What is wrong with capitalism?

[JRKH]

which is why i believe democratic communism is more moral -in theory- than a greed-based everyone-for-self capitalism…especially in small-scale numbers like 10 people (it could possibly work)

Agree completely.

but the problem (assuming you’re successfully able to get everyone to contribute) is that everybody’s labor and work is dictated to them by the group. A man is not in charge of his own efforts. Someone may have an idea to use one of the trees for a unique purpose, and may not feel the need to take anything from this other tree, but if the group is controlling his every choice and move, then there’s no room for his own gifts and inspirations to take form.

In a small group where everyone is like minded, moral, and - let’s say - interested in the good of the group. gifts and inspirations need not be stifled.

Realize here that I am speaking in “ideal” “theoretical” terms here and not in the -so called - real world.

Peace
James

 

[carn]

stop right here…1 can’t own 20 with my third model. 1 can’t own more than 10. Civilization’s resources cannot be monopolized. That’s the whole point.

Thanks for detailing the laws you have in mind. So you not only suggest, that everyone should get 10 trees, but that its illegal to own more than 10. Which effictively means that nobody owns 10 trees because if you cannotsellsomething you do not own it.

What should happen in case 2 of our 10 trees each population decide that one A declares “this tree now belongs to B and i get a boat from B” and B declares “I agree.” You put A in jail, B, both or tr to ignore the deal because it is void anyway?

What do you do if 2 peersons mary and have only 1 child? Can that child inherit 20 trees? Or does the child get 10 and the rest is distributed in what way?

how is it obvious that he would kill people?

What else can they do to take the trees?
If they ask and threaten with jail and lethal force they are at least ready to kill. The alternative is just to ask, but then they might decline and communism will not work,something communists cannot stand, they always start killing instead.

once again, almost like clockwork, capitalism is defended with a presumption that wealth and poverty is a measure of virtue.

I did not offer the presumption.I asked what would you do. Things could develop that way.

Of course it could also be, that 1 of the 10 murders 3 others and threatens the others into accepting that he owns 40 trees. Then it is morally simple, you hang the murderer and redistribute the trees to the relatives of the victims and if none to all others.

You get it backwards, i want to know, what would you do, if the rich were not guilty or worse if some were guilty and some not. With what right would you take something from someone who did not acquire it in a criminal way?

Communists solve that by assuming all rich are guilty. But take Steve Jobs. What crime did he commit?
Assembling a computer in his garage?

 

[centurionguard]

Nothing is wrong with capitalism, however like every other institution created by man, it is vulnerable to abuse.

The very fact that it is venerable to abuse as we see very evident today makes it ridiculous to say there’s (“nothing wrong with capitalism”). No governmental system is perfect.

Given the choice of two evils…Capitalism and Socialism I’ll take the lesser of the two “Capitalism.”

Too bad the best aspects of both philosophies couldn’t be joined to make a better system.

Given everything happening in the western world I’m often reminded of the Great Fall of the Roman Empire. History often repeats itself.

 

[JRKH]

The only system not vulnerable to corruption is true discipleship to Christ.

If we are true disciples of Christ, then the specific system becomes less important as most any system is good if those living under it are good.
So -
We live in the light of grace, Loving God and our Fellow man.
We live honestly treating others as we would wish to be treated.
We seek to promote such virtues in others - our children, our neighbors and our representatives.
We live - and die - in the Grace of God and as God’s loving Children.

If we do this, then all of this, the political systems, the economic systems, all this that will pass away will seem as nothing to us as we seek only God’s Will in our lives so that we may - at the end of our earthly lives, be greeted with “Well done good and faithful servant”.

Peace
James

 

[Jonatello]

Thanks for detailing the laws you have in mind. So you not only suggest, that everyone should get 10 trees, but that its illegal to own more than 10. Which effictively means that nobody owns 10 trees because if you cannotsellsomething you do not own it.

sure you can sell a tree to anyone who has less than 10, if everyone owns 10, then its just because they can’t buy it.

if you cannot sell something, because nobody can buy it, you do not own it? is that some alternative definition of ownership i’ve never heard? these are your trees for you to do whatever you wish with.

