How do we convince rightists that private property is based off of theft, exploitation and profit...

How do we convince rightists that private property is based off of theft, exploitation and profit, rather than success and muh work ethic?

I read an article saying that most millionaires, in the US at least, are self-made, having little or no inheritance. I don't know how true that is, and I saw it a while ago, but it's a really common idea, that most rich people are how they are not beacuse they worked *hard* (like sweatshop workers) but beacuse they worked *smart* and they were lucky.

That's the overriding sort of idea on Reddit and HN anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised, can't be too hard to crack one million in net wealth with a house and a small business

As to OP's question, just point out that there's actually no correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance, because once you get past a certain level in the corporate world executives/CEOs essentially become politicians.

Company does well? That's entirely due to the efforts of the executive/CEO in question
Company does badly? Well obviously the markets were against us, 2016 was a tough year…

I mean Carly Fiorina's business record is like the gold standard for failing upwards

Be clever in your response, give them the right resources and let it go. If they're sincere then they'll educate themselves. If not then it wasn't meant to be.

You don't, because it's not.

State property is always theft, user, because the guy enforcing it does not possess the will of the State, except under ideal conditions. But under ideal conditions, whatever organization from monarchy to anarchy, would work perfectly so the point is moot.

Private property is theft only when you steal it from another guy who was there before you.

It works like this:
Plants steal each other the sunlight.
Herbivores eat plants.
Carnivores eat Herbivores.
Man sets the records straight.
Deal with it or keep kidding yourself.

does she really fails? If the system rewards her, it means she is doing a good job. When an investor loses money someone else gains money or assets in proportion.

It's theft 100% of the time then. I am glad we can agree on something.

You don't because any understanding of property they have is just an excuse to express their confused social views.

...

this explains a lot

I'd say Angry Cat posters are usually decent and wrote long responses.

AnCom posters are a mixed bag, there are some really nice, chilled out mates but there are also a few AnCom punks who are dumb as a rock. Applies to my own flag as well, I'd sadly have to say - however I think most tankie shitposts aren't really serious but AnCom shitposts come over as concerningly unironic.

Mutualist flags are absolute cancer in my experience.

Of course. If your goal is to amass wealth, is it smarter to work hard for someone else who will extract your surplus value, or to find a way to extract the surplus value of others who are themselves working hard?

Imo, achieving the ownership of property is somewhat based off success and some luck, so don't try to argue from that angle. You can still however bring into question its legitimacy as a concept. Young plantation owners probably worked hard to secure enough funds to by slaves, but does this legitimize the ownership of other people? At this point you will probably be hit with the "but wagecucks are voluntary!!1!" argument. Just double down and persist on them showing evidence for the ownership of property being natural or just, the concept of such things as property rights being voluntary opens a can of worms for the rightist. Who consents to the private ownership of property? just the "owners" of said property? or the society at large that works at it to produce what is needed?
Since its existence is an infringement on the individuality of others who must we go to, to consent to it's existence?

It's not voluntary when the only other option is dying of exposure/starving to death. It's coercion. If I hold a gun to your head and give you the option of eating my load, or eating a bullet, it's not "voluntary" just because I'm letting you pick one or the other. You can't even go innawoods and try to live off the land by farming and building a shelter, since it's all "owned" by the state who will send men with guns to kidnap you and lock you in a cage if they catch you doing so.

this all the way
but I have still seen deluded "an"caps and lolburgs try and defend this because its all magically consented to. Consent alone I would say is a fucking tricky foundation to base your moral arguments off because of how it can be forced or manufactured with such ease.

It's definitely a blindspot most lolberts share. They can perfectly understand the consent/coercion issue when it comes to the state, but will then turn around and do a 180 and defend an identical situation involving coercion when it comes to corporations. Literally It's okay when corporations do it :^). It's one of the things that really bother me about Molyneux, for example.

The fact that Molyneux is Molyneux tends to bother me about Molyneux, but I suppose we are on different wave length comrade.

how does the Not-A-State manage personal property rights in Anarchism?

Protip:
It don't

also

Don't try to appeal to rightist as a whole. Focus on groups with weak natural support for capitalism (traditionalists, European new right…) rather than ancaps and the like. They are also more sensitive to arguments on alienation/atomization and the like than arguments on theft/exploitation.

You can't as long as you look and talk like someone who couldn't acquire private property for themselves. A weak person telling a strong person that war is pointless is not convincing its like an ugly person tell a beautiful person that beauty is useless. Sorry

Which is why the economic angle is not optimal. Arguments on the "degeneracy"/alienation/etc… caused by capitalism are much stronger for that target audience. Leftist movements almost never pursue this approach as historically they have been associated and have recruited people associated with what the right considers "degenerate". This is a pity as this is by far the best approach.

Oh yeah, I completely agree. I'm just a bit of a narcissist. I find myself arguing with other ancoms frequently cause they're smashie punks.