike natural resources, producer goods would not otherwise have been there for workers to use.

What is to be done with the land?

Economics and history tell us that it will be used most productively for the benefit of the community if allocated by the free market rather than by politicians, bureaucrats, commissars, or workers' committees.

Modern Socialists, as represented by Marx, demand that it should be held and worked in common and for common account,

I.e., far less productively than private tenants producing for their own profit would use it, thus returning society to poverty and misery, just more broadly distributed under socialism than capitalism.

and the same with all other means of social production, mines, railways, factories, etc.;

Because they refuse to understand economics or to know facts.

Henry George would confine himself to letting it out to individuals as at present, merely regulating its distribution and applying the rents for public, instead of, as at present, for private purposes.

Because in combination with the modern geoist reform restoring the equal individual right to use land, that solves the problem without creating worse problems.

What the Socialists demand, implies a total revolution of the whole system of social production;

Production is private, not social.

what Henry George demands, leaves the present mode of social production untouched,

Production is not social. It is private.

and has, in fact, been anticipated by the extreme section of Ricardian bourgeois economists who, too, demanded the confiscation of the rent of land by the State.

"Bourgeois" is the Marxist anti-concept that means, "factually correct, but unacceptable because contrary to Marxist thought."

Assuming the capitalist mode of production, then the capitalist is not only a necessary functionary, but the dominating functionary in production.

Wrong. The producer is dominant, as he makes the relevant decisions in his contractual role. The return to ownership of producer goods is largely competed away.

The landowner, on the other hand, is quite superfluous in this mode of production.

And all other modes.

Its only requirement is that land should not be common property, that it should confront the working class as a condition of production, not belonging to it, and the purpose is completely fulfilled if it becomes state-property, i.e., if the state draws the rent.

That is false but actually has a grain of truth, which is why modern geoist reform goes beyond the Georgist Single Tax and restores the equal individual rights of all to use land. A major reason George's campaign failed was that the landless and small-holding landowners saw that they would still be paying land rent, and the prospect of being relieved of the burden of taxation in compensation was too abstract. But workers would still be far better off even with a system of land as state property without just compensation, and the purpose of dispossessing workers would certainly NOT be fulfilled thereby, because workers would be relieved of taxation (especially shifted burdens) and would have access to land on equal terms with producers and capital owners.

The landowner, such an important functionary in production in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, is a useless superfetation in the industrial world.

The landowner qua landowner has by definition never made any contribution to production or the community, nor ever can. It is true that the emergence of the institution of private landowning, which was not fully realized until Roman times, enabled better market allocation, which was more efficient and productive than the customary allocation of the village commons, clan-based land-use rights, etc. But the landowner was a mere toll-collector, not the builder of the road. In feudal times, the landowner did sometimes provide a measure of security in the absence of government, using government's natural revenue source. But again, that security was largely illusory, because landowners were just as likely to use the revenue to prosecute aggressive wars of land acquisition against neighboring landowners using their tenants as soldiers as to protect their tenants against external attack.

The radical bourgeois (with an eye moreover to the suppression of all other taxes) therefore goes forward theoretically to a refutation of the private ownership of the land, which, in the form of state property, he would like to turn into the common property of the bourgeois class, of capital.

No, that is just a transparent, disingenuous, and absurd fabrication. Having to pay the market rent for secure, exclusive tenure makes the "capitalist" a tenant the same as anyone else, not an owner.

But in practice he lacks the courage,

That is stupid, childish tripe.

since an attack on one form of property—a form of the private ownership of a condition of labour

I.e., a form that, unlike producer goods, would otherwise have been available.

—might cast considerable doubts on the other form.

No it couldn't, as proved above. Marxists just refuse to know the facts that prove it couldn't.

Besides, the bourgeois has himself become an owner of land.

No, that's just another stupid, childish Marxist fabrication, as proved above.

