irmoz

Do you somehow not realise that is exactly the point being made?

Uh, what?

Easy to say

That's not greed.

The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business.

Aw, golly gee, I sure do wonder why they aren't able to do this.

Because our system is set up that way!! Capitalism!

Our system is set up to enrich owners at the expense of workers. Simple as that.

It's risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?

The profit generated by the workers belongs to the workers. They made it. The owner didn't. They needed the workers to make it. The owners aren't "providing" the resources - they're gatekeeping them, so that usage only happens under the condition that it benefits the owner.

Also, to be quite honest, it's even unfair to the owner. They shouldn't have to risk it alone. It should be a joint venture from the start. These risks should be undertaken together, with all as co-owners.

People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.

I never mentioned personal property. I'm talking about private property.

So, surplus value doesn't exist, simply because some capitalists can... fail to extract it?

Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn't mean the job doesn't exist.

I don't think you know what surplus value is. It's the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn't go to you, but to the owner.

Do you also notice that I said "without going broke" and your example includes going broke?

So, freedom to exploit?

It's fucking bonkers that you think the definition of "things" is what's at issue here.

I'm not disputing that lmao. But upholding private property law is not running the market. That would be, like i said, a planned economy.

Requiring a state to protect private property isn't "the state running things". Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. "The state running shit" would be like... a planned economy.

Don't equivocate the two, yeah?

Uh, no shit. Economic freedom means not being destitute. Of course that makes you happier than not. What are you trying to prove, here? Do you think economic freedom is synonymous with capitalism, or only possible through it?