What should happen in case 2 of our 10 trees each population decide that one A declares “this tree now belongs to B and i get a boat from B” and B declares “I agree.” You put A in jail, B, both or tr to ignore the deal because it is void anyway?

i’m not following the first sentence here. are there any commas or periods missing that could clear it up? are you asking what happens if someone trade a tree for a boat, and thus someone who cut down a tree ends up with 10 trees again while the other guy has 9 and a boat? in that case, everything is perfectly fine. Now if everyone decided to cut down all their trees to make boats, maybe there’d be a new problem which my very quick simplistic isn’t covered in such a simplistic and rudimentary 2-sentence economic proposal.

but 10 fruit trees per person assumes this gives everyone a huge surplus (similar to the huge surplus of resources per person on this planet, globally speaking).

so someone could provide enough fruit for several with their 10 trees, and trade the fruit for something someone else has done with their trees.

or

are you asking what enforcement is in place for people who break the rules through trade and acquire more than 10 trees?

once again, there’s not nearly enough in my extremely rudimentary brief analogy to even claim to explain the nuances that any system would need.

my overall point was comparing the general concept of various systems:

A: make everything (resources and goods) shared, but who does the dirty work

B: make everything up for grabs, thus turning greed into a virtue

C: work towards ensuring that control and ownership of productive resources and opportunity is as widespread as possible, putting guards in place against the concentration of economic power.

What do you do if 2 peersons mary and have only 1 child? Can that child inherit 20 trees? Or does the child get 10 and the rest is distributed in what way?

there’s not nearly enough in my quick rundown to account for the nuance of generation cycles.

Does this community’s population grow or decrease with every generation?

The only thing that quick model assumed (which I probably wasn’t clear about) is that 10 fruit trees is a very generous portion and way more than any 1 person would ever need (which mirrors what they say about global resources to population).

but if the community’s core philosophy was to keep the productive resources (which = power) as widely spread as possible instead of concentrating into the hands of a few, you’d have to assume their system’s unique nuances would be developed with this in mind. This might mean that a child can only inherit 10 trees.
.

You get it backwards, i want to know, what would you do, if the rich were not guilty or worse if some were guilty and some not. With what right would you take something from someone who did not acquire it in a criminal way?

define criminal. acquiring control of a larger percentage of what everyone depends on than is legally allowed in such a power-capping system would put you on the wrong side of the law.

Communists solve that by assuming all rich are guilty. But take Steve Jobs. What crime did he commit?
Assembling a computer in his garage?

define guilty. steve jobs didn’t commit any crime because his homeland’s laws weren’t arranged for communism.

 

[Jonatello]

Agree completely.

In a small group where everyone is like minded, moral, and - let’s say - interested in the good of the group. gifts and inspirations need not be stifled.

Realize here that I am speaking in “ideal” “theoretical” terms here and not in the -so called - real world.

Peace
James

ok fair enough

 

[Jonatello]

The only system not vulnerable to corruption is true discipleship to Christ.

If we are true disciples of Christ, then the specific system becomes less important as most any system is good if those living under it are good.
So -
We live in the light of grace, Loving God and our Fellow man.
We live honestly treating others as we would wish to be treated.
We seek to promote such virtues in others - our children, our neighbors and our representatives.
We live - and die - in the Grace of God and as God’s loving Children.

If we do this, then all of this, the political systems, the economic systems, all this that will pass away will seem as nothing to us as we seek only God’s Will in our lives so that we may - at the end of our earthly lives, be greeted with “Well done good and faithful servant”.

Peace
James

Amen to all of this

 

[Jonatello]

Capitalism, if regulated by reasonable laws, isn’t perfect and has lots of flaws. But total concentration of resources into the hands of the few is not one of them.

key phrase: if regulated (or if i may add, properly regulated so as to limit the giants and not cripple the mom&pops)

problem is: who buys the regulations if legislation can be bought? the economic giants

also, i may have misread your post, so forgive me if i did, but prices aren’t the only problem with monopolizing resources. opportunity also becomes monopolized, as does political power.