[QatzelOk]

Right, because when I prove socialists and capitalists are objectively wrong, they just refuse to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove they are objectively wrong.

You don't **prove** anything with your long rants that amount to gotcha! moments of text scanning. All you do is find details that can be argued (all details can be argued) that don't really contribute anything to the main thrust of this topic. Example below.

You erroneously ascribe to social Darwinism what is actually the result of modern mainstream neoclassical economics, whose founding document states that legal possession of wealth is proof of commensurate contribution to its production.

What I'd mentionned is that children are LOSERS in Social Darwinism, and this great loss of human needs (public spaces for communities to raise kids properly) has been taken away by the non-working classes, and their insatiable need for change (in order to invent new scams).

You provided some text that states that this is "more because of neoclassical economics than social darwinism."
What a moot point since they are both so similar - practially twins. And what a waste of energy in this thread to try to slice their definitions very thin.

Why not criticize semi-colon use while you're trolling?

Point-by-point sentence-by-sentence "refutation" is a form of spam, not argument or discussion. You made so few real points in all those words you used. Are you totally unable to synthesize ideas? If so, you might want to try your hand at text revision instead of argumentation.

[Truth To Power]

You don't **prove** anything with your long rants that amount to gotcha! moments of text scanning.

That is false. I refute false claims as I encounter them. I'm not sure what you incorrectly imagine refutation of those false claims would consist of.

All you do is find details that can be argued

No, false claims that can be refuted.

(all details can be argued)

No they cannot, which is why you cannot refute anything I have written.

that don't really contribute anything to the main thrust of this topic.

Other than accuracy, honesty, logic, validity, clarity, relevance and truth...?

What I'd mentionned is that children are LOSERS in Social Darwinism, and this great loss of human needs (public spaces for communities to raise kids properly) has been taken away by the non-working classes, and their insatiable need for change (in order to invent new scams).

And I identified the fact that social Darwinism is irrelevant, and your "non-working classes" is an anti-concept contrived to prevent use of the valid concepts of privilege and non-work contribution.

You provided some text that states that this is "more because of neoclassical economics than social darwinism."

Which is correct. Almost no one advocates social Darwinism, and it is not proffered as a justification for the harmful policies you attribute to it.

What a moot point since they are both so similar - practially twins. And what a waste of energy in this thread to try to slice their definitions very thin.

They are not similar. Treating unlikes as likes is the habitual Marxist fallacy. Clear, agreed, and valid definitions are crucial to all understanding and all communication.

Why not criticize semi-colon use while you're trolling?

Because it's not relevant or informative.

Point-by-point sentence-by-sentence "refutation" is a form of spam, not argument or discussion.

I disagree. It is important that all false premises be rejected. Even one falsehood will lead to false conclusions.

You made so few real points in all those words you used.

But at least they were factually correct, unlike all the claims I refuted.

Are you totally unable to synthesize ideas?

My posts make it obvious that I am incomparably better at it than Marxists.

If so, you might want to try your hand at text revision instead of argumentation.

There's no point in "revision" when the text is replete with falsehoods from start to finish.

[QatzelOk]

Raising kids may be hard, but it's not work. Animals in the wild do it either and it's hard for them too, but they don't work.

Interesting that you write this, Beren.

See, if the non-working-class is "in control," they will say "raising kids isn't work." Just like you wrote.

For the non-working class, "Work" is defined as "a way for me to support myself without working." And this means finding things for "others" (workers) to do.

Raising kids is something that the workers are expected to do "if they have time." And not only do the non-working class rob workers of their time, but also - the slave-like routines that this non-worker class dreams up for others also destroys the disposition for child-rearing, or any kind of social participatation other than pizza-day at their slave-like jobs.

[Truth To Power]

For the non-working class, "Work" is defined as "a way for me to support myself without working." And this means finding things for "others" (workers) to do.

Can you find a willingness to know the difference between the non-working "class" that obtains income by making others richer and the non-working class that obtains income by legally making others poorer?

