Your claim to tears betrays the truth. It isn't enough, is it?
Were they born to be those exceptions?
Or did they choose to become the exception that mattered?
No reason?
Reasons are there, I assure you. You may not want to accept what those reasons are, but they all stem from a logical flow of events. People turn to burglary because it is an expedient means to get what they desire in life and they wager the benefits outweigh the risks. With no self-discipline to curb them from choosing such behavior, and no consequences from those whom the robbed live among to increase the risk - the population of burglars will continue to increase.
Wars do not start for no reason. Not one in the history of mankind has been without reason. People do not get up off of their farms and risk life and property for no reason.
If you wish to put an end to these things - then you must first understand the reasons they exist in the first place, as opposed to simply rejecting them because they are 'yucky.'
But isn't that just it?
Whose bubble do you think you are living in? Your parents had this grand idea of a peaceful world and la-dee-da with the rest of Europe. They cheered for people who taught that all human beings were fundamentally good and taught that the past acts of war were wrong and that you all should feel guilty for the actions of your nations in perpetuity.
It was this 'bubble' of your parents that included this wondrous idea of inviting in all of these people from troubled areas of the world. They would witness the virtues of your grand world of virtue and comfort and just do what 'anyone would do' and do their part to live in that same little bubble, as well.
But that bubble is popping, now, isn't it... as it encounters reality.
When will yours pop?
I asked you, before... when are these criminal immigrants into your society leaving? When are they going to be made to change and adopt your principles?
This was when I advised you to learn to fight and to develop a taste for blood. They aren't leaving, and are there to take whatever they can from your society as they subject you (and everyone in it) to what they want and how they want to live.
No war comes without reason. No conflict comes without reason.
You are not part of the problem if you take up the sword to defend your own existence.
You don't have to know all the answers to how to make a better world. You don't have to know all of the answers to act to preserve yourself and those you love.
[video=youtube;xR9a1HPBeYM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR9a1HPBeYM[/video]
It's as Vegeta says. People have come to your society to destroy it. To suggest it is "enough" to settle for anything less than their purging from your society is absurd, as they will simply return to continue their destruction once they feel they have the upper hand.
There is some truth to the argument that there is a 'system' at work that is designed to steal from those who work. That said, the fallacy is that there's a system that can, by virtue, prevent this.
Again, these things don't happen without reason. I'll explain this a bit more thoroughly in my response to the next person.
As opposed to being owned by a centralized idea where all use of land and human endeavors are subject to the rulings of people who are nominated for their 'virtue?'
Or what?
The very idea that you have a problem with the privatized ownership of land suggests that you, personally, believe yourself to have claim to the world. I'm an Earth Dragon. It's mine. Now that that argument is settled, I've seen fit to allow the creatures that crawl across my skin to use it as they see fit.
Disregarding the absurd argument of authority I just made for the purposes of the lulz - the belief that a person has the right to own property is an extension of the instinct of humans to have territory. I live in my house, I tend the grounds of my house, I have invested myself and my efforts in my surroundings that I have deemed "mine."
The question is not whether or not I have a right to do so. The question is whether or not I will feel threatened when another person attempts to take, change, or otherwise assert themselves over what is "mine" without showing any regard for my existence. In other words - if a group of people show up and tell me that they will throw me in a cage if I don't comply with their claims that the land is theirs to use (regardless of who they claim to represent) - will I feel as though those people have wronged me, and will I be discouraged from working with those people in the future?
Then - the question is whether or not "I" represent those feelings that would be felt by most normal people. Do most people invest themselves into personal territory ("property") and feel betrayed when those claims are violated?
Since that is demonstrably the case throughout history...
The issue is not one of how property rights are evil, it is how property rights are a fact of human society that must be incorporated into any functional society - to include those things that amount to a "corporation."
But, there is a bit of a problem. The small number of corporations you reference is not what would be expected in a free market. In fact, it only exists because of the fact that governments have been given the authority to print currency and are, effectively, the source of all capital. Because governments are the source of capital, they can pick and choose who will first receive that capital and what endeavors warrant its appropriation.
This is called fascism.
Money is what has made human advancement beyond small villages possible. It is a tool of freedom.
Barter systems are incredibly inefficient and require the coincidence of wants. Someone has to have what you want, when you want it, in exchange for something they want, when you have it.
How many eggs is a street performer worth? How many chickens would you give to go see a play in a theater? How many hours of carpentry is a painting for the mantle worth?
