Natural Rights - Interpreting John Locke

If the above were true we would not be experiencing the income inequality that we are now experiencing.

 

Have you ever observed squirrels? Industrious little creatures who stash food for a later date. Except for mating purposes they aren't all that social. In fact most of their interactions center around trying to steal from each other's stashes. Clearly squirrels don't respect the rights of other squirrels. A similar argument can be made for those scavenger birds who "steal" the prey other animals have caught. In a pride of lions 'rights' to food depend on what one can fight from another. Seems to me one only has rights to property if one has the means to protect them.

In our society the only 'rights' we have are the ones our government has allowed us.

 

Correct.

There are two kinds of rights:

1. Legal rights enforced by governments that can be enacted, revised and/or repealed, such as the right to collect Social Security at a certain age, or the right to a living wage.

2. Mythical rights such as the divine rights of kings and popes, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and natural rights invented by Thomas Aquinas.
("All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" including rights to life and liberty, but these mythical alleged rights can be trumped by the US government's legal right to draft people and send them to Vietnam, or NAZI Germany's legal right to round up minorities when it was illegal to harbor them.)

 

quote provided:

The context of why "God" is used in Locke's arguments has already been addressed and his quotes from the Bible and references to "God" are irrelevant to Natural Law and Natural Rights. Natural Law dictates that "Nature" is the source for all that is required for the survival (support and comfort) of the species. If nature did not provide what is necessary then the species dies.

Locke does not state that anyone "owns" anything except one thing. All people their own their "Self" and based upon the "Ownership of the Self" they also own "the labor of the Self" but they don't own, nor can they own, anything else.

No one can "own" the Earth but instead the Earth and all that is therein is give to man (and all species) to use for their survival (support and comfort). The can "possess" what they require and they acquire the right of "possession to use" what they require for survival (support and comfort) through their "labor" that they own.

There cannot be a Natural Right of Ownership of Property because "Property" is not "inherent in the Person (Self)" which is a criteria of Natural Rights. A person can "possess" but "not own" that which originates in Nature based upon the Natural Right to Use what originates in nature and they acquire the Right to Use based upon what the do own, their labor. The Natural Right of Property is the Natural Right of Use of property for survival (support and comfort) based upon Natural Law's criteria for survival of the species.

By analogy it would be like the leasing of a new car to use for transportation where the payments for the use of the car are the labor of the person as opposed to owning a car that is paid for with money where the money is owned.

"Ownership of Property" has no connection to Natural Law because "Ownership of Property" is not based upon the survival of the species and there is no means for any person to establish "ownership" of any property in nature.

This the most absurd definition of "rich" that I've ever read. To claim that those people living the most lavish of lifestyles without any concern for the cost of that lifestyle are "not rich" is simply absurd.

Nature does not grant "privilege" to any person and being rich under Natural Law is an accomplishment and not a privilege. Under Natural Law becoming wealthy is also "honest" because the exchange of possession of property (not ownership) is based upon the Right of Use of the property required for the support and comfort (survival) of the person established by the person's "Labor" that they alone can own.

Our laws of "ownership of property" and our economy built upon it violates the Natural Right of the Self because the "labor of the person" that belongs to them and them alone and is non-transferrable (it is inalienable) is being bought and sold. "Ownership of Property" that is an invention of mankind that has no constraints violates Natural Law (based upon scientific observation) that only allows "Possession of Property for Use" by the person.

This is why Locke states:

It really is "useless" for a person to possess more wealth than the can possible use in their lifetime and it is "dishonest" for them to possess that much wealth because the wealth they have in excess of what they can use is based upon the theft of property from those that can use for their survival (support and comfort) that property the "rich" person cannot use for their survival (support and comfort).
.

Humans won't become extinct because our laws of property are based upon ownership but it's not for the reason you claim.

Trickle-down economics has already been established as failed economic model. The wealthy simply become more wealthy, take ownership of a greater percentage of the entire wealth because only a small percentage of the wealth they remove from the economy is recirculated back into the economy. Only the money the wealthy spend on consumption, that is a small percentage of the wealth they take from the economy, provides any benefit to the economy and the general population. "Investments" do not produce any goods or services with the exception of roughly 0.00005% of all investments that are direct investments in corporations (corporate stock offerings) where those corporations spend the money on goods and services that must be produced. The accumulation of excessive wealth is not based upon the creation of wealth by the wealthy. That wealth is accumulated by the theft of the labor of those that are actually producing the wealth based upon man-made laws of "ownership of property" that violate Natural Law and the Natural Rights of the People/Person.

We can literally demonstrate on a global level that wealth accumulated based upon "ownership of property" does not "tickle-down.

Just 62 people in the world "own" half of all the world wealth and even with our wildest imagination it is far more wealth than they could ever possibly use if they lived to be thousands of years old. It is a staggering amount of wealth. Just the excess wealth that they "own" results in 795(*)million people barely surviving or dying because they're living on starvation diets. Many millions of these are children and of these 3.1 million children die annual of starvation.

The "people" created the wealth with their labor that these 62 people have managed to "own" and just the excess wealth these 62 people have, far in excess of what they could ever possibly use, would provide for all of the needs of the 795 million people that are starving, including the tens of millions of children, and these 62 people wouldn't miss one dime of the wealth that they lost because they can't use it anyway.

We, mankind, produce far more wealth with our labor than is required for the survival (support and comfort) of every person (member of our species) and the fact that there are an insignificant number of people hoarding so much of that wealth, far more than they can ever possibly use, that literally hundreds of millions of people don't even have enough food to eat, is arguably the most "immoral" violation of Natural Law on the planet by any species. IN the United States alone the "labor of the people" (not investments of the wealthy) we produce over four-times what is necessary to ensure that every person, based upon the labor that creates the wealth, has enough to meet their needs for basic support and comfort. There's no rational reason why a few Americans, less than even 1/10th of 1%, should have far more than they can ever possibly use while tens of millions of American households can't even pay their bills.

The reason why our laws of property based upon "ownership" will not result in the extinction of the human race isn't because of capitalism, an economic system that has nothing to do with the problem or preventing the problem, is instead that as the laws of "property ownership" slowly steal the labor of the people, leaving the "workers" in ever deepening poverty, there comes a point where the "workers" rise up against the wealthy and by violent revolution take back the "property" that they required for their survival (support and comfort) by the wealthy that created none of that wealth with their labor.

