The Official, State-mandated FAQ by LibSocs for "An"Caps

[Hierophant]

Rent is unethical and illogical. There is therefore no point in enforcing such a parody of a contract.

[James]

I think the fundamental issue is the system they end up justifying. A right (a justification of violence) to a continuous increase ends up justifying an exploitative and aggressive system-- as in, at some point (out of several points in regards to rent) if the tenant is unable to pay, the landlord is justified in using violence to extract it out of him.

You're not justified in using violence to extract a one-time gift out of the guy, though. You don't have a right to one-time chunks.

Actually in the case of an exchange you do have a right to one-time chunks and like I said above I consider this to be an exchange rather than a gift so could be legitimately enforced by violence.

I'm not saying it's wrong because it's not voluntary-- that was mostly to explain to the 'voluntaryists' how rent would justify an aggressive situation even though it starts out voluntary, which ends up blurring the line between 'voluntary' and 'aggressive.'

Well it's good to see that unlike too many libertarians and anarchists you don't see pure voluntaryism as the sole deciding factor in morality. However what about the argument that the landowner is justified in using force as a defence of his/her rights?

I don't know. I'll leave that up to the context and society around that case to decide-- it's entirely a social construct.

Your correct that defining property rights will always involve some context but this is an ethical question about what sort of property rights we should accept, not a precise definition, which is what we're debating.

[Tmaq]

Because it is based on the premise that capital is an agent of production and as such deserves a part of the production- which therefore goes to its owner. This is of course false: capital in itself cannot produce anything, and it is not an agent in any sense of the word.

What would you rather have, Franc?

A fresh apple now...or a fresh apple in 8 weeks?

Tools aren't agents, of course. Neither are they created merely by wanting them.

The entire screed - maybe the whole theory - seems to have overlooked the fact that prices are agreements based on and communicating real information about supply and demand, they are not measurements of the items carrying the price.

There is also the very real possibility that the person paying the 'usury' fee can do a better job with the 'capital' and it was their idea for that reason.

I can tell someone is still choking on the Marxist economic bullshit pill, because it forgot to morally denounce profits on monetary speculation and licensing fees for inventions or other unique creations, which are two of the three 'classes' that Marx also left out of his analysis (speculators and entrepreneurs or inventors.)

The attempt at hijacking an already-defined word is another tell.

-Tom

[Tmaq]

... any other kind of exploitative

Another marxist tell.

criminal revenue.

More language-hacking, or at best, assuming as true the thesis to be supported.

-Tom

[Tmaq]

If you hate equality and freedom, sure.

Unless by 'equality' you mean 'an equal chance to bid against others in the free market for resources that have alternative uses' and by 'freedom' you mean 'but not free to agree to pay a price for something I value.'

....right?

-Tom

[Hierophant]

James, I know you were talking to someone else, which is why I didn't intervene, but if you want I can answer your points.