Palin Rider
Member
My original glibness was only meant to indicate that the first statement fails to take into account whether the "Man" in question receives capital as compensation. If he does, of course, the discussion moves in a very different direction.I just asked your thoughts on the original statements. I didn't expect you to bring the thread into the definition and recognition of property and all that.
I was expecting something more along the lines of a libertarian capitalist perspective of the Man in relation to his labour, property, his employer, and the market- but you're taking this... somewhere, I'm not sure where.
The second statement is a moral value judgment; consequently, others can agree or disagree only according to their own value systems. (Which, of course, may or may not be in keeping with yours.) So it seems to me that we can't answer the second question for anyone other than ourselves.Of course, the second original statement has yet to be addressed at all.