Just count the number of revolutions by the people against the government comprise of the wealthy elitists but keep in mind one thing. The people revolt because of the symptoms of violations of Natural Law and the Natural Rights of the people but being ignorant, like most people, they don't understand Natural Law or the Natural Rights of the People/Person so even when the revolution is successful they don't fix the problem but instead perpetuate the problem. The greatest of all problems, that is generally the foundation for the symptoms that the people revolt against, is the "ownership of property" that violates the Natural Right of Property because "Power" itself is based upon "owning property" it is "power" that results in tyranny that sparks the revolution.

Arguments for the "ownership of property" that directly results in extreme poverty, starvation, and death that ultimately results in violent revolution make no sense when we know that Natural Law and the Natural Right of Use of property established by the labor of the person prevents poverty, starvation and death eliminating the symptoms that result in violent revolution.

Why do some people continue to argue for what we know doesn't work is the real question? How does the over-accumulation of wealth based upon the "ownership of property" far beyond what the person can possibly use, that is a result of the theft of labor of the People/Person, when we're addressing just a small fraction of 1% of the people that they will never be a part of, benefit them? They're literally advocating for the theft of their own labor by the super-wealthy so the super-wealthy can "own" more than they can ever possibly use. It's like arguing that it's okay for Bill Gates to rob a bank because Bill Gates doesn't need the money.

The "argument" that a very small percentage of the people, probably between 0.01% to 0.0001 of the all of the people, that are "super-wealthy" should be able to "own" more than they can ever use, more than they can ever enjoy, so much more that it's literally unimaginable for them to even put a dent in the wealth they own living the most extravagant and lavish of lifestyles, just so millions of other people can live in poverty, with millions literally on the edge of starvation or dying, and that historically results in a violent revolution when the poverty becomes too widespread... this argument makes no sense at all to a rational person.

 

The Natural Right of Property is the Natural Right of Use of "Property" for "survival" (support and comfort) based upon Natural Law, The Right of Use is based upon the "Labor" of the Person that the Person owns (an extension of the "Right of Self" that is the only thing we "own" based upon nature). Because it's a Right of Use based upon the Natural Right of Self (and the labor of the self) that is non-transferrable it's not specific to the actual property in possession of the person for their "use" in providing for their support and comfort )survival). The actual property can be exchanged between people, based upon their usage of the property for their "support and comfort" (survival), that is not limited by the amount of property being exchanged... but the caveat is that the person based upon their "labor" has a Natural Right to Survival based upon Natural Law,

That takes us back to "Nature" that establishes the members of a species must be able to secure from nature individually and/or collectively by their actions (their labor) that which is necessary for the members to survive. If they can't then the species becomes extinct.

So people can certainly obtain possession, not ownership, of property that is not a direct result of their labor but everyone has a Natural Right to enough for survival (support and comfort) based upon their labor that contributes to the survival of the species.

 

This is a great example because is separates those with human intelligence from those with the mental reasoning capacity of a squirrel.

Let's start by specifying tree squirrels because they're basically independent while ground squirrels often live in social group that provide mutual benefits to the members. We want a "cut-throat" environment for our example.

We have Joe Squirrel and Dave Squirrel both living in the same grove of oak trees that provides them with plenty of acorns. Both need to "squirrel" away" (take possession of) enough acorns to last them through the winter months until the oaks produce more acorns the following year and they store these acorns for that purpose. If either squirrel doesn't secure possession of enough acorns to last them until the new acorns arrive next year then they will die.

Joe Squirrel is very industrious in collecting acorns and fills his "home" in one of the oak trees to the brim. By actually collecting the acorns Joe Squirrel has established his Right to Use the acorns as food until the following year's acorns arrive. Dave Squirrel can't make any of a Right to Use or possess the acorns that Joe Squirrel's labor collected because Dave Squirrel didn't expend any labor to collect those acorns. If Dave Squirrel takes what Joe Squirrel collected then it is "theft" because Dave Squirrel never established a Right to Use the acorns that Joe Squirrel collected.

There is one caveat in this example related to the acorns that Joe Squirrel collected. If Joe collects too many acorns and can't eat them all before they "spoil" and can't be eaten then Joe Squirrel wasted his "labor" in collecting all of the extra acorns. So that Joe Squirrel's efforts (labor) will not be wasted Joe Squirrel can give the surplus acorns he's collected away to other squirrels that can use them before they spoil. If Joe Squirrel doesn't voluntarily give away the extra acorns, that Joe Squirrel will never use before the acorns spoil the another squirrel, like Dave Squirrel, can take the "excess" acorns collected by Joe Squirrel without causing any harm to Joe Squirrel because Joe Squirrel wouldn't be able to eat the excess acorns anyway and in taking those excess acorns it actually gives value and meaning to the collection of the excess acorns by Joe Squirrel that would not exist if the acorns are left to rot in Joe Squirrels possession.

The actual taking of the excess acorns collected by Joe Squirrel by Dave Squirrel, that will rot if not taken, provides a mutual benefit to both Joe Squirrel and to Dave Squirrel. Joe Squirrel didn't waste his labor and Dave Squirrel didn't have to expend as much labor for survival and both survive.

There is a serious problem if Joe Squirrel takes far more acorns than he can use and doesn't leave enough acorns for Dave to collect and survive the winter. Now Joe Squirrel's greed, that doesn't even benefit Joe because the excess acorns will rot, and caused the death of Dave.

It's now time to separate those with the mental capacity of a squirrel from those with the mental capacity to think like a person that applies logic and reason.

Natural Rights, that are based upon the Laws of Nature, are unalienable/inalienable (cannot be taken from or given away by the person - they're non-transferrable) but they are not inviolable (incapable of being violated) and the above examples merely provide examples of the Natural Right being violated by members of the same species. It doesn't imply that a lion that makes a kill doesn't have the Natural Right of Use to consume the meat from the kill but it does establish that another lion that by shear brut strength and an act of aggression can take that food away from the lion that made the kill. Ironically if one lion is only capable of making the kill but can't protect it t feed off of it and another lion is completely incapable of making the kill but has the power of brut force to take it away and eat the kill then in all likelihood both lions are going to die. The one capable of making the kill dies from starvation and then the one that can only take it away by brut force but cannot make the kill loses it's source of food and it also dies.