 

[Carlan]

Some will try to push, twist, skirt change and/or subvert the system to their own sinful goals (Greed and Avarice and Gluttony).
If such individuals are successful in their greed - and - if these people are held up as “successful” examples to be respected and emulated, then greater and greater numbers of individuals begin to go down this pathway and eventually chaos follows.

Ben Franklin put it best in his speech at the close of the Constitutional convention. He said:
…there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other…
(Full text HERE)
The same sentiment and principle can be applied to economic systems as to governmental forms.

Peace
James

Has our country and the world come to that place now?.. God help us!
Peace, Carlan

 

[carn]

if you cannot sell something, because nobody can buy it, you do not own it? is that some alternative definition of ownership i’ve never heard? these are your trees for you to do whatever you wish with.

Its not “nobody can” but “nobody is allowed to”.
And the trees are not to whatever one wishes, because if one tries to give a tree to someone else owning 10 that is forbidden in some way. That is a limitation of ownership.

are you asking what enforcement is in place for people who break the rules through trade and acquire more than 10 trees?

once again, there’s not nearly enough in my extremely rudimentary brief analogy to even claim to explain the nuances that any system would need.

The question is not a nuance, its the basic question that decides what kind of society this island will be.

C: work towards ensuring that control and ownership of productive resources and opportunity is as widespread as possible, putting guards in place against the concentration of economic power.

“work towards”, “ensuring”, “widespread as possible”, “guards” are vague terms and there exact meaning is the important thing.

there’s not nearly enough in my quick rundown to account for the nuance of generation cycles.

There will always be factors one cannot account for, that is maybe the most important reason why communism never worked. Therefore the question is what are the rules.

Does this community’s population grow or decrease with every generation?

Why should that matter for the basics of society?

But i hope you notice that things get complicated, if the numbers are not static. Especially extra tree growers, tree productivity increasers or decreasers or people who mishandle their trees so they die, mess up your island quite a lot.

The only thing that quick model assumed (which I probably wasn’t clear about) is that 10 fruit trees is a very generous portion and way more than any 1 person would ever need (which mirrors what they say about global resources to population).

And this assumption is a problem, because we currently have on paperenough for everybody because of a combination of scintific advance and capitalism or some variations of it. So assuming there is enough for everybody and then plan a society is highly questionable because the rules of society influence, whether there is on paper enough for everybody.

but if the community’s core philosophy was to keep the productive resources (which = power) as widely spread as possible instead of concentrating into the hands of a few, you’d have to assume their system’s unique nuances would be developed with this in mind. This might mean that a child can only inherit 10 trees.
.

So the parents do not own the trees, because if you cannot make your child owner of your property (minus some taxes), it is not your property but something owned by community you are allowed to use for life.

define criminal. acquiring control of a larger percentage of what everyone depends on than is legally allowed in such a power-capping system would put you on the wrong side of the law.

Acquiring something against the will of the owner and in spite of the laws.

define guilty. steve jobs didn’t commit any crime because his homeland’s laws weren’t arranged for communism.

Jobs share of productive resources was about 10000-100000 times larger than mine. So according to what you suggested in case of the islands he is at least uspect of acquiring to much productive resources. But if one would argue so, what is the exact moral justification for taking something from him?

After all, he never stole or cheated money, he presumably earned it all through voluntary exchange and most people seemed to like the exchanges.How can a voluntary exchange be immoral if no exchange partner and no third company suffers from the exchange?

 

[Jonatello]

Its not “nobody can” but “nobody is allowed to”.
And the trees are not to whatever one wishes, because if one tries to give a tree to someone else owning 10 that is forbidden in some way. That is a limitation of ownership.

right. it is limitation of ownership. that’s the whole point. limitation of ownership ensures wide spread of ownership and guards against monopolization of ownership.

