so the king of England earned what his family plundered to the population of their own country and of countries they conquered???

hard earned money ahahahahahah

communist took belongings of the zar, not of your uncle, thats what Heyek wants you to believe, so you can uphold his party, the party of the rich, you stay poor, they keep getting richer!!

well done!!

taking away things from people who stole it firsts is theft??

oh yeah capitalists thinks so, if someone stole something, they did their job so they earned it!!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

This is exactly the problem with your system: the labor theory of value led Marx to teach that employers ("capital") were *stealing* the value of the workers' ("labor") labor. I grant that if this were true, then it would be just for the laborers to take back what was rightfully theirs.

But the labor theory of value is false. And you don't need to read any books to realize this. The price of 12 oz of water is higher in the desert than it is in the rainforest. The same labor input went into pouring it. Therefore the price is not determined by its labor. It's determined by the buyer's subjective desire to quench his thirst and the scarcity of the supply. A child can figure this out.

The labor theory of value is false: therefore the idea that all employers "oppress" their workers is false; therefore the idea that all profit is theft is false. Profit means that you have met your neighbor's desires, and you have both benefited from the trade because the producer wants the $10 more than he wants the widget, and consumer wants the widget more than they want their $10. Both walk away happy.

The labor theory of value is false: therefore the foundation of the entire Marxist ideology crumbles. Marx never did explain the origin of prices: he couldn't. He wouldn't had to cut his own legs out from under him.

...

If you want to keep interacting here with English-speakers, you would do well to understand what we mean by our own terminology. From all that you've written, it really seems that although you're using the same vocabulary, you're using a much different dictionary. And that makes communication extremely unproductive.

Nowhere have I argued for the "divine right of kings" -- I'm an American through and through; rejection of that idea was at the outset of our Constitutional Republic, and may even define our political philosophy. Read our Declaration of Independence. That would be a good starting point.

If you wish to hold such a loud opinion on a subject, you would do well to do some actual study in it. Because clearly, you have not. This is not an insult; the evidence is clear from what you've written. But thankfully, it is fact that you can fix with a little bit of goodwill and a whole lot of study.

If you come back at me with more insults and nothing but emotional outbursts without a calm and reasonable tone, you will be blocked or muted. I've done my best to have a civil discourse with you, but you have acted like nothing but a temperamental child. Stop it. Grow up and learn how to hold civil discourse. Then we can talk.

Peace to you.