Then there are no rights at all because governments, that have no Rights, can only grant "power" to people by backing with force whatever the people do that is "legal" with the tyrannical power of government.

What's being defined is what Thomas Paine warned about in his famous quotation, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

When government grants power to people, under the law, that violates the Natural Rights of the Person, and then backs up the actions of the people committing the violations of those rights it is the government in it's "worst state" and that government is an "intolerable" evil.

The legal status of "Ownership of Property" violates the "Natural Right of Property" and the "Ownership of Property" that has already resulted in countless deaths and conflicts and will continue to result in more countless deaths and conflicts as long as people can "own property" as opposed to "possess property" based upon Natural Law and Natural Rights. Statutory ownership of property, that violates the Natural Right of Property, is an intolerable evil of government.

Advocacy for tyrannical government that not just allows people to violate the Natural Rights of People but even backs up those violations with the Use of Force by government is not an argument but instead is the reason why we need to address property based upon Natural Rights derived from Natural Law as opposed to continuing to support the statutory laws of Property Ownership that was the invention of the tyrants.

 

Once again we reach a pause in the "action" where I've addressed as many posts as possible but have not read all of the posts. The posts I've responded to are "typical" so hopefully they've addressed others that I haven't specifically addressed.

Because this thread originated based allegations that I'd been disproven in my interpretation of Locke's Natural Right "Of Property" that I've not personally seen it's important that all issues be addressed by me. So far there's been no substantiated evidence that I'm misinterpreting Locke by stating that Locke does not establish "ownership" as a Natural Right but instead establishes the Natural Right of Use of Property and that, while putting forward a positive argument Locke debunks the concept of "ownership" being a right of the person.

So once again for anyone that's posted an "objection" that I could easily have missed and not answered I respectfully ask that you quote me (so that I see your post) and direct me to the unanswered question or issue that I need to reply to.

Thank you.

 

If you say that there is a "natural" right to property and the US Supreme Court says that there isn't, who wins the argument?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 

While I've not read a history book that could explicitly establish where "ownership" of property originated it is general knowledge that it's based upon a combination of common law and statutory law today. The common law is established by the written decisions of courts, based upon the court's interpretation of the "common practices" of the people, in resolving issues of dispute not addressed by the codification of statutory law. Statutory law is often, but not always, based upon the precedent previously established by the court's interpretation of common practices.

Like some I'm curious and spent some time considering how "ownership" of property originated from common practices or if it was a judicial interpretation of common practices that created "ownership" in the common law. One of the first things that drew my attention was a phrase used commonly that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" that isn't literally accurate under statutory law but is figuratively accurate because anyone that claims the "right to possess" property in the "possession of another person" must provide compelling legal argument for their right to possess the property. But notice the original commonly used phrase refers to "possession" and not to ownership and possession doesn't require ownership at all. The concept of "ownership" is not of natural origin but instead is an invention of mankind.

So who was it that "invented" the idea of ownership and what were the courts addressing when they courts used the term "ownership" in creating the common law? That seems quite obvious. If the courts were resolving a dispute over property then the people involved where those that had property or desired the property of another person. The court's decision didn't deal with those that had no property which was the general population at the time. We can also note that the "right to possess" and the "right to own" are similar but the "right to own" isn't necessary for the common person.

The person with a few sheep and goats that wants to trade a couple of sheep for some grain to bake bread in the barter system didn't require "ownership" but instead just require the "right to possess" the sheep that they could trade with the person with the grain that had a "right to possess" the grain. For the common person involved in the barter system there was a relationship between what they possessed because they grew, raised, or made the property that they would trade with another person for what the other person possessed because they grew, raise or made the property they would trade. Both individuals had the same "values" when it came to the trade because both were actually trading the labor they had expended related to the property being traded. The labor involved with the "raising of the sheep" was relatively equal to the labor involved in the "growing of the grain" and it was upon that foundation that the exchange was made. A person was very unlikely to trade away something that required them 100 hours to produce for something that the could produce on their own in 10 hours.

So who would want to "own" something as opposed to simply possess it based upon the labor that they expended?

That's a rather easy deduction. The person that wants to "possess" property that they did little or nothing to establish a right to the property. One of the best ways to achieve this is to "own the person" that actually produces the product and the early property owners were often slave owners when concept "ownership" was invented. Except for providing food and clothing by necessity to keep the slave alive the "slave owner" did nothing in producing the property but they "owned" the property that the slave produced. The slave owner did nothing to establish a "right to possess" the property but instead became the "owner of the property" because they owned the slave that produced the property.

The entire concept of "ownership" was based upon the ability of the person to secure the possession of property that the person had no right to possess. The person that establishes the "right to possess" doesn't require "ownership" while the person that doesn't have a "right to possess" can only obtain possession by laws of "ownership" because "ownership" is not based upon the person establishing a "right to possess" the property.

To be crudely blunt, "Ownership is about the ability to steal property from those that have established a right to possess the property by those that have never established a right to possess the property." This was not an unintentional consequence because when "ownership" was incorporated into the statutory laws it was done so by the large "owners" of property that had not established a "right to possess" that which they had in their possession to begin with. They were fundamentally legalizing their own theft of property because "ownership" was not dependent upon any rights of the person. They could literally "own" land that they had no right to possess because they'd done nothing, such as farm the land, to establish a "right of possession" and they could "share-crop" it out to people that would farm the land and take 50% of the crop from the farmer. They'd never establish the right to "possess the land" for any purpose nor did they have "right to possess" anything the farmer produced from the land. It was theft pure and simple because first the land was stolen and then the 1/2 of the farmers crop was stolen.

Laws of "ownership" allow this kind of theft by those with substantial property because they can get away with it. It would never happen based upon a requirement for the person to establish a right to possess, such as the common person hundreds of years ago based upon the common practices. "Ownership" was really only a necessity in disputes between the wealthy where the "right to possess" did not exist at all.

