Hard work is not necessarily rewarded 

= the Labor Theory of Value is false.

This includes the advertising industry, mercenaries, professional soldiers, corporate lawyers, and accountants. 

?
??
???
????
?????

I don't know if laugh, cry, respond (heavily), or what. Seriously.

But at least you should see the cognitive dissonance of attacking accountants when regulation and taxation is what gives them work... to a large degree corporate lawyers too... or the other cognitive dissonance of saying hard work is the be all and end all and then saying mercenaries and professional soldiers are useless...

Hence it did have a purpose, albeit a very negative one that didn't benefit the community as a whole. 

= didn't create value. And never would. But hey, it was hard work!

and the dividends made from patenting it. 

I don't believe in the patents system as it exists today, and other than invention patents, I pretty much would get rid of everything called the misnomer "intellectual property".

Giving them the opportunity to do this has never resulted in them actually doing it, because they are not motivated by generosity, and they do not create jobs because they want to as some sort of civic responsibility. 

Of course not. They create jobs because workers are needed for something. Generosity has nothing to do with it.

When you don't tax the wealthy, the tax burden to finance their wars, bail-outs, and corporate ventures instead falls to the working class, and predominantly the portion known as the "middle class," and the national deficit only increases. 

When I propose to lower taxes on companies and on capital, I am not proposing to raise taxes on anyone else instead. Why would I do that? I hate all taxes equally.

When you do not regulate them, you end up with things like speculation-based investing and companies that charge whatever they please, and exploit the environment however they please, 

All companies charge whatever they please, come on! As well they should. If you don't like their prices, buy elsewhere. That's your vote. Environmental regulation mostly exists to fine people and companies, so no wonder you consider it good. And speculative investment... if you really think thousands of pages of regulations on companies are really even *about* speculative investment, you're trying to delude yourself. Companies in the real economy will never even bother with any of those activities. Oh, and btw, the corporate lawyers and the accountants thank your generosity and civic responsibility on creating jobs for them.

and this along with the accompanying loss of safety net programs most certainly do not benefit the working class. 

Are you aware that safety net programs are created by a regulation which says "Let there be safety net programs"?

There would be no need for competition in the first place if the system was based on cooperative social ownership. 

There is no "need" for competition.

It is simply what happens when individuals are left alone to figure things out and solve problems in their own ways as they discover them.

It is not imposed from above. It is the order which appears spontaneously.

That motivation is based on making more money, and not on benefiting the public. If no prospect of making a profit is there, then it won't happen no matter how much it may have benefited the collective good.

Plenty of charities / NGOs testify to the contrary.

People who are motivated to do some thing for another's good [that is the correct phrase; there is no such thing as the collective good] for free, are not going to be stopped, and are not stopped, by the existence of private property, capitalist run companies and functioning if distorted markets.

This is the falsest dichotomy of all I've ever seen from you.

If anything, I'd say it's not either / or between a strong private enterprise and strong voluntary assistance; but either both or none. It is very well known and studied that Americans donate more than Europeans, and that conservative Americans donate more than liberal Americans. That Europeans more than Americans and liberal Americans more than conservative Americans don't donate "because that's what the state social programs are for". The same state social programs that spend 80 cents or more out of every dollar on bureaucrats.

A lot prevents giving "freebies," because it constrains profits.

Walmart didn't care to lose them to help residents out during Katrina. Even though the residents only lacked flat screens, and not food or water.

They aren't banned from altruistic works, but they are not encouraged to invest money in anything simply because it was altruistic. It has to make a sizable profit to warrant the investment, and whether or not it helps or hurts the working class in the long run is entirely irrelevant. Capitalist rules of production do not bring out the best in humanity, but feed off of and encourage our most base forms of behavior. 

And yet, they do.

Most of the investment in art museums today is private.

The private share of investment in nature reserves and habitat preservation today is rising strongly.

Who would have thought that people may have valued other things than direct financial gains? Enough so as to throw out millions at museums and nature reserves!



I love you, but your above post sounds like made on drugs. And the problem is, you were actually sober.






Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail