"I demand that it be this other way" isn't a branch of ethics either. And labeling some aspect of the existing way as "theft" doesn't make your argument any stronger. Neither does labeling it "narcistic psychopathy".
If we're going to live a better life than in the stone age, we need tools that are better than stones. The more sophisticated tools are beyond the ability of one person to both make and use them - they take too much time to make. So we wind up with a specialized economy where different people make the tools and use the tools. And they both deserve to be rewarded - the tools enable much more to be produced; those who made that possible deserve to share in the rewards.
But we're a money economy rather than a barter economy, because barter doesn't scale all that well. Well, in a money economy, if someone is going to use a tool they didn't build, then someone has to buy the tool - either the tool user or an investor. If the tool user doesn't have the money, then it has to be an investor.
Do you demand that the investor do so for free? That doesn't sound fair. (It also doesn't sound like it will actually happen - why should the investor invest if there is no expectation of a return?)
So now we have three people who need to share in the rewards - in tool maker, the tool user, and the tool buyer. And it is perfectly fair that all three share in the rewards. It is unfair to expect the investor to invest for free.
Like I said, we can have a conversation about the amounts that different ones receive. But that's a completely different conversation from "everything that goes to the investor is theft".
>It is unfair to expect the investor to invest for free.
Ok, but in the case of negative market returns, the expectation is that you get no returns. If the investor randomly demands not having to get market returns then who is going to make up the difference if not the investor? The tax payer? That is the answer the average citizen has chosen and they like it.
Your response doesn’t make any new claims or derive any new principles, you’re simply regurgitating capitalist propaganda.
In fact this trope about the “stone age” tells me you have a eurocentric idea of the history of humanity - eg:
“people are fundamentally selfish, things were bad, then society developed and now things are better”
Which is just a totally fabricated history
All your questions will be answered by reading, chapter 4 of Prudhon “What is property?”
Except in extremely rare cases, hoards of wealth come from inequitable deals - that is, someone chooses a bad deal for themselves under duress
If you want things to be better than the stone ages then stop acting like “might makes right” is an ethical position, its “stone age” philosophy that needs to end
People ARE fundamentally selfish in any groups above 150-200 where the social net breaks down. Most groups of animals don't stay group-serving in giant groups, we are no different.[1] In groups small enough to be inside the social net, tribe survival dynamics work great.
> things were bad, then society developed and now things are better”
Things are not great. Technology makes them better though. Man can't easily escape technology today, but it is the fundamental trade-off society offers at the cost of social health.
> All your questions will be answered by reading, chapter 4 of Prudhon “What is property?”
Here's one question that it won't answer: Why should I believe Proudhon? Sure, he may sound correct. Lots of other people sound correct, too. What is your basis for saying that I should listen to Proudhon rather than all these other people?
> If you want things to be better than the stone ages then stop acting like “might makes right” is an ethical position, its “stone age” philosophy that needs to end
I did not advocate that as an ethical position - you're imputing that to me. I deny you the right to tell me what my ethical position is. And you should stop trying, not just because you don't have the right, but also because you're lousy at it.
I'm done with the conversation, since you seem quite clearly to be uninterested in listening. I will leave you the last word if you want it.
You just seem to think that there is no other way for some reason
How can you just wave away the narcissistic psychopathy of capital return requirements?
On what philosophical principle are you basing your position on?
I’m not really sure how you can stand on any kind of principal here when all you’re doing is capitulating to the existing power structures
“It’s just the way it is” isn’t a branch of ethics