Here's the irony of it all. The Courts were forced to provide a decision for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of "property" where neither had a "right to possess" the property and that decision could only be based upon "ownership" and not the "right to possess" the property. This established the common law and not the actual practices of the common people that established a "right to possess" their property. Based upon the common law, not the common practices, the statutory laws of "ownership" were established that allowed the possession of property without the right of possession being a requirement. The "ownership" allowed those with wealth to steal the "right of possession" from the common people. And finally, the common people, that were having their "right to possess" being stolen by the laws of "ownership" have become so used to the theft that they now argue for "ownership" as opposed to arguing for the "right to possess" the property.

We have people today that advocate "ownership of property" that allows the wealthy to literally steal property from them after they established a "right to possess" that property with their labor. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

While the Supreme Court has the mandate to interpret the US Constitution it has been extremely incompetent when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of the Ninth Amendment that protects the unenumerated natural rights of the person.

Instead of addressing who wins it's better to address who loses and the losers are the American people when the Supreme Court does not protect the Natural Rights of the Person under the provisions of the Ninth Amendment.

We can also note the fact that it's "conservative" Supreme Court justices that are responsible because they're basing their decision upon the "traditional institution of property ownership" as opposed to entertaining arguments supporting the Natural Right of Property. "Conservative" in this usage is the advocacy for "traditional institutions" such as the traditional institution of "ownership" of property that is not directly tied to political conservatism. That is a serious problem for the United States because ideologically the United States was founded upon the Natural Rights of the Person but that was juxtaposed to many "traditional institutions" the "conservatives" prevented the changes necessary in our statutory laws to adopt new statutory laws based upon Natural Law and the Natural Rights of the Person. Once again this doesn't state Republicans because "conservatism" can and does run across party lines. Arguably the only political party that shouldn't be conservative is the Libertarian Party but even the Libertarian Party, and I'm a member of it, all too often supports conservative ideology that fundamentally violates the Natural Rights of the Person because sadly even most "libertarians" don't understand Natural Rights.

Most "libertarians" probably disagree with me on the Natural Right of Property because they're stuck in their conservative beliefs and have never taken the time to actually understand what John Locke was saying. It is for that reason, as well as addressing the same issue of the "Natural Right of Property" where some have alleged my interpretation is wrong, that I created this thread. If my arguments can't be disputed, and so far they haven't been, then they are correct and perhaps people will actually learn something about the Natural Right of Property or, at the very least, they might start questioning the "ownership of property" that isn't based upon an rights whatsoever and that allows the theft of property from those that have established a "right to possess property" established by their labor.

So for now the American people are the losers because the "theft of property" continues based upon statutory "ownership" of property that is codified into our laws and is supported by Supreme Court decisions. It's just a reminder of the fact that while Natural Rights are unalienable/inalienable that doesn't imply that our Natural Rights are Inviolable and here we have a simple case of a violation of the Natural Rights of the Person in a Supreme Court decision.

 

Adam Smith agued against the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, who he knew personally. He said:

"Ask a common porter or day-labourer why he obeys the civil magistrate, he will tell you...that he sees others do it, that he would be punished if he refused to do it. But you never hear a contract as the foundation of his obedience....

You were not consulted whether you should be born in (a country) or not. And how can you get out of it. Most people know no other language nor country, are poor, and obliged to stay not far from where they were born...They cannot therefore be said to have given a consent to a contract, though they may have the strongest sense of obedience."

Property in the form of agricultural crops and money were taken from serfs by royalty by "divine right." but if divine rights and social contracts are bogus, by what right do governments involuntarily take people's money?

By what ethical standard did New London, Connecticut take private property from some and give it to others? It was surely not ethical according to the Golden Rule, since no one would like that kind of thing done to themselves.

It was done according to the standard of utilitarianism, long preached at Harvard by philosophy professor John Rawls. It is now deeply imbedded into US political correctness that if the State's motives are benevolent it doesn't matter how it achieves its goals.

The concepts of social contracts and natural rights have been ineffective in protecting people from coercive government, NAZI Germany being a prime example, with many countries following similar paths.

Instead trying to promote the concept of natural rights we might try to promote the concept of reciprocity, The Golden Rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

 

-
Adam Smith (1723-1790) did not personally know Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) or John Locke (1632-1704) because they were dead before Smith was born. He may or may not have known Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-177 but it's really irrelevant because the only thing that's important is that Smith rejected a belief in the Natural Right of Property but never attempted to dispute Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Adam Smith was an economic philosopher unconcerned with and simply ignored, without disputing, Locke's establishment of the Natural Right of Property. Adam Smith was a "conservative" advocating for the traditional institution of "ownership of property" that was the foundation for the violations of the Natural Right of Use of property that Locke establishes in the Second Treatise of Civil Government. It is somewhat interesting because Smith actually identified why an economy based upon "ownership of property" ultimately fails.

Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments states, "The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the want of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest " In The Wealth of Nations Smith, in referring to the wealthy property owner (capitalist) states, "(H)e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain."

It is the greed of the wealthy owners of property, that Adam Smith identifies, that today results in almost 700 million people starving world-wide and 40 million household being unable to fund their minimum-mandatory expenditures in the United States. If any economic ideology has been proven to be a failure it's Adam Smiths economic philosophy based upon "ownership of property" that isn't based upon any imaginable "right of the person" but instead was created by the wealthy property owners for their own benefit where they could steal the labor of the workers that produce the wealth.

The idea that the "Golden Rule" has any applicability when Smith accurately established that the wealthy driven exclusively by greed and are only concerned with whatever benefits them without any regard to how much harm it causes to others is an absurd proposition.

Ownership of property was invented by the courts (common law) and government (statutory law) to legalize the possession of property by those that had no right of possession. In understanding the implication "possession without a right of possession" (ownership of property) it goes far beyond just the theft of the wealth that people produce by those that have no right to that wealth. It is the foundation for most wars of aggression where the leader(s) of one country seek to take possession of the wealth and/or lands of another country by military force.

 

When I put the comma in " and Rousseau, who he knew personally." it was to mean that he did not know Hobbes or Locke personally.

I still feel that to endorse a strict interpretation of the Golden Rule is the best was to support individual liberty. However, both conservatives, who booed Ron Paul when he mentioned the Golden Rule during ahis foreign policy address, and socialists, who endorse coercive government, understand the Golden Rule and reject it.