“work towards”, “ensuring”, “widespread as possible”, “guards” are vague terms and there exact meaning is the important thing.

they are objective-defining terms, from which exact methods given particular cases can be discussed and determined.

Why should that matter for the basics of society?

it shouldn’t. it only matters if we’re going to try and continue the 10 people 100 trees analogy, which i said from the outset is imperfect and overly simplistic, but used to quickly illustrate 3 basic ideals.

But i hope you notice that things get complicated, if the numbers are not static.

Of course i do. All the factors at play, even in that fruit tree example, weren’t even laid out in my 3 sentences or whatever it was. But you’re confusing the purpose of my use of that quick analogy.

And this assumption is a problem, because we currently have on paperenough for everybody because of a combination of scintific advance and capitalism or some variations of it. So assuming there is enough for everybody and then plan a society is highly questionable because the rules of society influence, whether there is on paper enough for everybody.

i’m running out of time (gotta go to work), but this is not true.

i’ll try to address the rest of this later. but the fruit tree example i provided has a ton of problems (just too simplistic) which i acknowledged from the outset. It was meant to quickly explain 3 ideals, not to be perfectly scaleable solution and account for every factor. To approach it as such is to spar against a strawman.

 

[Carlan]

Communism, like any other economic system can be perfectly moral if the people themselves are moral.

Consider the Christian position on Charity - It fits in very nicely with distribution of wealth based on need.
Consider the Christian position on Society - It fits in nicely with the free association of individuals.

Look at Acts 4:32-37 and see a wonderful example of this in action. The people are freely associating, and are distributing based on need.
Of course we see in chapters 5 and 6 that problems came up in the application of the system and the community needed to address this.

The key in all of this though is the opening verse, Acts 4:32…“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul…”. Of one heart and soul (with a single morality). In such a circumstance ANY economic system can work.
It is only when a system that is built on a given morality is corrupted by the immoral that problems occur.

I will not deny that Communism is not terribly practical in anything resembling a large scale but the theory itself is morally neutral.

Peace
James

Yes , and to me it is the balance of the goodness of both, Capitalism and socialism that will work well for the common good of our Nation. peace, Carlan

 

[carn]

Look at Acts 4:32-37 and see a wonderful example of this in action. The people are freely associating, and are distributing based on need.
Of course we see in chapters 5 and 6 that problems came up in the application of the system and the community needed to address this.

The key in all of this though is the opening verse, Acts 4:32…“Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul…”. Of one heart and soul (with a single morality). In such a circumstance ANY economic system can work.
It is only when a system that is built on a given morality is corrupted by the immoral that problems occur.

You miss the even more important part:
“35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.”
The distribution was decided upon by saints guided by Gods will. Now if we can have God as acting head of state communism could work, because God has the knowledge to make all the fine tuning choices one has to make when running communism for 100 milion people. (Though it might be that at the core of things benevolent communism for 100 million people is a logical contradiction, then even God could not do it, but we cannot know.)
But for man to try that without Gods guidance is hybris. And God for watever reasons does not answer prayers “Should the production quota for shoes be 20 or 25 million?” that often.

I will not deny that Communism is not terribly practical in anything resembling a large scale but the theory itself is morally neutral.

How can it be morally neutral to declare any one criminal who exchanges bread for potatoes with his neighbor?

 

[JRKH]

You miss the even more important part:
“35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.”
The distribution was decided upon by saints guided by Gods will. Now if we can have God as acting head of state communism could work, because God has the knowledge to make all the fine tuning choices one has to make when running communism for 100 million people.

Indeed. If God is the head of each person’s life, what you refer to above as “saints”, then God would be the head of the “state communism”.
If each person would then be motivated by Love of neighbor and would seek only what they need so as to not deprive their neighbor of what their neighbor needs. This would have many positive effects on the community and on the environment as a whole.

(Though it might be that at the core of things benevolent communism for 100 million people is a logical contradiction, then even God could not do it, but we cannot know.)
But for man to try that without Gods guidance is hubris. And God for whatever reasons does not answer prayers “Should the production quota for shoes be 20 or 25 million?” that often.

