Quote from: ineededausername on December 02, 2011, 03:28:51 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on December 02, 2011, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: ineededausername on December 02, 2011, 01:52:43 PM

Hey guys, if you can provide an argument as to why robbery is objectively immoral under any circumstances, I'll be impressed.
Otherwise, you must stop saying "blah blah moral blah blah rights."

Go read some Nietzsche and come back to us. Most of us have passed Philosophy 101. We know there is no objective morality. However, it is certain that property rights encourage the sustention of life. They give people incentive to produce in the first place.

Philosophy, blah. The only analysis that matters is materialist analysis -- gotta agree with Marx on that. I'm too busy to read useless philosophy

Now, I must point out that your support of the "sustention [sic] of life" is not consistent with your other posts, in which you say that if someone is about to die, nobody should be forced to feed them. Is that really why you support your absolutist system of property rights?

Taxation and coercion reduce the incentive to produce... this is true. They do not completely eliminate it though. Why is your system of morality superior to mine, which values fairness more than an absolutist system of rights?

Nobody should be forced to feed anybody because they will most likely be fed through voluntary means otherwise. The fact people have such a strong desire to hurt and kill in the name of defending the poor shows they will not starve in a free society. In fact, a society that plunders others to support the underclasses is inefficient and only 'hurts' these 'poor' even more due to how stolen money is not used with little regard to --again-- efficiency and profit. A society that voluntarily gives from its own pocket will make sure to use the money efficiently and directly towards the "poor" at hand.

The poor would be much better off being helped by who truly want to and can help them as opposed to murders and thugs who bring down other people to meet their ends.

Fairness -- fairness is not a virtue. It is only envy of those who bring value and have earned value. Life is not a zero-sum game. Those who have gained rightfully have stolen nothing: they have only created wealth and I don't think their property rights should be compromised. Wealth creation helps everyone. I hold the morally rich as the most charitable and they should be rewarded with our complete respect at the least.

In conclusion, life is best sustained with a complete respect for property rights. Things will be made more efficient, the poor will be better fed if we allow man to keep what he has earned all the way throughout. Voluntarily giving is more efficient and more potent since man will have to give out of his own freewill and not slavery.

Also, Marx values individual sweat labor more -- not society, not people -- they value what they choose to value. He can't apply his preferences and what he values universally.