 

The starting point for any discussion about property begins with the Constitution. It's clear the Framers wanted to protect individual property rights. It doesn't matter if they intended it for white males only. They were protecting the farmers from having their homes quartered, too, not just the wealthy.

 

True, but as they say, that was then and this is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 

The inherent problem with the "Golden Rule" is that it's subjective and doesn't address an actual foundation upon which enforcement can be based. Natural Rights, founded upon the Laws of Nature, does have a basis for the law. For example in Chapter 5 on the Natural Right of Property it establishes that a person does not have a right to "spoil (pollute) or destroy nature" but that's far more important than just addressing that it's a violation of the "common" (the rights of all people) but it's based upon the fact that if we spoil and/or destroy nature it endangers the survival of all species on the planet. Nature does provide for some pollution and some destruction of nature because it can often recycle chemical pollution into a non-polluting state.

A good example would be nature's ability to recycle atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that in excessive quantities is a pollutant because it causes global warming that endangers species, because plants "naturally" convert CO2 back into a solid carbon state and releasing oxygen that is a non-greenhouse gas. Nature can do that and does that for naturally produced CO2. Mankind can produce additional CO2 gas by burning fossil fuels for energy but the amount of CO2 we can produce is limited by nature. So Natural Law (i.e. what nature allows) can be used for establishing laws limiting manmade CO2 pollution.

The Natural Right of Property also contains caveats such as the prohibition of taking more than nature actually provides under the caveat that "enough, and as good as" must remain for all other people. Natural Law limits how much we can take from nature based upon how much nature provides.

Clear examples where we've not followed that "Law of Nature" can be provided. By the over-harvesting of the world's tuna population where 80% of the world's tuna population since 1950 is now gone and we've actually reduced the amount of food for ourselves by over-harvesting the tuna. If we still had all of the tuna population we would be able to harvest more tuna today on an annual basis just based upon the "excess" tuna that nature would provide each year from 100% of the tuna population still existing. In the 19th Century the "capitalists" clear-cut the giant redwood groves cutting down 90% of all the giant redwoods (and sadly cutting them up onto little pieces) and today we don't have any giant redwoods that we can harvest. The "capitalist" of the 19th Century stole the giant redwoods from all future generations based upon their greed.

You mention Ron Paul's mention of the "Golden Rule" but Ron Paul is not an advocate for the Rights of the Person and does not embrace the Natural Right of Liberty. Ron Paul advocates minimalistic government and statutory "Liberty that Grants License" so that people can to do whatever they damn well please so long as their actions don't directly harm another person. The Golden Rule only applies to the interactions of people with people and ignores Natural Law. Because Ron Paul embraces statutory Liberty he's often misrepresented as a Libertarian but Libertarianism is based upon the Natural Right of Liberty that does not grant unlimited "License" for people to do whatever they damn well please. As Locke mentions early on in theThe Natural Right of Liberty is highly restrictive because it only allows the person to do what their Natural Rights allow them to do and Nature (Natural Law) restricts the Natural Rights of the Person. As Locke states in Chapter 2:

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of
licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose
of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or
so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than
its bare preservation calls for it."

While we have Liberty that Liberty does not grant us the License to do whatever we please. Our very existence is dependent upon the Laws of Nature and in Chapter 5 Locke addresses the limitations imposed by the Laws of Nature in establishing the Natural Right "Of Property" for all people.

What we find with those like Ron Paul is an overlap on what government should allow, such as ending the War on Drugs and/or a non-military interventionist foreign policy, but that overlap is coincidental and not intentional because the foundations are different.

Unlike Ron Paul a "libertarian" government based upon the Natural Rights of Liberty of the People/Person, restricted as it is by Natural Law, is not a minimalistic government and by necessity must be a strong and authoritarian government. That government exists based upon the "consent of the governed" to ensure that the Natural Rights of the People/Person are protected to the maximum possible extent, that violators are brought to justice, and that the violations of the Natural Rights of the People/Person that cannot be prevented are mitigated by the government whenever possible.

Ron Paul does not advocate for the protections of the Natural Rights of the People/Person and opposes the government necessary based upon the protection of those Natural Rights. The Golden Rule itself lacks an actual foundation upon which to build anything because it's based purely upon opinion that lacks a substantive foundation. The "Golden Rule" is a slogan that sounds good just like "World Peace" but both lack a foundation that provides a basis for "action" that results in achievement. We need substance and not slogan to actually accomplish anything positive for the future of mankind.

 

in the quote where john locke says 'labor for no more than we can make use of', he means we must create wealth with our labor, not redistribute wealth with our labor, as you appear to interpret it.

your interpretation restricts freedom of ownership to property to a mere rental of property, in order to make use of it for support and comfort, which is socialist. God or nature as you would have it, gives people the right to own not rent, and that can only be done under capitalism.

the 62 people who control half of the earths wealth fairly leveraged their ownership under the rules of free market capitalism, without bill gates we could not be communicating on the internet.

your prediction of a violent revolution because of title of ownership is communist, our country was founded on a free market capitalist revolution, not a communist revolution. all communist revolutions have failed to date, the only revolution still standing is ours, and we can fix it without violence by returning to the ways the founders intended.

what we must do is increase ownership of property to the peasants as the founding fathers did in our revolution against england, by giving the peasants the divine rights of kings as they did. the peasants will then be able to create wealth under ownership of property, as they did in the past, to which we fortunate ones today have benefited from their privilege.

this cannot happen again if the privilege to be rich is taken under rental of property for support and comfort, as your interpretation of john locke would have..

 

wealth does not trickle down under crony capitalism where government is ruled by the interests of the rich

free market capitalism allows wealth to be equitably redistributed by trickling down from fair competition, in an equal opportunity market.

 

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr00.txt

This is a rant (railing) and not an argument so why is it worthy of response? To point out the false claims made?

Nature does not grant ownership to any creature on earth. The lions that establish a territory for hunting do not own that territory. They use it for their survival and when they move on they no longer have any claim to it because they're not using it anymore. The ants that build their home underground are using that small piece of land and when they die or move away they no longer have any claim to it.

You refer to the "founding fathers" that were a very small group of men out of all the predominately English immigrants and their descendants that had moved to the colonies and it was this very small group of intellectuals that established the ideology upon which the United States was founded and that provided the arguments that fueled the American Revolution while the increase of "ownership of property to the peasants" was often accomplished by the theft of the lands of the native inhabitants at gun point by the vase majority of "immigrants" to America.

You argue over "capitalism" and "socialism" when neither of these economic systems are based upon the Natural Right of Property. Neither the Declaration of Independence or US Constitution establishes the "economic system" but both refer to the (natural) Rights of the Person and the Ninth Amendment protects those rights, including the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person, whenever enumeration fails to protect those Rights elsewhere.

You talk about "redistribution" while ignoring that the first "redistribution of wealth" occurs when the owner of an enterprise takes the "wealth" created by the labor of the employees. The employer has no "right" to that labor that is solely owned by the person doing the work. If we remove all of the "labor" of the employees, that they alone own then, what wealth does the owner actually have based solely upon their own labor?

The claim that people that are starving revolt because they're communists is pure ignorance. If they're starving in a capitalistic economy it's because it's based upon "ownership of property" that allows the theft of wealth created by the labor of the people. They are revolting because of the theft that leaves them starving. If they install a communist/socialist government and economy they do so because they're ignorant. Communism/socialism are also based upon ownership of property that allows the theft of the wealth created by the labor of the people.

Capitalism can not only survive based upon the Natural Right of Property but is unquestionably the best economic system when the Natural Right of Property is the foundation. It would unquestionably be different than capitalism as we know it now that is based upon theft and the destruction of the planet and of the people as well. Our current form of capitalism creates a society of the "have-nots, have-enough, have-far-more, and have-too-much" in the United States. It should be noted that the "have-nots" in America equal about 40 million households (about 25% of the people) where they don't have adequate compensation to fund their minimum-mandatory expenditures while the "have-too-much" (that receive about 20% of all the wealth created annually in the United States) only represent about 160,000 households and 0.1% of the American people.

The two extremes of the "have-nots" and the "have-too-much" do not exist based upon the Natural Right of Property where only economic two groups exist. The "have-enough and the have-far-more" exist under capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property because the wealth created by the labor of the people is "distributed" (not redistributed) but the capitalist also benefits because the people create far more wealth than they need to have enough for their basic support and comfort.

Let's also "look at the numbers" where today the American workers are creating more than $16 trillion in wealth every year and we can break that down a little bit to get a better understand of how the Natural Right of Property would effect it. It would take about $4 trillion of that wealth that the people are creating with their labor to ensure that there are no "have-nots" in the United States. We can also take about $1.6 trillion, or 10% that is a good average profit margin for enterprise, and that would be going to the owners of enterprise. That leaves $10.4 trillion for additional compensation to workers that are more highly skilled and/or in greater demand including owners that are also workers in their enterprise (income in addition to the profits). Additionally it would mathematically eliminate the top 0.1% of income households (the "have-too-much) that are currently receiving 20% of all of the wealth being created because the total "profits" would only be 10% of the wealth being created by the American people. It would be a thriving capitalistic society where economic oppression does not exist and where excessive wealth, beyond what anyone could even imagine spending, would not exist either. So Locke is absolutely correct because it would also be true that there would be "no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of."

The capitalistic economy does not have to be based upon greed so excessive that it results in the violation of the Natural Right of Property to the point that it drives 25% or more of the people into poverty. There's nothing wrong with "greed" when it comes to living a better lifestyle because that motivation is beneficial to society but when the greed become overwhelming to the point that the accumulation of wealth exceeds any human need whatsoever then it is excessive greed that harms society instead of benefiting society.

So I've responded to a "rant" because the rant, based upon prejudice without logic or reason, was so absurd in making false allegations they were easily disproven. I doubt I'll be inclined to address future rants that are this absurd in making false allegation that reflect a complete lack of understanding of the Natural Right of Property or that advocate an economic system based upon the violations of the Natural Rights of the People/Person because any economic system that does that is based upon tyranny and is advocacy for the tyrant.

PS A reminder when you mention the "founding fathers" that had an ideological dream for America because they were, in fact, a political minority. Their vision was not shared by most that supported the American Revolution that simply supported it to remove the higher authority of the King of England that, once removed, would move them into that position of authority. Mather Byles, the famous American-British loyalist was an accurate predictor of the future when he asked the question, "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" Those that were the political elite in the newly formed United States were the wealthy statutory property owners, that included the statutory ownership of people that were enslaved, that became the "three thousand tyrants one mile away" by rejecting the Natural Rights of the People, including the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person fundamentally opposing everything that the ideological "founders of America" believed in and continuing the same tyranny that existed before the American Revolution. The tyranny in America was no longer the King but instead became the "Capitalist" that rejected the Natural Right of Property that John Locke had established by compelling reason and logic in 1690. There was no fundamental difference between the theft of labor by the King and the theft of labor by the Capitalist based upon man-made statutory laws of Ownership of Property, that does not exist in nature, as opposed to the Natural Right of "Possession of Property" for use in the support and comfort of the person that they established with their labor, that is based upon the Laws of Nature.

Capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property will always succeed while we can witness around us today that Capitalism based upon the man-made laws of "ownership of property" is failing because 40 million working American households don't have enough income from their labor to survive and require government welfare assistance.

 

There's no disputing the first statement but it fails to acknowledge the fact that the wealthy "capitalist" always control the government which is why we have man-made statutory laws created by the wealthy establishing "ownership" of property that allows possession without any consideration for the "natural right of possession of property" that is created by the labor of the person that is established by nature (Natural Law).

There's no equality in Free Market Capitalism because coercion exists. The "owner of enterprise" (capitalist) always has multiple options to choose from. They can be a sole-proprietorship without any employees at all. They can choose to be an employer because other people provide them more income than they earned based upon their own labor. They can choose to increase the number of employees if it increases the income they have that they haven't earned or decrease employment if that increased the amount of income that they haven't earned. If the enterprise isn't providing enough income for the owner they can simply shut the door and walk away to find something else to do. All of these options are there for the "owner of enterprise" to choose from.