Absolutely - But then I would put forth that running ANY socio/political/economic system without God is hubris.
In your “shoe” example above, the decision must be made about how many shoes need to be made…In an ideal communist system (led by God) - This decision is best be made by local, manageable, communities based on the need they find in their community. Thus no decision on 20 or 25 million needs to be made.
In an ideal capitalist system (Also led by God) - The same thing occurs where the local shoe merchant works to fulfill the requirements of his own community - at a price sufficient to meet his needs.
Also, in this ideal system, each shoemaker seeks to provide the best product he is able but is not interested in damaging another shoemaker stealing customers etc…
Of course these examples can and do get VERY complicated very quickly which is why God is so important as the center of our lives. To guide us in these complicated matters.

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
I will not deny that Communism is not terribly practical in anything resembling a large scale but the theory itself is morally neutral.

How can it be morally neutral to declare any one criminal who exchanges bread for potatoes with his neighbor?

I know of nothing in the theory of Communism that would make this illegal so this point is moot.
It is useful to remember that Communism in it’s pure form has never been implemented, or even attempted, on anything larger than a “village” level. What is commonly thought of as communism, USSR and China, is not communism at all but rather Economic Socialism tied to a Politically Totalitarian form of government.

Peace
James

 

[carn]

Indeed. If God is the head of each person’s life, what you refer to above as “saints”, then God would be the head of the “state communism”.

I said acting head of state, meaning dictating the laws verbatim, not only giving some general guidelines and leave the details to faith and reason.

Absolutely - But then I would put forth that running ANY socio/political/economic system without God is hubris.

Why?
It gets only into hubris, when certain goals are tried to achieve, that are unachievable without God, e.g. end of material suffering, which communismor its preforms aim for.
Running a system where some are suffering does look like hubris and many people did so without knowledge or even in spite of God. It normally doesn’t turn out very nice, but it often functions for some time.

In your “shoe” example above, the decision must be made about how many shoes need to be made…In an ideal communist system (led by God) - This decision is best be made by local, manageable, communities based on the need they find in their community. Thus no decision on 20 or 25 million needs to be made.

So how do local communities decide if they need 100 or 120 shoes?

In an ideal capitalist system (Also led by God) - The same thing occurs where the local shoe merchant works to fulfill the requirements of his own community - at a price sufficient to meet his needs.
Also, in this ideal system, each shoemaker seeks to provide the best product he is able but is not interested in damaging another shoemaker stealing customers etc…

In ideal and none ideal capitalist systems there is the price to effect the production. If one year there are not enough shows prices will rise and that will lead to an increased production, even if everyone is praying to satan. So nobody must make the decision - meaning no one must attempt to act as if he had a knowledge similar to God - and still somehow the shoe production will algn itself with demand.

Of course these examples can and do get VERY complicated very quickly which is why God is so important as the center of our lives. To guide us in these complicated matters.

But shoe production quotas in capitalism are easy, producers try to guess how many shoes at what price will be bought. Either they guess correctly or opportunities for other producers open up. One doesn’t even need Gods guidance in that (Though deciding where and how to produce and how to act towards competition and customers is certainly improved by a moral code).

I know of nothing in the theory of Communism that would make this illegal so this point is moot.
It is useful to remember that Communism in it’s pure form has never been implemented, or even attempted, on anything larger than a “village” level. What is commonly thought of as communism, USSR and China, is not communism at all but rather Economic Socialism tied to a Politically Totalitarian form of government.

Peace
James

Ok,thats always the problem, communism is never realy defined so it cannot be wrong.
(I refer again at my first post, where i gave a possible definition of capitalism or free market or whatever you call it. So far no one has shown that there is anything inherently immoral about it. Only argument was about what the result might be.)
But most acting communist aim at ensuring that the means of production are not in private hands.

If one gives potatoes for bread, ones own kitchen/garden has become the means for potato production, while the neighbors kitchen has turned into means for bread production.
The normal communist will start to be suspicious as suddenly me and my neighbor are in control of means of production. That is build in communism as long as communism aims at abolishing the private ownership of means of production, a member of a communist society has to be careful what he does with the kitchen in the house he happens to live. And that is a moral problem inherent to communism, at least to the standard practical version aiming at abolishing private ownership of means of production.

 

[thomasf]

As a business owner, I love capitalism. And despise, even hate, socialism and communism.

 

[JRKH]

I said acting head of state, meaning dictating the laws verbatim, not only giving some general guidelines and leave the details to faith and reason.

Fair enough. But then remember that God could have set things up to where Jesus remained here on earth and ran things - which would be the model you suggest. But God did not choose this method which tells me that God wants us to use our faith and reason, properly oriented to God, to deal with these details.

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
Absolutely - But then I would put forth that running ANY socio/political/economic system without God is hubris.

Why?

I’m not entirely sure that I am following you here.

Where God, and God’s morality is rejected greed, pride, avarice becomes the foundation of the system.
At the beginning of the 20th century there was a move to “bust trusts” where businessmen - often times quite legally - had acquired monopolistic control over certain industries and became extremely wealthy. There was never a need for them to have this sort of control. They had their “needs” met for food, housing, etc met long before they reached this point and they allowed, even encouraged, many abuses of their workers and customers along the way.
Now some of these men were, by baptism, Christian…but did they act Christian? Did they embrace the teachings of Christ?
Not so much…

I’m not saying that such men constitute a majority view in the U.S. any more than I would say that the USSR model represented the majority view of the Russian people…
In both cases, the majority wanted nothing more than to have their basic needs met with perhaps a bit more “just for fun”.

So how do local communities decide if they need 100 or 120 shoes?

Gee - this one should be easy…They look at their feet

In ideal and none ideal capitalist systems there is the price to effect the production. If one year there are not enough shows prices will rise and that will lead to an increased production, even if everyone is praying to satan. So nobody must make the decision - meaning no one must attempt to act as if he had a knowledge similar to God - and still somehow the shoe production will align itself with demand.

This is true, but then there is the “money” factor, or perhaps a better way to put it would be the “ability to pay” factor. In our local community model sufficient shoes are made so that everyone has what they need in shoes. The Cobbler, in return for this, is given sufficient quantities of what he needs. Food, shelter, raw materials etc.
In a money based capitalistic system like above, shoes are only provided to with sufficient “currency” to purchase them regardless of the degree of need.

But shoe production quotas in capitalism are easy, producers try to guess how many shoes at what price will be bought. Either they guess correctly or opportunities for other producers open up. One doesn’t even need Gods guidance in that (Though deciding where and how to produce and how to act towards competition and customers is certainly improved by a moral code).

Indeed - there are many aspects of business that are improved by a moral code.

(cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Ok,thats always the problem, communism is never really defined so it cannot be wrong.
(I refer again at my first post, where i gave a possible definition of capitalism or free market or whatever you call it. So far no one has shown that there is anything inherently immoral about it. Only argument was about what the result might be.)
But most acting communist aim at ensuring that the means of production are not in private hands.

Agreed. I’m not even sure communism was all that well defined by it’s originators Hegal and Marx…

Even what most consider to be “communist” wasn’t at all…It’s interesting that the largest (and first) Communist country never called themselves communist. Instead they named their nation the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yet when most people speak of communist they think of the USSR as the model…go figure…

If one gives potatoes for bread, ones own kitchen/garden has become the means for potato production, while the neighbors kitchen has turned into means for bread production.
The normal communist will start to be suspicious as suddenly me and my neighbor are in control of means of production. That is build in communism as long as communism aims at abolishing the private ownership of means of production, a member of a communist society has to be careful what he does with the kitchen in the house he happens to live. And that is a moral problem inherent to communism, at least to the standard practical version aiming at abolishing private ownership of means of production.