[QatzelOk]

Can you find a willingness to know the difference between the non-working "class" that obtains income by making others richer and the non-working class that obtains income by legally making others poorer?

non-working "class" that obtains income by making others richer

A slave-master who feeds his slaves "makes them richer" than if he hadn't fed them at all. Is this the type of leadership you think capitalism needs?

A dog-owner who gives his dog a squeaky toy... has made his dog "richer" as well.

The most important things for mammals like us are **equality and self actualization**, and to pretend that the oligarchy can "help" anyone with squeaky toys... while robbing them of dignity... is due to weak logic and no firm grip on what **human nature** really is.

[Truth To Power]

non-working "class" that obtains income by making others richer

Right, such as by contributing producer goods that increase production and would not otherwise have been available.

A slave-master who feeds his slaves "makes them richer" than if he hadn't fed them at all.

No he doesn't, because they are still worse off than if he did not exist. The investor in producer goods, by contrast, makes others better off than if he did not exist.

Is this the type of leadership you think capitalism needs?

I think you need to somehow find a willingness to know facts.

A dog-owner who gives his dog a squeaky toy... has made his dog "richer" as well.

Dogs don't own things; but pet owners do tend to look after their animals better than they would fare in nature.

The most important things for mammals like us are **equality and self actualization**,

Garbage. The most important thing is survival, as you would know if yours had ever been threatened, or if you had children.

and to pretend that the oligarchy can "help" anyone with squeaky toys... while robbing them of dignity... is due to weak logic and no firm grip on what **human nature** really is.

Speaking of pretense, you merely pretend you can't tell the difference between contributing producer goods to production, which makes others better off, and exercising privilege, which makes others worse off, by conflating the people who do those two very different things as "the oligarchy."

[QatzelOk]

The investor in producer goods, by contrast, makes others better off than if he did not exist...

Dogs don't own things; but pet owners do tend to look after their animals better than they would fare in nature.

You could have written "slave owners" instead of "dog owners" in your second sentence.

But then you would be outing yourself as a white-hooded Confederate who believes in "different roles for different races."

Look, I'm also in favor of State's rights, but I don't want slavery in my own nation. You are free to tie-up, discipline, constrain, hobble, torture, exploit.... and then "help" whoever or whatever you want to do this to. Just not in the state where I live because I find this "dog-owner and slave-owner" narrative very, very weak and based on power rather than on nature.

[Truth To Power]

I have said many times that evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. Therefore, anyone who chooses to justify evil is automatically choosing to lie. Capitalism and socialism are both evil, so those who advocate and justify them always lie. That is an immutable law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be. I invite readers to read what I write, and then read what others write in response to it, and make up their own minds about what is the truth and what is lies.

You could have written "slave owners" instead of "dog owners" in your second sentence.

No I couldn't. Slave owners self-evidently don't make slaves -- or anyone but themselves -- better off than if the slave owners had never existed. You are therefore just makin' $#!+ up again. By contrast, the investor in producer goods DOES make others better off by offering them access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have. You just have to refuse to know that fact because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

But then you would be outing yourself as a white-hooded Confederate who believes in "different roles for different races."

That is an absurd and disingenuous fabrication with no basis in anything I have said.

Look, I'm also in favor of State's rights, but I don't want slavery in my own nation. You are free to tie-up, discipline, constrain, hobble, torture, exploit.... and then "help" whoever or whatever you want to do this to.

No I'm not, because that would violate their rights -- unlike offering them access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have, as employers and investors in producer goods do.

Just not in the state where I live because I find this "dog-owner and slave-owner" narrative very, very weak and based on power rather than on nature.

Because it is just some $#!+ you made up, and has no basis in fact or anything I have written.

[QatzelOk]

Slave owners self-evidently don't make slaves -- or anyone but themselves -- better off than if the slave owners had never existed.

