CDZ Produce, mooch, or loot.

[Liminal]

How can I be a "looter" when I've been a "responsible producer" for so many years? Your superficial theories are all apparently premised on baseless opinions and false choices.

I don't know anything about you. But your distractions with personal shots seem to be the tactic of a deflector, who doesn't want to discuss the topic.

You don't know your producers from your looters or moochers, or whatever other superficial definitions come to mind. Tell me, Producer.....how are you not a moocher or a looter? Explain how you produce more than you take.

 

[usfan]

I too prefer to shine the light of accurate accounting on those who choose to divert attention away from the topic for discussion and onto individual, personal, character issues, or assassination attempts.

"So it seems that the producers enable the looters with their unquestioning respect for Law, even if it has become perverted. What will it take to open the eyes of the working man, to resist the exploitation of the looting class?"

The idea that a crime can be a law is a possible case of aiding, abetting, lending moral, and lending material support to criminals, if in fact there was rule of law, and if in fact there was due process afforded to everyone, then lawful facts could be found in a lawful manner in that case. If, on the other hand, there was no effective means by which victims of criminals (under the color of law criminals, or just plain old overt criminals) are effectively defended, meaning chaos, or meaning so called anarchism (negative meaning since anarchism has at least two opposite meanings), or meaning rule by tyrants, or meaning rule by criminals, or meaning might makes right, or meaning divine (false) right of kings, or meaning rule by deception, threat of aggressive violence by criminals upon targeted victims, or meaning rule by aggressive violence by criminals upon innocent victims in time and place, if that is the kind of law in force, a criminal version of law, a counterfeit version of law put in place by criminals who do so with malice aforethought, then the rules obeyed without question are criminal rules, which include the rule that anyone can do anything at any time to anyone, just don't get caught by another criminal: if that is the case then typically the innocent body count rises in proportion to the dwindling supply of producers producing anything worth stealing.

Producers who produce anything worth stealing, so as to then afford the thieves the power they need to steal more, are always the targets of criminals when the criminals run out of fellow criminals to steal from. In fact the natural order of natural laws dictates that there must first be a producer before there can be anything worth stealing.

So group A can be producer, and there is only one, until someone else contacts the one and only producer.

If the contact to producer A is involuntary, meaning contact by willful deception intending to deceive producer A, with malice aforethought, so as to transfer something worth something from producer A, then there is a commonly understood word for that form of contact.
Crime
That crime is also called a commonly understood word, in English, so as to accurately discriminate that crime from other crimes.
Fraud
If on the other hand the contact made by the one contacting the producer, with malice aforethought, so as to gain at the expense of the producer in the group of one, and this time the contact involves a threat of aggressive violence upon the producer, and if the producer is powerless, defenseless, and the threat is demonstrated as a clear and present danger, then that is also a crime, and there is another word for that crime, or many possible words depending upon the precise nature of the criminal act.
Extortion
Calling it mooching, or calling it looting, is to me like begging the question, who in any case is the individual, named, victim, in that individual case, and who is the individual, named, and accurately identified, accused perpetrator, presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty, by some due process that is due, and afforded, to all, without exception?
Or
What is law?
If you have no answer, whatsoever, then that fact may be known by someone working to expand their criminal market share of the limited number of available supply of ready victims who may have something worth stealing.
Here is one of many competitive answers to the question "What is law?":
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Had the criminals failed in the perpetration of their crime to take over the working federation in America there then would be rule of law in America, and rule of law could be demonstrated thereby, in any case.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You cover a lot of concepts of crime, but that is not the central part of the OP. Law, in this context, is something crafted by a collective agency for the BENEFIT of the collective. That is its proper & valid function. BUT, if self serving scoundrels gain control of the legislative process, they pervert it as a means of lawful plunder. Instead of providing justice to the collective, it is an agency of injustice.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frederic Bastiat

Bastiat wrote some very insightful thoughts on The Law, in the pamphlet so named in 1850.

In the context of this thread, it is looters, gaining control of the governing process, to plunder the producers. That is a constant problem in all of human history, & some form of it repeats itself over & over. Looters, empowered by moochers, to plunder producers.

Bastiat is making very simple, obvious points.. there are no derivatives, increments, or complex structures here. There are people who work & create the necessities for survival, & people who take what the workers have created.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. ~Frederic Bastiat

That is human reality, in a nutshell. It is not complicated. People either work & provide their own needs for survival, or they take them from others who have worked. The complex systems that have arisen are to mask & obfuscate this reality with mumbo jumbo. 'It is much too complex for you workers to understand.. trust us, your altruistic benefactors... we will take care of you'... when in fact, these 'altruistic benefactors' are nothing but leeches, living lives of ease while the rest of us work to support their lazy asses.

The solution, for the workers, is to cut off the dead wood.. eliminate the non productive leeches in our lives, so that what we work for can be used for our own families & benefit. Enough, already, of this horde of moochers & leeches who strip the land like locusts, & contribute NOTHING useful to society.

 

[usfan]

Some of that is easy to answer ...
It no longer makes a difference when the people become indignant and demand reform ... Because they are already indignant and demanding reform.
They have overplayed their hand in demanding reforms consisting of unsubstantiated desires that cannot bear the weight of fulfillment.
To demand justice for all is a wonderful thing ... The problem comes when millions of people have a different idea of what justice is ... And want to cut out their little notch to suit their desires.

Indignant people rule the day ... They just cannot accomplish their goals as far as government is concerned.
It is not complicated ... It is easier to pop something in the microwave and sit down in front of the television.
The producers are all pissed off they haven't done what is necessary to achieve their own goals and desires ... And they can sit there and rot if they expect for anything to be given to them ... That is not how you achieve anything worthwhile.
Perhaps a better question would be ... Why don't the people who have achieved their goals turn around and babysit someone else until they get off their rear ends and do what they should be doing?
To which the best answer would be ... Why the hell would I while you are stabbing me in the back?.

+1
Good post. I completely agree with your point about all the 'indignant' people. It is along the same lines of what my frequent quote of Bastiat talked about. I quoted it in the previous reply, regarding the conversion of Law into an instrument of plunder. Once people see the power of govt as a means to get free stuff, they will work that angle, plying grievance, sympathy, or some claim of injustice. But it is not about providing justice, it is about using the power of Law as an instrument of plunder, to get stuff.

IMO, there is universal Justice. It is not about solving all grievances, real or imagined, but dispensing real justice with regard to the basic rights to life, liberty, & property. THAT is real justice. The contrived justice is euphemistically renamed as 'social justice,' 'redistribution', or 'economic fairness'. That is merely plunder, justified.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is... legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay ... If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system. ~Frederic Bastiat

There is a basic standard of morality in human beings, for collective justice. We do not have to throw our hands up & submit to appeals to relativism, which is only a guise to fleece the producers.

You have a right to your life, liberty, & property. If someone violates any of your rights by violence, you have just cause to defend yourself. Collective justice is just us pooling our resources to protect our individual rights.

 

[Josf]

"You cover a lot of concepts of crime, but that is not the central part of the OP."

You make a claim concerning the wrong of what I did, and then you claim to show me the right way to respond to the topic, as you define the meaning of law in your own words? When I offer a competitive meaning of the word law I employ quotes from an example of people employing the idea of law in time and place. So your version of law, and the version of law offered in the example by me, are now two diverse meanings of law, for anyone else to ponder upon, concerning the subject matter of the topic at hand.

