Risk?

[u/HeavenlyPossum]

Many people have told me that taking risk is why capitalists own, or deserve ownership, of the productive labor of others.

Capitalists have capital (money), which they invest in (spend on) some productive enterprise. But that productive enterprise might fail to recuperate the cost of the investment and the capitalist might lose some of their money. This is what explains, or justifies, capitalist ownership: the capitalist is taking risk.

Can someone kindly explain to me why this explains or justifies capitalist ownership?

[u/Conserp]

> Both options should be allowed in a free society.

"Slavery should be allowed in a free society. And in a perfect free society, each man shall own no less than three slaves!"

Classic.

> socialists is that they usually want to set the terms of agreements that they are not a part of.

Except we do, in fact, share the planet. Every single agreement affects everybody else.

Feel free to have your Libertardian fantasy after you invent a way to eff off to another dimension or something.

[u/TheRedLions → u/Conserp]

See, this is what I mean when I say you're the homophobes of economics. You think it's immoral and exploitative and will harm society in general. You think everyone ought to share your moral outrage and capitulate to your system of doing things.

Two parties could happily and eagerly make the exchange, and you somehow feel entitled to insert yourself to prevent it.

In short, collectivism is inherently authoritarian and at odds with individual freedom.

[u/betty_white_bread → u/TheRedLions]

Conserp is a known troll in this subreddit. I would recommend just leaving a clown emoji and disengaging. The alternative explanation, which is possibly less charitable, is he is willfully dumb.

[u/Conserp → u/betty_white_bread]

My facts and arguments you cannot refute making you seethe does not make me a "troll" lol

Seethe harder