Then neither do factory owners or plantation owners or baseball team owners.

Either having a master improves you, or it doesn't. You are trying to make both arguments simultaneously as a way to avoid confronting the global effects of subservience to other humans, and how this negatively impacts human lives.

You are doing this because Big Money is constantly showing us HOW to justify its scams. It used mass media to share its justifications for its scams, and most of us get a lot of ammo from mass media.

[Truth To Power]

Then neither do factory owners or plantation owners or baseball team owners.

No, your claims are objectively false. The factory owner has contributed the factory, which would not otherwise have been available. That contribution increases production, which relieves the general scarcity to the benefit of all in the community. His employees are also made better off thanks to the opportunity the factory owner provides to them, or they would not agree to work for him.

You have added the examples of plantations and baseball teams in order to evade the facts because unlike a factory, it is not clear how much of a plantation or baseball team consists of producer goods that would not otherwise have been available. Plantation owners may or may not have made any contribution because a plantation is a mix of natural resources (land) and producer goods (improvements), and historically, plantation owners have often also been slave owners, and have forced their slaves to make the improvements rather than contributing them out of their own accumulated purchasing power. To the extent that a plantation owner has financed the contribution of improvements out of his own resources, he has made the community and his employees better off -- though to the extent that he owns land, he has also made them worse off. Similarly, a baseball team is a contractual arrangement with unknown levels of producer goods, franchisee privilege, government subsidy, etc., so all we can say is that to the extent the owner has funded the producer goods -- stadium, equipment, training camp, etc. -- the team uses, then he has made others better off. The notion that professional baseball players are not made better off by team owners is so bizarre and anti-factual that only a socialist could possibly have concocted it, or made such a claim in the expectation of being taken seriously.

Either having a master improves you, or it doesn't.

Becoming better off by taking advantage of an opportunity that would not otherwise have been available is not "having a master." That is just a bald fabrication on your part. To rationalize the injustice and evil that you advocate, you are pretending that you do not know the difference between forcibly removing someone's rights to liberty to make them into your private property, as slave owners and landowners do, and providing people with access to economic opportunity that would not otherwise have been available, as factory owners do. But you do know the difference. Of course you do. You just have to refuse to know the difference because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

You are trying to make both arguments simultaneously

No, I am identifying the fact that owning other people's rights to liberty, thus depriving them of access to opportunity they would otherwise have, is not at all the same thing as owning producer goods that you have caused to exist, thus providing people with access to opportunity they would NOT otherwise have. You are merely pretending not to know the difference between those two very different actions. But you do know the difference. Of course you do. You just have to pretend you do not, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

as a way to avoid confronting the global effects of subservience to other humans, and how this negatively impacts human lives.

No. You are evading the relevant central economic facts by pretending that being subservient to someone because your rights have been forcibly removed and made into their private property, making you worse off, is the same as being "subservient" to someone in order to obtain benefits they offer that would not otherwise have been available to you, making you better off.

You are doing this because Big Money is constantly showing us HOW to justify its scams.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. Big Money is all about profiting from privilege -- land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc. -- not productive contributions like funding construction of factories.

It used mass media to share its justifications for its scams, and most of us get a lot of ammo from mass media.

I have identified the exact nature of those scams, which rely on privilege, and proved that owning producer goods like factories is not one of them. You are now engaged in preventing yourself from knowing the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

[QatzelOk]

The factory owner has contributed the factory, which would not otherwise have been available.

Really? He just shows up in the middle of an empty field holding a factory?

Or does he order other people to build that factory? Who are these other people? Workers or non-workers?

Becoming better off by taking advantage of an opportunity that would not otherwise have been available is not "having a master."

You are using a very leveraged vocabulary in order to attempt to "prove" a point by using the connotative meanings of words rather than their denotative meaning. This is a great technique for advertising, where trickery is respectable.