"Bastiat wrote some very insightful thoughts on The Law, in the pamphlet so named in 1850."

I have a copy of the book titled The Law, and it is a flight of fancy in my view.

"In the context of this thread, it is looters, gaining control of the governing process, to plunder the producers."

An example provided of a "looter" looting, or a "plunderer" plundering, in time and place can be provided. What is anyone going to do about said looter looting and said plunderer plundering? If you claim that the individual is, in fact (according to your testimony under oath, or your less serious subjective opinion), guilty of looting, and/or plundering, then there is question unanswered concerning an individual, or individuals, who are the victims of the crime in question; according to your accusation, or the accusation made by anyone else, including the OP. What is the idea behind the debate?

1. Argue for the sake of argument.
2. Find relevant facts concerning the accusation, so as then to reach for, and find a remedy for said looting and plundering.
3. Some other goal - fill in the blank.

That flight of fancy falls under a known, and knowable, fiction called a zero sum game. according to the specious claim.

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources."

That flight of fancy falls under a known, and knowable, fiction called a zero sum game. An obvious example of someone definitely not having to abide by the false claims in the flight of fancy is someone inheriting a stored amount of value produced and stored for the specific purpose of passing on an inheritance. Said individual gaining command, stewardship, or ownership (whichever words work for you or anyone else) of the inheritance does not then have to "satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor" according to the less than accurate claim made by the author making the claim.

Controversy over whose claim is accurate and whose claim is not accurate are competitively resolved according to many diverse methods of two obvious, opposing, categories.

1. Voluntary association also known as rule of law.
2. Involuntary association also knowable as crime.

"That is human reality, in a nutshell. It is not complicated."

That was simply false as demonstrated by the obvious example known as inheritance; so much for your claim concerning the claim by Frederic Bastiat = not true.

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources."

Suppose, on the other hand, you or the author of the claim just demonstrated as a false claim, is to counter with another possible claim of misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the statement at issue. Suppose for example the intention of the author was to speak of man as if man were one thing instead of man existing as individuals, then complication may set in, and instead of "It is not complicated.": it is.

Even so, the concept of automation can free up a lot of "ceaseless labor" for the collective sum total of individual people = untrue once again.

I want to continue, to find some greater knowledge, if at all possible, but I've been given the opportunity to do something I enjoy, which is BBQ, so this "ceaseless labor" must be ceased for the moment.

_________________________________________________________________
There is a basic standard of morality in human beings, for collective justice. We do not have to throw our hands up & submit to appeals to relativism, which is only a guise to fleece the producers.

You have a right to your life, liberty, & property. If someone violates any of your rights by violence, you have just cause to defend yourself. Collective justice is just us pooling our resources to protect our individual rights.
__________________________________________________________________

I can certainly agree with those words. The basic fundamental principle of law, in voluntary association, is agreement, finding it is not easy, labor (collectively) cannot cease on that path reaching for that goal, since labor (collectively) going the other way, reaching for ubiquitous crime, or tyranny, whichever word you prefer, does not cease.

 

[usfan]

"You cover a lot of concepts of crime, but that is not the central part of the OP."

You make a claim concerning the wrong of what I did, and then you claim to show me the right way to respond to the topic, as you define the meaning of law in your own words? When I offer a competitive meaning of the word law I employ quotes from an example of people employing the idea of law in time and place. So your version of law, and the version of law offered in the example by me, are now two diverse meanings of law, for anyone else to ponder upon, concerning the subject matter of the topic at hand.

"Bastiat wrote some very insightful thoughts on The Law, in the pamphlet so named in 1850."

I have a copy of the book titled The Law, and it is a flight of fancy in my view.

"In the context of this thread, it is looters, gaining control of the governing process, to plunder the producers."

An example provided of a "looter" looting, or a "plunderer" plundering, in time and place can be provided. What is anyone going to do about said looter looting and said plunderer plundering? If you claim that the individual is, in fact (according to your testimony under oath, or your less serious subjective opinion), guilty of looting, and/or plundering, then there is question unanswered concerning an individual, or individuals, who are the victims of the crime in question; according to your accusation, or the accusation made by anyone else, including the OP. What is the idea behind the debate?

1. Argue for the sake of argument.
2. Find relevant facts concerning the accusation, so as then to reach for, and find a remedy for said looting and plundering.
3. Some other goal - fill in the blank.

That flight of fancy falls under a known, and knowable, fiction called a zero sum game. according to the specious claim.

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources."

That flight of fancy falls under a known, and knowable, fiction called a zero sum game. An obvious example of someone definitely not having to abide by the false claims in the flight of fancy is someone inheriting a stored amount of value produced and stored for the specific purpose of passing on an inheritance. Said individual gaining command, stewardship, or ownership (whichever words work for you or anyone else) of the inheritance does not then have to "satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor" according to the less than accurate claim made by the author making the claim.

Controversy over whose claim is accurate and whose claim is not accurate are competitively resolved according to many diverse methods of two obvious, opposing, categories.

1. Voluntary association also known as rule of law.
2. Involuntary association also knowable as crime.

"That is human reality, in a nutshell. It is not complicated."

That was simply false as demonstrated by the obvious example known as inheritance; so much for your claim concerning the claim by Frederic Bastiat = not true.

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources."

Suppose, on the other hand, you or the author of the claim just demonstrated as a false claim, is to counter with another possible claim of misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the statement at issue. Suppose for example the intention of the author was to speak of man as if man were one thing instead of man existing as individuals, then complication may set in, and instead of "It is not complicated.": it is.

Even so, the concept of automation can free up a lot of "ceaseless labor" for the collective sum total of individual people = untrue once again.

I want to continue, to find some greater knowledge, if at all possible, but I've been given the opportunity to do something I enjoy, which is BBQ, so this "ceaseless labor" must be ceased for the moment.

_________________________________________________________________
There is a basic standard of morality in human beings, for collective justice. We do not have to throw our hands up & submit to appeals to relativism, which is only a guise to fleece the producers.

You have a right to your life, liberty, & property. If someone violates any of your rights by violence, you have just cause to defend yourself. Collective justice is just us pooling our resources to protect our individual rights.
__________________________________________________________________

I can certainly agree with those words. The basic fundamental principle of law, in voluntary association, is agreement, finding it is not easy, labor (collectively) cannot cease on that path reaching for that goal, since labor (collectively) going the other way, reaching for ubiquitous crime, or tyranny, whichever word you prefer, does not cease.

Perhaps i misunderstood you earlier reply. It certainly was not my intent to put limits on the discussion. I am having a little trouble following your reasoning, but will endeavor to pay closer attention & not make any assumptions.

I was not attempting to address all aspects of Law, but only speak about the misuse of Law, but those who pervert it into a means of plunder, to keep the same terminology. I have called them 'Looters' in this thread.

The topic of inheritance has not been raised, but it is one not of production, but of mooching, as one person benefits from someone else's labor. They are NOT a producer, themselves, but are merely a benefactor of another's labor. Of course, the argument from the original producer is that he can give his property, that he has earned from his own labors, to whomever he wishes, without fear of violence toward his rights. The larger problem, of wealth concentrating in the hands of an elite wealthy class, has many other factors, including supported looting from the ruling elite. This is the age old problem that the OP brought up... looters fleecing the producers with the force of govt. If 'Law', & govt is merely the practical application of Law, does not provide justice, but violates the basic rights to life, liberty, & property, then it as become an enemy of the people, who are then absolved from further respect or submission to this unjust govt.

IMO, complicating this issue is a smokescreen for looters, to keep plundering the working man. They do not want the gravy train to end, so they blow smoke up our collective asses to make us feel lucky we have them to exploit us.

 

[Josf]

"The topic of inheritance has not been raised, but it is one not of production, but of mooching, as one person benefits from someone else's labor."

The competitive viewpoint offered (topic of inheritance) was a check on the claim concerning the zero sum game idea, expressed in the words of Frederic Bastiat. I offered to expose obvious flaws in that type of thinking, so the raising of the topic of inheritance was offered in that context.

The zero sum game idea can obviously inspire such additional ideas as a claim whereby someone inheriting something is claimed (negatively) to be a moocher.

If the term "moocher" is not negative, then what is it? If he term "moocher" is positive, then what is it? If the term "moocher" is neutral, neither positive or negative, then what is it?

Inheritance is another way of expressing the concept of savings, or store of value, or bank of labor, or investment in current time and energy into future capacity to consume invested time and energy, and the obvious result of this idea is an effective end to the demonstrably false zero sum game idea, or the idea that is a claim that there is limit on available wealth, available value, available productivity, available efficiency, available economy, available productive power, and therefore the end of the idea that there is an artificial, man-imposed, limit on how much higher the quality of life can rise, for all, and how much lower the cost of life can lower for all.

The zero sum game idea IS the man-imposed limit on steady, persistent, unlimited, increase in the quality of life while at the same time there is a steady, persistent, unlimited, decrease in the cost of life for everyone now alive, and everyone yet to be born into life.

If you failed to see that idea in the work of Frederic Bastiat, and you still fail to see it, then a competition could commence, in the form of a discussion, or debate, whereby the facts are found as to the existence of that idea, in that work.

"They are NOT a producer, themselves, but are merely a benefactor of another's labor."

Whose judgment concerning what anyone, anywhere, anytime, constitutes production by any accurate measure of any kind? The subject matter tabled, by you, concerned the following specific words: ceaseless labor.

What constitutes labor? Someone inheriting a store of past labor does not have to repeat that specific labor to survive, and that creates opportunity to act in other ways that may, or may not, constitute someone's idea of ceaseless labor.

The words quoted from Frederic Bastiat are words that constitute a self-made argument ready to commence for anyone falling for it.

I don't.

"The larger problem, of wealth concentrating in the hands of an elite wealthy class, has many other factors, including supported looting from the ruling elite."

The term "looting" may be useful. The term "ruling elite," is a self-contained cover-up, giving positive credit to very evil individual criminals and their collective total criminal evil by any measure other than an effort to help them cover up their evil crimes upon innocent victims, so...why aid them by calling them "ruling elite," unless you mean, by your words, that those individuals are the best, of the best, the elite, criminals? By your word choices you make on your own volition, and according to your employment of your time and energy, as you choose, voluntarily, to call evil people by those word choices: ruling elite.

I don't. I prefer to invest my time productively.

"This is the age old problem that the OP brought up... looters fleecing the producers with the force of govt."

I fall into traps often, too often, but not this one.

Criminals act forcefully in ways that can be categorized as involuntary associations, slavery, fraud, extortion, organized crime, and if the victims are led to believe that the criminals are the defenders of the innocent, then the victims can call the criminals by names such as the govt.

I don't do that.

"IMO, complicating this issue is a smokescreen for looters, to keep plundering the working man."

Criminals work very hard, some more than others, making up lies that will be believed by the victims, and lies that will eventually be believed by the fellow criminals, it must be hard work, but criminal work - demonstrably - bears criminal fruit.

"They do not want the gravy train to end, so they blow smoke up our collective asses to make us feel lucky we have them to exploit us."

Government by the free people, government of the free people, and government for the free people, is offered as an idea that goes back thousands of years, traced back to the Saxons, then to the English, then to America, in a form known as the law of the land, or legem terrae, or due process, or trial by jury. If "they" means the government, then "they" offer effective mutual defense against harm by criminals falsely claiming to be government as well as criminals who make no such smoke blowing claims.

 

[BlackSand]

usfan and Josf ... Okay ... After weeding through the discussion I have a question.

When Identifying a "producer" ... Is it only applicable to those who manufacture a product and restricted from those who provide a service?

This seems to me to provide a great divide as to where people choose to place the labels "moocher" and sometimes "looter".
If you need me to explain the question in more detail and how it refers to the discussion ... I will be glad to.

.

 

[usfan]

usfan and Josf ... Okay ... After weeding through the discussion I have a question.
When Identifying a "producer" ... Is it only applicable to those who manufacture a product and restricted from those who provide a service?
This seems to me to provide a great divide as to where people choose to place the labels "moocher" and sometimes "looter".
If you need me to explain the question in more detail and how it refers to the discussion ... I will be glad to..

Yes, definitions are always in order. I have put the categories into colorful language. Overstatement & hyperbole are often useful tools in communication, & they are more fun, too.

But the core definition of producers is anyone who works to provide desired goods & services in the collective. A farmer grows food, an obvious producer. A processor packages the food, ships it to market, & sells it.. they do not actually produce the food, but they are part of the production process, which includes distribution. A manufacturer produces a product. If it is useful to society, it will have some demand, & people will trade their wealth for it.

IMO, real wealth begins at the food production level. Where humans were (and are) hunter/gatherers, little time was left for pursuing leisure time. But plentiful food opened up other sectors of 'wealth'. Livestock, machines, wagons, buildings, clothing, jewelry, books, & many other symbols of wealth grew because the basics of food were covered, & people had time to pursue other things.

If you give someone in a primitive setting an iphone, it will have no value to him. If you give him a shovel, or a farm implement, it might be a symbol of great wealth, as it enables him to produce more food, & increase his wealth.

Welfare queens & investment bankers are examples of moochers, in the context of this thread. Neither actively produces anything, but are leeches on society, drawing their survival needs off of the labors of others. And if you go back further, & examine the POLICIES that enable the investment bankers (or welfare queens) to do this, it is usually rooted in Looters, taking the labors of the working man, & giving it to someone who has not worked.

Even though the terms are colorful, i do not mean them as demeaning or insulting, just descriptive. A policeman is a moocher, by this definition, because he does not produce anything, but lives off the increase of others. But if the producers of society decide to pool their resources & hire a policeman for their collective protection, he provides a service for the producers, to enable them to be more productive. So there is a division even among moochers, in that some provide useful services to the collective, & they are not true 'moochers', but are hired by the producers for a service.

Now, if hordes of policeman gain control of the hiring & revenue process, & over burden the producers with huge costs for their justice system, they have moved into the 'looter' category. They are fleecing the producers with unnecesary costs for protection, & they control the process, instead of the producers. THIS is the flaw in human society that the OP is addressing. There will always be dependents.. our own children 'mooch' off of us for years.. but the decisions on costs & administration of the family institution are the control of the producers. We can only imagine what kind of life we would have if we let our teenagers make the financial decisions in the family. But this is what has happened. Dependent moochers call the shots. They are not responsible or considerate of the producer's labors, but squander them like a whiny 2 yr old.