The rest of the people, the workers, have no choice. They must work for a living or starve to death (metaphorically). The compensation they will receive is not based upon their "labor" but instead is based upon the "market" where compensation is fundamentally determined "how many people are available to do the work" that is unrelated to the actual labor involved. Because the person must work or starve they're forced (i.e. coercion requires them) to accept employment based upon the "market compensation" that's not based upon the value of labor but instead is based upon the number of people that can provide that labor. Lacking a mandatory "minimum wage" (minimum compensation package) that would require adequate compensation for the person/household to live on the person can be forced (i.e, coercion requires them) to accept employment that doesn't provide adequate compensation for their labor and they can't afford to live on the compensation. Their employer (the owner of enterprise) imposes a financial obligation upon society to subsidize their under-compensation of their employees by providing charity and/or welfare assistance to subsidize the "under-payment" that effectively forces their employee, that isn't being compensated for their actual labor by their employer, into becoming a "beggar" so that they can provide for their household's minimum-mandatory expenditures.

Trickle-down economics doesn't work because it's base upon a fallacy. The belief is that (external) investments create jobs and expand the economy and that's a myth. The truth is that it's the re-investment of revenue (profits) generated by sales (consumption) by the enterprise that creates jobs and expands the economy. Without consumption the (external) investments, that are often just seed money for a corporation, the enterprise fails and the net result is no jobs and no economic expansion. The most well known case is Solyndra that received over $1 billion in external funding, including $535 million in loans guaranteed by the US government, and it went belly-up because of a lack of sales (consumption). A billion dollars of external investment and not a single job exists based upon that billion dollars today.

The external investments don't actually create jobs or expand the economy and because the wealthy only spend a relatively small amount of income on consumption of goods and services, when compared to the average American, they're literally taking money out of the economy that would, if spent on consumption, result in jobs and economic expansion. The excess money they receive and don't spend on consumption is actually better used when it's taken in the form of taxation because "tax dollars" are re-introduced into the economy and used for consumption either by government purchases or through welfare programs that include Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, and other government welfare programs. This isn't advocacy for more taxation but the fact is that the wealthy investors have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States today. "Fair taxation" would address this by the "Trickle Down" advocates, based upon a myth, intentionally provide tax favoritism (crony capitalism) to the wealthy investors that aren't really doing a damn thing for the US economy. All they're really doing is increasing the amount of personal wealth they remove from the US economy, created by the workers, every year and that reduces job growth and economic expansion.

A lot of "right-wingers" today point to the poor GDP growth and blame the Democrats when, in fact, it's being caused by the amount of wealth removed from the economy by the wealthiest households in American based upon right-wing economic polices because the wealthy aren't spending that money on consumption that would increase the GDP.

So please stop propagating the right-wing myths because the actual economic problems we have today are all based upon conservative economic policies going back to 1776 and at the heart of them all are the man-made laws of statutory ownership of property created by the wealthy that allows 'possession of property" without the "right of possession" where the "right of possession" is established by the labor of the person they use for their support and comfort (survival) that can be documented in nature (i.e. Natural Law).

 

the lion has title of ownership for his pride when he defeats his adversary in mortal combat, that title of ownership is then transferred to his next of kin when he can no longer defend his women. the younger lions are chased away from the pride until the youngest remaining lion is strong enough to defeat the father, who becomes too old and weak to defend the women.

you misinterpret the animal kingdom for john lockes natural right of property, we do not rent but own the earth for as long as we live by either natural law, or God's law. if we apply God's law to john lockes natural right of property as he specifically states, there is mercy and compassion for the older defeated lion in the natural order of things from a civil government.

lastly john locke does not want anyone to own their own labor, for capitalism to work some of the fruits of our labors must be returned to the capitalist for taking risk with their capital. this allows us all to have the privilege to labor for capital to take risks for rewards, and become royal capitalists ourselves.

these natural laws as they relate to political laws by john locke are included below.

 

there is no such ideal of free market capitalism that includes 'coercion'

a capitalist in America's market and around the world are not free market capitalists if they hold the mindset that coercion is a part of doing business with their employees.

they have this mindset because they have adopted the unfair rules that govern their competition in the market under the threat of lawful government force.

that lawful government force is bought and paid for through lobbying by rich crony capitalists, but the myth is present market participants are free market capitalists who believe coercion of employees is free market capitalism.

coercion is making someone do something without their consent through the threat of force, free market capitalism is freedom from the threat of force in the market without consent. that means people agree to work in exchange for money to pursue happiness

 

I agree completely, but would add that since what we call "capitalism" today is mostly crony capitalism that the term "free enterprise" might be more useful than "free market capitalism," especially, perhaps, since it was Marx who invented the word "kapitalist."
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005122700456

 

Market capitalism establishes compensation based upon the "market" (availability of qualified candidates) that has absolutely nothing to do with the value of labor.

How does free market capitalism remove the mandatory requirement for employment for the majority of the workers so that the person can say "No" to any job offer that fails to provide a "living wage" at any time without suffering the negative financial consequences of not having any income? Unless the person is independently wealthy they MUST accept employment even when it doesn't provide a "living wage" that will actually support the person and their household. It is the mandatory requirement to "work or starve" (be evicted, have the power turned off, not be able to afford any food) that creates coercion where a person is forced to accept employment that doesn't provide enough compensation for their household to pay their minimum-mandatory expenditures.

100 millions "workers" in America today cannot simply go out into nature, select 40 acres of free land, and start farming to support their household nor can they live like nomads in the wide open spaces of a pre-industrial age nation.

Employment is mandatory for the worker while employing is always optional for the business owner. It is the mandatory nature of "employment" that creates the coercion and a Free Market doesn't eliminate that mandatory requirement.

The only coercion the "capitalist" and the courts are concerned with is "direct coercion" and not market coercion. What percentage of employers do you think completely ignore the "market compensation rate" for different job positions and instead based compensation upon the financial needs and standard of living they believe their employees, as people, are entitled to? I would suggest it's a very small percentage and it's absolutely none of the employers that pay less than about $22/hr (plus benefits) for an untrained new hire off of the streets because the average family in American can't fully fund their expenditures with less income than that.

Anyway enough. These rants are pure BS and they're not even closely related to interpreting John Locke and don't even provide an argument against Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. All that you're stating is that in your "economic world" it's acceptable to violate the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person by the Capitalist that acquires the possession of property based upon "ownership" that violates the "right of possession" based upon the laws of nature.

Basically you support the tyrants that invented "ownership" so they could possess property what they have no right to possess. You even ignore the fact that "capitalism based upon owning property" is failing today because it violates the "right to possess property" while capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property that respects the "natural right to possess property" cannot fail, EVER.

So no more rants on your support for tyranny because that's not even closely related to the topic of this thread. From here on out either address the topic with intellectual honesty or "talk to the hand" because "railing" (ranting) us not an "argument" and it's certainly not worthy of response.

- - - Updated - - -

Market capitalism establishes compensation based upon the "market" (availability of qualified candidates) that has absolutely nothing to do with the value of labor.

How does free market capitalism remove the mandatory requirement for employment for the majority of the workers so that the person can say "No" to any job offer that fails to provide a "living wage" at any time without suffering the negative financial consequences of not having any income? Unless the person is independently wealthy they MUST accept employment even when it doesn't provide a "living wage" that will actually support the person and their household. It is the mandatory requirement to "work or starve" (be evicted, have the power turned off, not be able to afford any food) that creates coercion where a person is forced to accept employment that doesn't provide enough compensation for their household to pay their minimum-mandatory expenditures.

100 millions "workers" in America today cannot simply go out into nature, select 40 acres of free land, and start farming to support their household nor can they live like nomads in the wide open spaces of a pre-industrial age nation.

Employment is mandatory for the worker while employing is always optional for the business owner. It is the mandatory nature of "employment" that creates the coercion and a Free Market doesn't eliminate that mandatory requirement.

The only coercion the "capitalist" and the courts are concerned with is "direct coercion" and not market coercion. What percentage of employers do you think completely ignore the "market compensation rate" for different job positions and instead based compensation upon the financial needs and standard of living they believe their employees, as people, are entitled to? I would suggest it's a very small percentage and it's absolutely none of the employers that pay less than about $22/hr (plus benefits) for an untrained new hire off of the streets because the average family in American can't fully fund their expenditures with less income than that.

Anyway enough. These rants are pure BS and they're not even closely related to interpreting John Locke and don't even provide an argument against Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. All that you're stating is that in your "economic world" it's acceptable to violate the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person by the Capitalist that acquires the possession of property based upon "ownership" that violates the "right of possession" based upon the laws of nature.

Basically you support the tyrants that invented "ownership" so they could possess property what they have no right to possess. You even ignore the fact that "capitalism based upon owning property" is failing today because it violates the "right to possess property" while capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property that respects the "natural right to possess property" cannot fail, EVER.

So no more rants on your support for tyranny because that's not even closely related to the topic of this thread. From here on out either address the topic with intellectual honesty or "talk to the hand" because "railing" (ranting) us not an "argument" and it's certainly not worthy of response.

- - - Updated - - -

Market capitalism establishes compensation based upon the "market" (availability of qualified candidates) that has absolutely nothing to do with the value of labor.

How does free market capitalism remove the mandatory requirement for employment for the majority of the workers so that the person can say "No" to any job offer that fails to provide a "living wage" at any time without suffering the negative financial consequences of not having any income? Unless the person is independently wealthy they MUST accept employment even when it doesn't provide a "living wage" that will actually support the person and their household. It is the mandatory requirement to "work or starve" (be evicted, have the power turned off, not be able to afford any food) that creates coercion where a person is forced to accept employment that doesn't provide enough compensation for their household to pay their minimum-mandatory expenditures.

100 millions "workers" in America today cannot simply go out into nature, select 40 acres of free land, and start farming to support their household nor can they live like nomads in the wide open spaces of a pre-industrial age nation.

Employment is mandatory for the worker while employing is always optional for the business owner. It is the mandatory nature of "employment" that creates the coercion and a Free Market doesn't eliminate that mandatory requirement.

The only coercion the "capitalist" and the courts are concerned with is "direct coercion" and not market coercion. What percentage of employers do you think completely ignore the "market compensation rate" for different job positions and instead based compensation upon the financial needs and standard of living they believe their employees, as people, are entitled to? I would suggest it's a very small percentage and it's absolutely none of the employers that pay less than about $22/hr (plus benefits) for an untrained new hire off of the streets because the average family in American can't fully fund their expenditures with less income than that.

Anyway enough. These rants are pure BS and they're not even closely related to interpreting John Locke and don't even provide an argument against Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. All that you're stating is that in your "economic world" it's acceptable to violate the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person by the Capitalist that acquires the possession of property based upon "ownership" that violates the "right of possession" based upon the laws of nature.

Basically you support the tyrants that invented "ownership" so they could possess property what they have no right to possess. You even ignore the fact that "capitalism based upon owning property" is failing today because it violates the "right to possess property" while capitalism based upon the Natural Right of Property that respects the "natural right to possess property" cannot fail, EVER.

So no more rants on your support for tyranny because that's not even closely related to the topic of this thread. From here on out either address the topic with intellectual honesty or "talk to the hand" because "railing" (ranting) us not an "argument" and it's certainly not worthy of response.

 

i don't understand how it is off topic, a good interpretation of john lockes right to property will allow individuals to say no to employment that does not allow a living wage, under 'The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being' in section 26 of john lockes 'Second Treatise of Civil Government'.

but why should we make the worker dependent upon the capitalist for a living wage, instead of allowing said worker to create their own wealth as the capitalist?

a good interpretation of john lockes right to property will allow anyone who is incentivized by survival, or the right to life, to capitalize on property or land for themselves.

the native americans still owned the land without title to maintain their right to life, the founding fathers defeated them in lawful battle to create titles of ownership of the land for themselves, for their right to life. the natives could have shared in ownership of the land with proper title, but instead used violence to defend their ownership of it.

so we can interpret that to mean a 'person can say "No" to any job offer that fails to provide a "living wage"', simply by using their right to property to create wealth for themselves, instead of having it redistributed by a capitalist using their labors for them.

that is because under the freedom of free market capitalism, unlike the tyranny of crony capitalism, there is no coercion in the market, and the worker is free to create their own wealth by becoming a capitalist themselves..