How to respond to this

[Proletarian]

You have no choice to pay a tax for a service you may or may not have chosen

you mean kinda like paying economic rent for simply have a place to exist?

You are a fucking moron communist. Piss off.

[BenTucker]

You have no choice to pay a tax for a service you may or may not have chosen

you mean kinda like paying economic rent for simply have a place to exist?

You are a fucking moron communist. Piss off.

communism is generally thought of as the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

ownership in common is the opposite of collective ownership (individual vs. group rights).

I advocate for the full product of labor to be owned by the laborer and the return on capital (if any at all under mutualism) profit/interest to be returned in full to the owner of the capital (minus corporate privileges).

but the return on land as one bundle right of ownership MUST remain owned in common as an individual right while the other bundled rights of ownership use, possession, enclosure, transferability remain owned privately inorder to protect the absolute right to wages of those being excluded inorder to uphold the right of ownership.

where have I argued for collective ownership of anything?

[Proletarian]

You argue for bullshit. End of story.

[rabidfurby]

the return on capital (if any at all under mutualism)

Yeehaw! Thanks for proving my point that what you are advocating, even if it's not exactly identical to communism (as you seem to think), shares exactly the same downfall.

The downfall of communism, and of socialism to a lesser degree (because socialism is just communism to a lesser degree) is that no one can profit. With pure communism, doctors and janitors get paid the same. Thus, there's negative profit in being a doctor compared to being a janitor - you put much more effort into it, and get absolutely nothing back in return.

If investors don't get a return on capital, as by your own admission would happen with your "mutualism", they simply won't invest. Why would I want to start of new business if I'll lose all the money I put into it if the business fails, yet won't see a dime in profit if the business suceeds?

where have I argued for collective ownership of anything?

There are individual rights and collective rights. This "individual rights in common" bullshit you won't shut up about is collective rights in sheep's clothing.

[BenTucker]

If investors don't get a return on capital, as by your own admission would happen with your "mutualism", they simply won't invest.

remove state privilege that protects profits and competition will make the natural wage of labor its product as profits are squeezed.

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Why would I want to start of new business if I'll lose all the money I put into it if the business fails, yet won't see a dime in profit if the business suceeds?

people will still be in need of food, shelter, clothing, etc. and someone will supply it.

I got news for ya - it won't be Wal-Mart

[rabidfurby]

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Yay Communism! Profits are evil! People will all hold hands and dance under a rainbow as soon as we abolish private property!

[Laetitia]

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Human nature is such that we will still compete, even while naturally cooperating in mutual benefit.
My husband says this is called coopetition - swears it's a real word, coined by the founder of Novell.

You can't change human nature.

[BenTucker]

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Yay Communism! Profits are evil! People will all hold hands and dance under a rainbow as soon as we abolish private property!

profits are only possible with the state's cartelization power.

without it competition will drive the price to the labor-product.

[BenTucker]

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Human nature is such that we will still compete, even while naturally cooperating in mutual benefit.
My husband says this is called coopetition - swears it's a real word, coined by the founder of Novell.

You can't change human nature.

remember - you will be "competing" with your friends and neighbors as local goods will be the least expensive to produce in a world without limited liability and with true cost pricing.

a much different scenario than global competition...

[Laetitia]

Competing against friends & neighbors is no different than now. Global competition is nothing but natural competitiveness, enlarged to global scale (hence the name global competition). Granted, government interference causes problems, but doesn't make the competition. We do that ourselves.

Again, you can't change human nature.

[BenTucker]

Competing against friends & neighbors is no different than now. Global competition is nothing but natural competitiveness, enlarged to global scale (hence the name global competition). Granted, government interference causes problems, but doesn't make the competition. We do that ourselves.

Again, you can't change human nature.

all I am suggesting is that "human nature" is different when people interact between others they know than from others they don't know...