 

[BlackSand]

usfan and Josf ... Okay ... After weeding through the discussion I have a question.
When Identifying a "producer" ... Is it only applicable to those who manufacture a product and restricted from those who provide a service?
This seems to me to provide a great divide as to where people choose to place the labels "moocher" and sometimes "looter".
If you need me to explain the question in more detail and how it refers to the discussion ... I will be glad to..

Yes, definitions are always in order. I have put the categories into colorful language. Overstatement & hyperbole are often useful tools in communication, & they are more fun, too.

But the core definition of producers is anyone who works to provide desired goods & services in the collective. A farmer grows food, an obvious producer. A processor packages the food, ships it to market, & sells it.. they do not actually produce the food, but they are part of the production process, which includes distribution. A manufacturer produces a product. If it is useful to society, it will have some demand, & people will trade their wealth for it.

IMO, real wealth begins at the food production level. Where humans were (and are) hunter/gatherers, little time was left for pursuing leisure time. But plentiful food opened up other sectors of 'wealth'. Livestock, machines, wagons, buildings, clothing, jewelry, books, & many other symbols of wealth grew because the basics of food were covered, & people had time to pursue other things.

If you give someone in a primitive setting an iphone, it will have no value to him. If you give him a shovel, or a farm implement, it might be a symbol of great wealth, as it enables him to produce more food, & increase his wealth.

Welfare queens & investment bankers are examples of moochers, in the context of this thread. Neither actively produces anything, but are leeches on society, drawing their survival needs off of the labors of others. And if you go back further, & examine the POLICIES that enable the investment bankers (or welfare queens) to do this, it is usually rooted in Looters, taking the labors of the working man, & giving it to someone who has not worked.

Even though the terms are colorful, i do not mean them as demeaning or insulting, just descriptive. A policeman is a moocher, by this definition, because he does not produce anything, but lives off the increase of others. But if the producers of society decide to pool their resources & hire a policeman for their collective protection, he provides a service for the producers, to enable them to be more productive. So there is a division even among moochers, in that some provide useful services to the collective, & they are not true 'moochers', but are hired by the producers for a service.

Now, if hordes of policeman gain control of the hiring & revenue process, & over burden the producers with huge costs for their justice system, they have moved into the 'looter' category. They are fleecing the producers with unnecesary costs for protection, & they control the process, instead of the producers. THIS is the flaw in human society that the OP is addressing. There will always be dependents.. our own children 'mooch' off of us for years.. but the decisions on costs & administration of the family institution are the control of the producers. We can only imagine what kind of life we would have if we let our teenagers make the financial decisions in the family. But this is what has happened. Dependent moochers call the shots. They are not responsible or considerate of the producer's labors, but squander them like a whiny 2 yr old.

That is a good answer ... And a place to get started.

I tend to think that the policeman, barber, house painter, financial advisor, certified public accountant ... And so on ... Can, and do provide a service that would of course be paid for by a producer ... Unless we can identify someone who provides a service as actually producing a "service" which is in a sense a "product" of their labor.

But ... If you go as far as to identify that process being applicable to one group ... It then applies to all groups.
Where that runs into trouble is when people have a certain disdain for one group ... And neglect to properly identify what service is provided and what product is paid for.

For instance ... A business owner.

Let's say a business owner owns a business that produces and sells widgets ... What is the product the owners supplies ... Is it the widget or the service?
Who actually owns the widget ... And when does the widget become a product?
In your opinion ... Is the product the business owner is paying the laborer for the widget (product) or the labor (service)?

.

 

[usfan]

That is a good answer ... And a place to get started.
I tend to think that the policeman, barber, house painter, financial advisor, certified public accountant ... And so on ... Can, and do provide a service that would of course be paid for by a producer ... Unless we can identify someone who provides a service as actually producing a "service" which is in a sense a "product" of their labor.

But ... If you go as far as to identify that process being applicable to one group ... It then applies to all groups.
Where that runs into trouble is when people have a certain disdain for one group ... And neglect to properly identify what service is provided and what product is paid for.
For instance ... A business owner.
Let's say a business owner owns a business that produces and sells widgets ... What is the product the owners supplies ... Is it the widget or the service?
Who actually owns the widget ... And when does the widget become a product?
In your opinion ... Is the product the business owner is paying the laborer for the widget (product) or the labor (service)?

I don't see the factoring in of 'groups' being pertinent to the definition. Groups are collective actions to accomplish a goal, which can include mooching & looting! disdain for groups is also irrelevant to the deeper question of production. American politicians seem to despise the working man, yet he is the one who supports them. Most moochers & looters seem to hold their 'marks' in disdain, so i'm not sure what that has to do with the definitions.
As to the widget example, there is a lot of overlap in production. A worker on the assembly line is obviously contributing to the production. But do the managers, forklift operators, accountants, salesmen, etc produce anything? I would say yes, if they are part of the production process, like the farmer example was earlier. The business owner, who oversees everything, including sales, marketing, distribution, manufacturing, accounting, hiring, plant acquisition.. these are all very important parts in the success of widget manufacturing. So the production is not just the guy on the assembly line, but all involved, including the night watchman. Some of the items are expenses, that can unnecessarily pad the final price of the widget. Exorbitant taxes, protection, political payoffs or bribes, union expenses... all of these things also contribute to the competitiveness of the widget in the marketplace.

So there are mooching 'services' which do not directly contribute to the production of something, but are leeches on the actual production. And there are looting 'services' which do the same thing. These services take away from the increase of the producers, as their increase from the production is diluted by the contributions to the unnecessary leeches who merely take by manipulation that which the producers have built.

If a person is involved in the actual production of goods or services that builds true wealth in society, then they are a producer. If they merely skim off what others have built, they are moochers. If they take by force what others have built, they are looters. I think we could list numerous examples of all these types, & if that helps with the definitions, perhaps we should.

Money shufflers are not producers. They are the kinds who shuffle other people's wealth around, skimming some for their own benefit. These are classic moochers. Now, if they provide a useful service to the producers, & the producers wish to pay them for this service, then it is fine. But if these moochers use the power of Law to manipulate the workers' increase, & concoct systems of penalty & usury that is excessive & non voluntary, then they have moved into the position of looter.

 

[BlackSand]

That is a good answer ... And a place to get started.
I tend to think that the policeman, barber, house painter, financial advisor, certified public accountant ... And so on ... Can, and do provide a service that would of course be paid for by a producer ... Unless we can identify someone who provides a service as actually producing a "service" which is in a sense a "product" of their labor.

But ... If you go as far as to identify that process being applicable to one group ... It then applies to all groups.
Where that runs into trouble is when people have a certain disdain for one group ... And neglect to properly identify what service is provided and what product is paid for.
For instance ... A business owner.
Let's say a business owner owns a business that produces and sells widgets ... What is the product the owners supplies ... Is it the widget or the service?
Who actually owns the widget ... And when does the widget become a product?
In your opinion ... Is the product the business owner is paying the laborer for the widget (product) or the labor (service)?