But a dog who "takes advantage of an opportunity that would not otherwise have been available" and sits next to that fire, will soon find himself with a master who decides when that dog gets to urinate and isolates him from other dogs.

(By the way, you use too much rhetoric in your posts and some of your points may be getting lost)

[Truth To Power]

Really? He just shows up in the middle of an empty field holding a factory?

No, he causes it to exist rather than not exist, which proves his ownership of it does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have, and therefore does not make anyone else worse off, only better off.

Or does he order other people to build that factory? Who are these other people? Workers or non-workers?

He arranges for all the production factors to be applied to creation of the factory: he pays workers the agreed, consensual wage for the labor they contribute; he pays the landowner for what government, the community and nature contribute at that location; and he pays the owners of tools and other producer goods for their contributions. The labor and tools would not otherwise have been available. The land would. You are just trying to contrive some way to avoid knowing those facts.

You are using a very leveraged vocabulary

No, I am identifying the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality in the clearest, simplest words I know.

in order to attempt to "prove" a point by using the connotative meanings of words rather than their denotative meaning.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. I am using words in their clearest and most relevant denotative senses. You are just trying to evade the facts my words identify because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

This is a great technique for advertising, where trickery is respectable.

But not one I utilize. You cannot identify even one single word I have used in an equivocal or deceptive sense.

But a dog who "takes advantage of an opportunity that would not otherwise have been available" and sits next to that fire, will soon find himself with a master who decides when that dog gets to urinate and isolates him from other dogs.

So? That's his choice, not yours. That life of otherwise unavailable benefits -- and yes, associated costs -- might be a life he prefers to the master he would have to submit to in the violence-based hierarchy of the pack, and the constant insecurity, hunger and suffering that go with life in the absence of the human benefactor who has rescued him from it.

[QatzelOk]

No, he causes it to exist...

"Causes it to exist" is from religious vocabulary.

Can you stick to the real world since we're talking about economics and not theology?

If he didn't build the factory himself, it could have just as easily been built without his sacred existence. OR perhaps it would never have been built at all - and that would have been better for the workers.

The factories that make insecticides, bombs, surveillance equipment, SUVs.... all of these are profit-driven (the non-workers like this) and not quality-of-life driven (for workers who need spare time and health).

[Truth To Power]

"Causes it to exist" is from religious vocabulary.

No it isn't. You simply made that up, and are resorting to absurdity again to help prevent yourself from knowing the fact that unlike natural resources, producer goods would not exist if their initial owners had not caused them to.

Can you stick to the real world since we're talking about economics and not theology?

In what imaginary world of your own devising do producer goods exist without anyone deciding to cause them to exist and then implementing that decision? In what imaginary world of your own devising do natural resources not exist unless someone causes them to?

If he didn't build the factory himself, it could have just as easily been built without his sacred existence.

Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't. The point is that it wasn't. It ONLY exists because some particular person or persons made the decision to cause it to exist, and implemented that decision by their own initiative and labor of arranging for the relevant production factors to be applied to its creation.

OR perhaps it would never have been built at all - and that would have been better for the workers.

No, it most certainly could not have been better for the workers because that would simply remove an opportunity they would not otherwise have. They are worse off in the absence of additional opportunity, not in its presence.

The factories that make insecticides, bombs, surveillance equipment, SUVs.... all of these are profit-driven (the non-workers like this) and not quality-of-life driven (for workers who need spare time and health).

No, that's just more absurd and disingenuous anti-economic Marxist nonsense contrary to fact from you. Without insecticides, the great majority of the world's population would starve to death or die of insect-borne disease. While we can deplore the aggressive use of weapons like bombs, there is no doubt that they are also necessary for defense against such aggression. Surveillance equipment provides a check of evidence against false testimony. And SUVs are simply a luxury some people enjoy, and which do no measurable harm to others. Your selection of those items as representative of why private, for-profit ownership of factories is somehow wrongful is based on nothing but emotion and infantile Marxist propaganda.