Money allows, most crucially, for the storage of specific tasks into a medium that is both capable of being accrued into larger quantities necessary to satisfy needs as well as divisible into smaller portions to satisfy wants.
Without money, many pursuits of things liberals value would simply not be practical. A theater is practical as an economic endeavor because people can split off the logging, forging, accounting, writing, welding, etc they did during the day and exchange an agreeable portion of that value (which can't be expressed in the product/service provided) with the theater to be divided between the various staff that produce the entertainment.
Books - both of pure entertainment value and of educational value become a practical economic endeavor. A book can be written about a subject that enriches the minds of others for a small transaction. A rancher doesn't have to first trade a cow for enough flowers to persuade the carpenter to build a table for enough gravel to trade for the flour I intend to purchase with the sale of the book. He can give the shop clerk an ounce of fine silver and by time it filters through the people who helped me distribute the book to that place - I get a quarter ounce of silver.
Stack that across thousands of sales - and writing books for a living becomes a practical endeavor for living life. I like writing books - I can make a living writing books because money allows that to become a possibility. It allows us to concentrate what people are only willing to pay a little bit for into something that allows us to make a realistic living.
For some of the things we want to do - we do have to earn more money to persuade others to commit to such tasks. Why should a miner (or a group of them working in a company) give up tons of ore to smelt into the metal I need to perform a particular construction task? Money means we can exchange our ambitions. They want to earn money so they can do other things - the have a house they wish to improve, they have a car they want to buy, or they want a bit more meat in their diet ... whatever... I don't have to know or really care. Likewise - they don't have to know or care about why I want the ore (or, by proxy, the processed metals I am buying) - they set their prices so that on any given amount of work/product - they earn a certain amount. The purchase of their product gives me what I want/need to produce an ambition and gives them what they need to convert into the means to produce an ambition.
Money is a wonderful tool that we would be remiss to demonize.
That said - it can be corrupted. Like I said - when governments (or any centralized entity) assumes to print the currency used in these exchanges, the potential exists for abuse. Printed currency is convenient, but is not money - or, at least, it possesses no more intrinsic value than the paper it is printed on.
Money has an intrinsic value. At some point in time, someone had to dig the metal out of the ground and smelt it. That person would not have exchanged it without something of perceptibly equal or greater value being presented (or without a fight). In this, a money is based upon a proof-of-work. The silver I have is proof that someone has done work to process it and is proof that I have given them something in exchange for it - that I have done work. During an exchange, all one has to do to verify that I have helped society is just look at the silver coinage and it is self-evident. No trust is required. They don't need to know who I am, what I've done, etc. By virtue of the medium in the exchange, the exchange is justified on the spot.
In this sense, there are creators of money - but the money is never destroyed. The silver printed remains in circulation, and virtually all of the gold ever produced in the history of mankind still exists in bullion or brick form. Thus, money is never destroyed.
On the other hand, printed money can create a problem, regardless of who prints money. When the U.S. Treasury first started issuing paper notes, the idea was that for every printed bill in circulation, there existed an equivalent amount of gold or silver to back what the note's stated value was. When the U.S. Federal Reserve was created, the idea was that you could turn in your U.S. Dollars for a promise to repay you Federal Reserve Dollars plus interest.
If you take in $50(U.S.) to back the value of 50 $1(FR) notes... but promise to pay back $55(FR) ... then where do you get the $5?
You have to borrow that into existence, as well.
Eventually, you run out of $(U.S.) to borrow, and just begin borrowing Federal Reserve notes. In essence, you pay the Federal Reserve $100 with a promise for them to pay you back $105 that they have to borrow into existence.
This leads to a continuously inflating currency where there is always more debt in the system than there is actual currency. It enriches those who have the authority to issue currency while devaluing those who use the currency further down in its circulation before it is ultimately collected in the form of income taxes that take the currency out of circulation (effectively).
Those who have the authority to issue newly printed federal reserve bonds effectively get to determine whose efforts are worth the most value to society and who gets to be paid.... with some allowance for the appearance of a free market because of the purchases made by large government contractors, their employees, etc.
That is a form of slavery, though more subtle, it does begin to feel more like slavery as the currency continues to inflate and people continue to devote an increasing amount of time to working purely to make ends meet (where the same job 30 years ago, even when making less per hour, was still able to provide a rather comfortable living with adequate savings).
Money is a sacred thing. It is an important vehicle for the function of a free, peaceful society with individually empowered people. It is far too important of a matter to give to any central issuing authority.