As practiced this is certainly true. In an ideal society (basically unachievable on a large scale) this would not even be an issue.
Let me explain.
At the “village level” everyone gets together and discusses what is needed in the next year. Shoes potatoes bread etc…The community as a whole, and acting for the good of the whole community, sets about providing for those needs. Joe has a big yard - a few acres and a green thumb so he is growing potatoes. Frank - Loves to bake and so he is making bread. The whole community goes to frank for bread and the whole community goes to Joe for potatoes. This same, very simplistic, exchange occurs for all commodities. None are denied so long as it is in the power of the community to provide.

To make this even more simplistic…
A family tribe/clan in the wilderness lives in close communion. They hunt together, farm together, cook, bake, eat sleep, live and die together. Yet regardless of what each one does, or what their capacity to produce is, each has a place around the communal fire. Each possesses that which they need - food, warmth, clothing, shelter, and community.

Works fine at the village level…in bigger communities where people don’t know each other…not so much.

Peace
James

 

[Jonatello]

And this assumption is a problem, because we currently have on paperenough for everybody because of a combination of scintific advance and capitalism or some variations of it. So assuming there is enough for everybody and then plan a society is highly questionable because the rules of society influence, whether there is on paper enough for everybody.

No, we start with enough on this planet for everyone primarily because of the abundance of God-given resources. The rules of society influence access to and dominion over those resources. As far as advances, many of the most important advances had nothing to do with capitalism or profit motive.

So the parents do not own the trees, because if you cannot make your child owner of your property (minus some taxes), it is not your property but something owned by community you are allowed to use for life.

This thing of defining ownership by the freedom to give to whoever you want is your own invention.

A college football coach owns 3 cars, but because he’s not allowed to give any of them to his star quarterback, he really owns zero?

Are gun owners really gun-borrowers because they can’t give their guns to anyone (kids, convicts, mentally disabled) they’d like?

After all, he never stole or cheated money, he presumably earned it all through voluntary exchange and most people seemed to like the exchanges.How can a voluntary exchange be immoral if no exchange partner and no third company suffers from the exchange?

you missed my point. Jobs did nothing criminal, because there was no law in his society against anything he did (to my knowledge).

As far harm, anytime resources that all of mankind depend on are dominated by the few, people suffer.

 

[carn]

No, we start with enough on this planet for everyone primarily because of the abundance of God-given resources. The rules of society influence access to and dominion over those resources. As far as advances, many of the most important advances had nothing to do with capitalism or profit motive.

You are in error. Up to about 200 years ago 95% of mankind lived in what we call absolut poverty, meaning hunger was a usual problem.
We have that abundance or if you prefer access to the abundance that theoretically was always there since about 100-150 years.

And its not independent of the profit motive or at least independent of society model as several socialistic countries, most prominently Soviet Union and China managed to have starvation on a large scale although the technology to produce enough food was avaible.

So no, the abundance is not simply there, man has to do the right things to realy have access and the way society functions is one of those things that can be done right or wrong.

This thing of defining ownership by the freedom to give to whoever you want is your own invention.

Its not my idea:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property
"Traditional principles of property rights include:

1.control of the use of the property
2.the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3.a right to transfer or sell the property
4.a right to exclude others from the property."

A college football coach owns 3 cars, but because he’s not allowed to give any of them to his star quarterback, he really owns zero?

Are gun owners really gun-borrowers because they can’t give their guns to anyone (kids, convicts, mentally disabled) they’d like?

In both cases there is a law and a sufficient reason to limit ownership of the items for specific groups. Its no general limitation and there are lots of other people who one can give cars or guns to.

you missed my point. Jobs did nothing criminal, because there was no law in his society against anything he did (to my knowledge).

As far harm, anytime resources that all of mankind depend on are dominated by the few, people suffer.

And you dance around the question:
What harm did Steve Jobs do?
You claim anyone owning lots of means of production of something like that harms others. Whom and how did Jobs harm someone?

To highlight that point:
forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

You claim that every person named on that list is harmful for the US society or at least for entire mankind. Every single person on that lists. Evidence?