I don't see the factoring in of 'groups' being pertinent to the definition. Groups are collective actions to accomplish a goal, which can include mooching & looting! disdain for groups is also irrelevant to the deeper question of production. American politicians seem to despise the working man, yet he is the one who supports them. Most moochers & looters seem to hold their 'marks' in disdain, so i'm not sure what that has to do with the definitions.
As to the widget example, there is a lot of overlap in production. A worker on the assembly line is obviously contributing to the production. But do the managers, forklift operators, accountants, salesmen, etc produce anything? I would say yes, if they are part of the production process, like the farmer example was earlier. The business owner, who oversees everything, including sales, marketing, distribution, manufacturing, accounting, hiring, plant acquisition.. these are all very important parts in the success of widget manufacturing. So the production is not just the guy on the assembly line, but all involved, including the night watchman. Some of the items are expenses, that can unnecessarily pad the final price of the widget. Exorbitant taxes, protection, political payoffs or bribes, union expenses... all of these things also contribute to the competitiveness of the widget in the marketplace.

So there are mooching 'services' which do not directly contribute to the production of something, but are leeches on the actual production. And there are looting 'services' which do the same thing. These services take away from the increase of the producers, as their increase from the production is diluted by the contributions to the unnecessary leeches who merely take by manipulation that which the producers have built.

If a person is involved in the actual production of goods or services that builds true wealth in society, then they are a producer. If they merely skim off what others have built, they are moochers. If they take by force what others have built, they are looters. I think we could list numerous examples of all these types, & if that helps with the definitions, perhaps we should.

Money shufflers are not producers. They are the kinds who shuffle other people's wealth around, skimming some for their own benefit. These are classic moochers. Now, if they provide a useful service to the producers, & the producers wish to pay them for this service, then it is fine. But if these moochers use the power of Law to manipulate the workers' increase, & concoct systems of penalty & usury that is excessive & non voluntary, then they have moved into the position of looter.

Well ... Don't take for granted that I may not understand what you are expressing ... I do understand the implications.

Perhaps we disagree as to the value of the individual's labor or their contribution to production.
That is why I asked if the owner was paying for a product or a service ... And who is actually providing the product.

Even in your example of the farmer ... You discussed the offering of a shovel.
In that case ... Is the farmer supplying the product or the service?

If the owners of the shovel owns the land (property), provides the seed, provides the fertilizer, provides the transportation, negotiates the sell, distributes the earnings, and pays for the farmer's healthcare ... Who has actually provided the buyer with a product and who has invested more into the production of that product?

Edit:
I understand that the product is the combination of services ... But I am trying to distinguish who's labor is considered to be mooching?
Is it simply a determinations based on the value we should assign to each portion of labor and the difficulty that labor requires?

Perhaps another question to clarify:

If both services are required to produce and sell the product ... And one group forms a collective to gain a greater share of the profits ... Are they a looter or a moocher?

.

 

[Josf]

"When Identifying a "producer" ... Is it only applicable to those who manufacture a product and restricted from those who provide a service?"

Since usfan[OP] has a demonstrably opposing viewpoint compared to mine there is in that space between viewpoint potential to PRODUCE either confusion or agreement, and willful choice can help in PRODUCING more confusion, and willful choice can help in PRODUCING more agreement. If I agree to make willful choices that intend to PRODUCE agreement, then it may help if at least one other individual also agrees to make willful choices that intent to PRODUCE agreement.

"When Identifying a "producer" ..."

Criminals produce many things and the production rate of criminals producing many things can be forensically studied in great detail so as to then PRODUCE an accurate account of every single victim PRODUCED by every single criminal, but only when the targeted victims agree to make choices, willfully, intending to PRODUCE those accurate accounts.

Take away the word choice "producer" and put in place the words "volunteer jurist" is similar to adding the words "producer of positive value" instead of having no moral judgment attached to the word "producer" and having added the moral judgment to the word "producer" is thereby a choice that can be offered if the idea is to PRODUCE agreement.

A scale can be built from the ideas offered above whereby the most negative value is produced by the worst, evil, destructive, individual, or group of individuals working together - in agreement - to PRODUCE the most destruction, and destroy the most soonest, on one end of the negative side of the PRODUCTIVE scale, and on the other - positive - side of the PRODUCTIVE scale is one individual, or a group of individuals working together - in agreement - to PRODUCE valuable things that they agree to be valuable things, or valuable actions, that they agree to be valuable actions, or valuable ideas, that they agree to be valuable ideas, such as the idea to effectively defend each other from those who agree to PRODUCE destruction.

Take a place on earth, such as Cambodia, and enter into that place an employee named Pol Pot, and find out how many negative products (victims) are produced by the employee named Pol Pot, and let that shine brightly as the best of the best PRODUCERS on the negative end of the PRODUCTION scale, and then take a place like Worgle Austria, during the so called Great Depression, which is a Great Depression that hit Austria after World War II, and see how fast the people in that area turned from Great Depression to a high rate of PRODUCTIVITY whereby the people were not PRODUCING more victims, instead, the people were PRODUCING more valuable things, more valuable ideas, more valuable actions - services - that they all agreed upon as more valuable with a few exceptions. Those who determined that the VALUE of the PRODUCTION in Worgle Austria was not agreeable value added stuff, were those running the Central Bank of Hitler's Germany. So those running the Central Bank of Hitler's Germany issued a criminal order to their employees to enter Worgle Austria and PRODUCE many victims, as all those people in Worgle Austria were then ordered to obey the order - no matter how disagreeable - without question. In other words the criminals in Hitler's Germany, on one end of the PRODUCTION scale, PRODUCED dictates, no matter how disagreeable, such as exterminating a large percentage of the people in that area, which is a very agreeable, very valuable, thing to produce, these dictates, for criminals.

"When Identifying a "producer" ..."

Criminals produce many valuable products as agreed upon by all the criminals as proven over time by their actions, if not by their false claims of authority.

I was added to the agreeable request to agree to ask questions and agree to offer competitive answers, but I cannot see the value in focusing attention on "producers" if there is no effort to accurately identify the moral difference between a criminal mind having a criminal version of valuable production on one end of a scale and innocent people, who are not criminals, having demonstrated what constitutes agreeable value produced by innocent people, who are not criminals, on the other end of the scale, because failure to do so is as if the agreement is to add confusion on purpose.

So...two examples, or more, can show that scales that accurately identifies the stark difference between two opposite types of "producer"..."

1a.
Produce positive, life sustaining, life improving, production, that reduces the cost of living for all (except the criminals who don't agree), such as the people in Worgle Austria before being wiped out in World War I, after World War I, and then before World War II.

1b. Produce positive, life sustaining, life improving, production, that reduces the cost of living for all (except the criminals who don't agree); in the example of Cambodia before being wiped out by the central banking employee Pol Pot, and then again, after the pogrom, people agree to get back on a more positive production schedule.

2a.
Central bank employees wipe out people in Worgle Australia during and after World War I, which is "positive production" according to agreements made by war profiteers and central banking criminals, producing many victims until the victims somehow disconnect from that disagreeable arrangement, for a brief time when what they consider to be good things to do end up with what they think is positive production, until Central Bank employees wipe them out again, thus proving, beyond a doubt, that criminals have a odd sense of value added to the total value scale.

3b. Produce positive measures of value added in Cambodia by mass murdering the largest percentage of the population, in a given geographical area, as so many murder victims are positively produced as to increase dramatically the opportunities for productive work for the rest of the population as the remaining population is hired to murder and move the bodies into killing fields. The criminal version of positive production shining brightly as the best of the best so far in human history when the criminal version of positive production gains the most market share, and the opposing defensive idea, anyone producing such an idea, is added to the pile of murder victims, as soon as is inhumanly possible.

 

[usfan]

Well ... Don't take for granted that I may not understand what you are expressing ... I do understand the implications.
Perhaps we disagree as to the value of the individual's labor or their contribution to production.
That is why I asked if the owner was paying for a product or a service ... And who is actually providing the product.
Even in your example of the farmer ... You discussed the offering of a shovel.
In that case ... Is the farmer supplying the product or the service?
If the owners of the shovel owns the land (property), provides the seed, provides the fertilizer, provides the transportation, negotiates the sell, distributes the earnings, and pays for the farmer's healthcare ... Who has actually provided the buyer with a product and who has invested more into the production of that product?
Edit:
I understand that the product is the combination of services ... But I am trying to distinguish who's labor is considered to be mooching?
Is it simply a determinations based on the value we should assign to each portion of labor and the difficulty that labor requires?

I take nothing for granted on forums! Sometimes i think i've been very clear & simple, & someone doesn't get it, & other times i've been very confused & obscure, & others catch it right off. I like to have clear communication, but one can never assume it.

A tool, like a shovel, increases productivity, so it is part of the production process. Someone who 'creates' better tools for production are just as important in the production process as those who are on the line...arguably more important, as their contributions can have tremendous increases in production. Consider how the tractor, with an internal combustion engine, hugely increased food production. It was the direct midwife in the birth of modern industrial society. One man with a tractor could out produce a dozen men, or even a horse.

I don't worry about the close lines delineating between moochers & producers.. the obvious ones are easy. If someone is providing even a semi useful service, that contributes to the production of useful goods & services, i'll call them producers... as long as they do not forcibly take from the producers, or manipulate by the force of Law.

I'll requote Bastiat, here, as he addressed that point:

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is... legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay ... If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system. ~Frederic Bastiat

I don't consider the difficulty of the labor to be a factor. The resultant production is what is important, not how much labor it took. I can loan you my shovel, & you can dig hole after hole, refilling each one, & claim to have worked very hard. But if i was paying you to dig a trench to drain out a field, you have not contributed, actually, to the production of this field, even though you worked very hard.

I like Lincoln's comments on this:

"Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes---useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness out of existence." ~Abraham Lincoln

 

[BlackSand]

"When Identifying a "producer" ... Is it only applicable to those who manufacture a product and restricted from those who provide a service?"

Since usfan[OP] has a demonstrably opposing viewpoint compared to mine there is in that space between viewpoint potential to PRODUCE either confusion or agreement, and willful choice can help in PRODUCING more confusion, and willful choice can help in PRODUCING more agreement. If I agree to make willful choices that intend to PRODUCE agreement, then it may help if at least one other individual also agrees to make willful choices that intent to PRODUCE agreement.

"When Identifying a "producer" ..."

Criminals produce many things and the production rate of criminals producing many things can be forensically studied in great detail so as to then PRODUCE an accurate account of every single victim PRODUCED by every single criminal, but only when the targeted victims agree to make choices, willfully, intending to PRODUCE those accurate accounts.

Take away the word choice "producer" and put in place the words "volunteer jurist" is similar to adding the words "producer of positive value" instead of having no moral judgment attached to the word "producer" and having added the moral judgment to the word "producer" is thereby a choice that can be offered if the idea is to PRODUCE agreement.

A scale can be built from the ideas offered above whereby the most negative value is produced by the worst, evil, destructive, individual, or group of individuals working together - in agreement - to PRODUCE the most destruction, and destroy the most soonest, on one end of the negative side of the PRODUCTIVE scale, and on the other - positive - side of the PRODUCTIVE scale is one individual, or a group of individuals working together - in agreement - to PRODUCE valuable things that they agree to be valuable things, or valuable actions, that they agree to be valuable actions, or valuable ideas, that they agree to be valuable ideas, such as the idea to effectively defend each other from those who agree to PRODUCE destruction.

Take a place on earth, such as Cambodia, and enter into that place an employee named Pol Pot, and find out how many negative products (victims) are produced by the employee named Pol Pot, and let that shine brightly as the best of the best PRODUCERS on the negative end of the PRODUCTION scale, and then take a place like Worgle Austria, during the so called Great Depression, which is a Great Depression that hit Austria after World War II, and see how fast the people in that area turned from Great Depression to a high rate of PRODUCTIVITY whereby the people were not PRODUCING more victims, instead, the people were PRODUCING more valuable things, more valuable ideas, more valuable actions - services - that they all agreed upon as more valuable with a few exceptions. Those who determined that the VALUE of the PRODUCTION in Worgle Austria was not agreeable value added stuff, were those running the Central Bank of Hitler's Germany. So those running the Central Bank of Hitler's Germany issued a criminal order to their employees to enter Worgle Austria and PRODUCE many victims, as all those people in Worgle Austria were then ordered to obey the order - no matter how disagreeable - without question. In other words the criminals in Hitler's German, on one end of the PRODUCTION scale, PRODUCED dictates, no matter how disagreeable, such as exterminating a large percentage of the people in that area, which is a very agreeable, very valuable, thing to produce, these dictates, for criminals.

"When Identifying a "producer" ..."

Criminals produce many valuable products as agreed upon by all the criminals as proven over time by their actions, if not by their false claims of authority.

I was added to the agreeable request to agree to ask questions and agree to offer competitive answers, but I cannot see the value in focusing attention on "producers" if there is no effort to accurately identify the moral difference between a criminal mind having a criminal version of valuable production on one end of a scale and innocent people, who are not criminals, having demonstrated what constitutes agreeable value produced by innocent people, who are not criminals, on the other end of the scale, because failure to do so is as if the agreement is to add confusion on purpose.

So...two examples, or more, can show that scales that accurately identifies the stark difference between two opposite types of "producer"..."

1a.
Produce positive, life sustaining, life improving, production, that reduces the cost of living for all (except the criminals who don't agree), such as the people in Worgle Austria before being wiped out in World War I, after World War I, and then before World War II.

1b. Produce positive, life sustaining, life improving, production, that reduces the cost of living for all (except the criminals who don't agree); in the example of Cambodia before being wiped out by the central banking employee Pol Pot, and then again, after the pogrom, people agree to get back on a more positive production schedule.

2a.
Central bank employees wipe out people in Worgle Australia during and after World War I, which is "positive production" according to agreements made by war profiteers and central banking criminals, producing many victims until the victims somehow disconnect from that disagreeable arrangement, for a brief time when what they consider to be good things to do end up with what they think is positive production, until Central Bank employees wipe them out again, thus proving, beyond a doubt, that criminals have a odd sense of value added to the total value scale.

3b. Produce positive measures of value added in Cambodia by mass murdering the largest percentage of the population, in a given geographical area, as so many murder victims are positively produced as to increase dramatically the opportunities for productive work for the rest of the population as the remaining population is hired to murder and move the bodies into killing fields. The criminal version of positive production shining brightly as the best of the best so far in human history when the criminal version of positive production gains the most market share, and the opposing defensive idea, anyone producing such an idea, is added to the pile of murder victims, as soon as is inhumanly possible.

Okay ...I understand the comparisons and can follow your identification of moral judgment in regards to production.

But how do we identify the morality of individual acts that do not directly hinder others?
For instance ... The old mantra of ... "The rich keep getting richer".

Why is it assumed to be evil that someone possessing wealth would in turn acquire more wealth through investment not necessarily associated directly with labor?

The rich do not have to take from someone to offer what they already have.
The borrower does not have to agree to take from the rich what they offer.
The rich can certainly gain more wealth from a mutual agreement of terms ... And it could only be assumed that they would in turn become wealthier over time and with the addition of resources.

So why is it shocking to realize that the rich can certainly become wealthier when they invest what they have ... And why is that considered by so many to be morally corrupt?

.

 

[Josf]

"But how do we identify the morality of individual acts that do not directly hinder others?"

I stopped reading the reply as I was inspired to respond to that question only first - then I can read the rest of the welcome reply. That question is a vital one; at least in my opinion.

The key word in that vital question is the word "directly" as a very well known (but only recently well known) concept has to do with Unintended Consequences and Externalities.

From the so called right side (old right, not counterfeit right) is the term Unintended Consequence and a source of the meaning of those words comes from a very well written novel with that title:
Unintended Consequences John Ross T. J. Mullin 9781888118049 Amazon.com Books

From the so called left side (old left, not counterfeit left) is the term Externalities and I won't link a source, but I remember hearing the term in the work of Noam Chomsky. The meanings of Unintended Consequences, and Externalities, are meanings that address the vital question, specifically as the vital question pertains to the word "directly":

"But how do we identify the morality of individual acts that do not directly hinder others?"

A possible (competitive) answer is found here:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Vital question first:
"But how do we identify the morality of individual acts that do not directly hinder others?"

Free market, voluntary, tried and true, competitive method of reaching the goal of answering the vital question, as a matter of well established fact, beyond a reasonable doubt:

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

All that is needed is a test case, and any test case can work competitively to reach the goal, if we agree on the goal. If the goal is to identify the morality of THE individual act, each act in turn, in each time, and in each place, in each case, that DIRECTLY hinder others, then having done that, what may remain are those indirect, unintended consequences, and the externalities that persist, AFTER, having taken good care of the ELEPHANT and DONKEY in the room, crapping on everyone, destroying all the furniture, and no one seems to care, no one seems to notice, and there is no interest, at all, in dealing with, effectively, that specific, obvious problem.

"But how do we identify the morality of individual acts that do not directly hinder others?"

Now, suppose the false government (ELEAPHANT and DONKEY running amok in the living room) problem is in the past, solved, and then we work on those Unintended Consequences and those Externalities? How about an example of one? I can offer 2, to start down that path.

1. If someone works all day to get their fair share of fraudulent money then that is perfectly OK, moral, as far as the employer and the employee are concerned, or the seller and the buyer are concerned, however there is an unintended consequence that happens over time which is an externality to that exchange between 2 individuals in time and place and the word for that process is fraud, and the false words for that process are numerous, and often changed, such as "inflation" changing to "quantitative easing."

2. If someone invests in a voluntary mutual defense association fund, like buying insurance against loss at the hands of criminals, then that is a direct exchange between moral people unless hidden from view are Unintended Consequences in the form of an Externality involving a hidden third party whose objective is to turn the investment into a gamble, whereby the third party used the fund, and the purchasing power within the fund, to destroy all competition in that market where people invest collectively into their mutual defense.

I may be mistaken, but I skimmed through the rest of your offer of words, and I think the above addresses those additional, vital, questions. I have to run out to get food and when I run back I can revisit this part of this discussion.

 

[Josf]

"Why is it assumed to be evil that someone possessing wealth would in turn acquire more wealth through investment not necessarily associated directly with labor?"

Assumption is the key word in that question. Accurate accounting removes the variables that lead to false assumptions. As offered earlier there are two competitive ideas that can be offered in English terms as:

1. Investment in effective mutual defense of everyone without exception (no unintended consequences and no externalities)
2. Gambling

One above is based upon accurate accounting of known facts leading to higher quality and lower cost realities because the information gathered to reach the agreed upon goal improves over time because of competitive advantages found on that path in liberty or free markets depending upon which terminology (old left or old right) is chosen and employed by the volunteers.

The other (gambling) above is based upon a blind faith, or belief, in the authority offered by the one most powerful criminal group, or monopoly group, currently in power over their targeted victims, whereby the gamble seen by the gamblers is in reality a stacked deck, and what is seen by the gamblers as unintended consequences, is in reality intended consequence orchestrated by the criminal group, hidden into their complex, and often changing, house rules, and what is seen as externalities of some mystical, unquantifiable, un accountable measure, are in reality a set of books that are kept accurately by the criminals who took over the dominant organized crime cabal.

"The rich do not have to take from someone to offer what they already have."

When "Rich" and "Poor" are measured by a unit of measure that is exclusively controlled in both quantity and quality, it stands to reason that the "Rich" can print up this fraudulent money at their exclusive command, and spend it at will, while everyone else is then fighting each other over the limited supply of that one denominated unit of purchasing power.

If instead of one gambling house run fraudulently by one group of criminals there were - in direct competition for market share - an option to measure "Rich" and "Poor" with an accurate accounting system, with open source, free market, competition, as the house rules, then people choosing that option instead of the non-option (monopoly) would be people constituting what is known as free market force whereby that collective force (sum total of individual choices) forces the suppliers of the demanded accurate accounting systems (services) to increase quality of the service, and at the same time lower the cost of the service to the consumers who constitute that free market force voluntarily in Liberty.

"The rich can certainly gain more wealth from a mutual agreement of terms ... And it could only be assumed that they would in turn become wealthier over time and with the addition of resources."

Terms that may help here are "surplus wealth" and "equitable exchange rates," and it may be a good idea to begin thinking in terms of free traders instead of buyers and sellers. That may be overstepping; how can I know?

"So why is it shocking to realize that the rich can certainly become wealthier when they invest what they have ... And why is that considered by so many to be morally corrupt?"

I could take the stand, as the accused, or as a witness for the accuser, or as a witness for the defense. It matters not to me since my story is the same in any case. Who is accused of this consideration by this individual in an example case? Can you offer an example case?

 

[usfan]

I'm having a bit of trouble following your posts, Josf .. perhaps if you could summarize your rebuttal to my points in a shorter, simpler sentence. It is beginning to look & feel like a deflection, with just enough ad hominem in there to spice it up. I posted numbered points, & much of your reply doesn't even address them. If you have another topic you would prefer to discuss, there are many threads, i am sure, that would cover those. I certainly understand how side points can sometimes qualify as relevant, but there has to be some correlation.
I am as guilty as anyone with long posts, full of rambling prose, but i do try to make my points succinct, & number them for easy rebuttal.

I started this thread with some basic observations about humans. They either produce, loot, or mooch. These are colorful terms, & not particularly scholarly, but they get the point across. I have not seen you refute these, or my list of ideals for a healthy society. Your long thought streams don't seem to apply. Perhaps i am just misunderstanding your language, or missing your point, somehow.

 

[usfan]

What i find with threads like this, is replies used to deflect & obfuscate from the issue, rather than enlighten. Long, rambling posts that say nothing, really, & only numb the mind trying to follow ANY hope of reason. They effective kill any discussion, which may be their intent. Simplicity is golden, & most of life's most basic questions are quite simple. Our needs for survival are simple. We should be able to present our views of them simply & clearly.
But with many people, clear communication & enlightenment are not the goal, but obfuscation & distraction. A propaganda narrative is being promoted, & anything that conflicts with that narrative must be crushed, truth be damned.

 

[Josf]

"Josf .. perhaps if you could summarize your rebuttal to my points in a shorter, simpler sentence."

My strict method is to quote precisely the words that I am investing my time and energy into understanding as a welcome chore. Your viewpoint is then compared to my viewpoint. From the two viewpoints I am then inspired to have an adjusted, new, improved, viewpoint based upon the specific words quoted. I do that so as to leave no doubt as to which words my words are derived from during debate/conversation/discussion. What is the point of "rebuttal?" If you have enumerated 1 point, and you think I ignored 1 point, then please consider repeating 1 point, and then I can go back before the open discussion involved your exchanges with BlackSand. Now that is only a suggestion from me to you, if in fact you have any interest at all in borrowing my viewpoint. I can certainly state to you, and you can trust that my words are true or not, that I am interested in borrowing your viewpoint, so as then to improve my own viewpoint.

" Long, rambling posts that say nothing, really, & only numb the mind trying to follow ANY hope of reason."

Much of my life is communication difficulties, but at times I find people who speak my language, and in one case the entire exchange between myself and this other individual was turned into a published book. So your version here and now of my writing and the versions of my writing from other people is not the same. If I were to put any weight in your version of my writing - what I have to say - then I might just as well shoot myself in the head. If I put any weight into constructive criticism, on the other hand, then I would know exactly where my words fail to become something to say.

An example of what it is to "say nothing" can include an exchange like this:

__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Quotes from ONE viewpoint:
"When Identifying a "producer" ..."

My reply (saying nothing) in response to the quoted words above:

Criminals produce many things and the production rate of criminals producing many things can be forensically studied in great detail so as to then PRODUCE an accurate account of every single victim PRODUCED by every single criminal, but only when the targeted victims agree to make choices, willfully, intending to PRODUCE those accurate accounts.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

If you use the word "producer" and your intent is to identify a producer, then there is at least two very opposing categories of producers that tend to destroy each other. If you are objective about identifying a producer then you can see both sides, not just one side. If you are subjective about identifying a producer, where you only see one side, and you refuse to see the other side, then you can easily misidentify a producer.

You can now claim that I was "saying nothing" to you; since my example above is a reply to the welcome viewpoint offered by BlackSand. My response then is, why not use quotes as a means of accurately identifying ONE point that you heard nothing from me in reply to the words I quoted from you.

Example:

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Quotes from ONE viewpoint:
"The topic of inheritance has not been raised, but it is one not of production, but of mooching, as one person benefits from someone else's labor."

My reply (saying nothing) in response to the quoted words above:
The competitive viewpoint offered (topic of inheritance) was a check on the claim concerning the zero sum game idea, expressed in the words of Frederic Bastiat. I offered to expose obvious flaws in that type of thinking, so the raising of the topic of inheritance was offered in that context.

The zero sum game idea can obviously inspire such additional ideas as a claim whereby someone inheriting something is claimed (negatively) to be a moocher.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Now the actual exchange is no longer a distant memory that may be confused with another exchange. Your employment of the viewpoint offered by Frederic Bastiat can be summed up as a restatement of a contentious viewpoint whereby the contentious part of the viewpoint of Frederic Bastiat is summed up as the Zero Sum Game viewpoint. If you don't want to discuss Frederic Bastiat, then you can refrain from referring to, and quoting, Frederic Bastiat. If you do want to discuss Frederic Bastiat, and you do quote from Frederic Bastiat, then it would not be justified to ignore the contention surrounding the Zero Sum Game viewpoint offered by Frederic Bastiat, unless you prefer to remain ignorant about it, or unless you too have, and hold dear, this Zero Sum Game viewpoint; which you may, or may not, recognize as a Zero Sum Game viewpoint.

So you can continue to claim that I "say nothing" and other derogatory, negative, insulting things about my writing offered by me, at will. As far as I know no one will stop you from such things as this:

" Long, rambling posts that say nothing, really, & only numb the mind trying to follow ANY hope of reason."

The reason I hope to offer here is the reasoning of you reading the above as if those words were aimed at you instead of you aiming those words at me.

Of course that last sentence can be a hopeless rambling that numbs the mind and says nothing. Some people, not all people, may see an idea in those words that PRODUCES something valuable: such as a useful law.

Number 1 quote:
"I started this thread with some basic observations about humans. They either produce, loot, or mooch."

Reply to the Number 1 quote quoted above - in a vain attempt to say something specifically relevant to the quoted words above:

Within all the three categories of humans there are subcategories that tend to confuse some people, causing their minds to potentially numb, and then some people hear nothing said by some other people.

Side A produces life sustaining, life defending, life reproducing products/services/ideas/instructions/manuals/blueprints/suggestions/laws for all - at the expense of side B looting things freely.

Side B produces loot sustaining, loot defending, destruction of anyone failing to aid, abet, and maintain looting, as loot flows from victims to criminals.

Moochers have two groups from which to mooch, and they certainly know which is which.

The Zero Sum Game idea, on the other hand, is based on the idea that there is no distinction between the two groups of producers, looters, and moochers.

If you are numbed of mind because of a shared idea known as The Zero Sum Game, then you may not see the hidden categories.

Moochers and Looters on one side cooperate to gain at the expense of Producers on one side. Which side first?

Side A has moochers, looters, and producers as such:

Moochers on Side A either receive charity or they have to go to Side B to join Side B to mooch from the stolen LOOT FUND; typically the people at the Zero Sum Game Side B headquarters are not charitable, as these people demand specific things in return for any benefits spent from the limited stolen LOOT FUND. Moochers on Side B receive stolen property from Side A. Moochers on Side A receive ONLY charity from producers on Side A.

An example of a moocher on Side A is someone handing a transient a belt to keep his pants from falling down. An example of a moocher on Side B is something called The Federal Reserve Corporation, and they mooch as they increase the fraudulent money supply, as they did in 2008 when they doubled the entire sum total of Federal Reserve Notes.

"I have not seen you refute these, or my list of ideals for a healthy society."

I may return and search for that list of ideals, as I might learn something. Wasting my time saying nothing (according to you) on the other hand keeps me from producing anything of value. It can be claimed again that my investment in my time and energy here is ZERO when summing things up in your welcome viewpoint.

 

[usfan]

Criminals produce many things and the production rate of criminals producing many things can be forensically studied in great detail so as to then PRODUCE an accurate account of every single victim PRODUCED by every single criminal, but only when the targeted victims agree to make choices, willfully, intending to PRODUCE those accurate accounts.

Ok, i'll break it down a bit, instead of dealing with the booklet.
The usage of 'Producer' in this thread is those who produce needed goods & services. Criminals, by the nature of their 'work' are looters. they do not produce anything, but only take what others have produced. This has been the obvious fact for all of human history. Only a madman or fool would redefine criminal activity as being 'productive'.

You seem to be defining 'producer' as anyone who does anything. But that is not the definition being used here. A criminal who tunnels under a bank & robs it does a great amount of work, but it is not productive. it is destructive, & takes what others have worked for.