If a union decided they were going to go into the factory and work for themselves men with guns and little metal insignias would show up to stop them
You mean if a union decided it was going to take over a factory built and paid for by the owner/investors for themselves, men with guns and little metal insignias would show up to stop them.
If that same union saved up enough money to open its own factory, to run how it desires, no one would show up to do anything. This is why you're wrong. You don't have a right, just because you are 10 people working in a factory, to take over the factory from its owners and investors. You can quit, and go start your own factory. If 100 people working a factory save for two or three years they can easily get a loan to help cover the costs of starting something similar of their own. As long as they aren't stealing the products from their competitors, and instead are developing their own competing products, absolutely nothing can or should be done to stop them.
Why does your philosophy always attempt to justify outright immoral behavior like theft?
Just because 100 people get together to rob someone doesn't make it right.
Ad populum fallacy writ large by sociopaths is what this argument is.
If someone doesn't pay their rent or their mortgage, men with guns and little metal insignias show up to kick them out.
If you're renting, and you don't pay and remain living in the residence, you're stealing from the rental properties' owner.
If you're buying and you haven't finished paying your mortgage and stop paying, you're stealing from the lender who gave you the mortgage.
Again. Same bad argument. And no, just because banks are immoral faggotst does not justify individuals being immoral faggots. Two wrongs fallacy is two wrongs.
If someone doesn't pay back their loan (with interest) well...eventually men with guns and little metal insignias will show up assuming they don't allow their shit to be taken by repo men first.
Loans right now have almost no interest, but that's besides the point. You signed that loan document. If you have a problem with the terms, or think they are exploitative, take it to court. That's why the courts exist, literally that's why the loan documents include contracts. If the court doesn't agree, too bad. That's how we have set up our society to mediate these issues. It is just and fair.
The three pillars of capitalism (profit, interest, and rent) are all predicated on the use of force. That force is (rhetorically, not actually) justified on the basis that exchange of money validates the condition of ownership no matter what (even if the fact of that ownership is used to take advantage of other people's desperation).
If you're stealing, people have a right to stop you. If you resist, they have a right to subdue you. You were in the wrong for stealing in the first place. That's how justice works.
And yes, exchange of money does validate ownership. Because money is a symbol, a representation, a bank note of value. It literally symbolizes the exchange of one object of value for another, be that object of value time, or a physical product, or even a digital one. There is nothing unjust about this. If it weren't "money" it would be "bushels of grain" or "tenpence" or "an ounce of silver".
Money is just a piece of paper that represents a chunk of exchangable value. Its not magic. Its a substantive, real world exchange of one good or service for another. The money facilitates the exchange by simplifying it, so that instead of exchanging 800,000 bushels of grain for a new car, I can just hand over a symbolic value of the 800,000 bushels of grain, which I sold elsewhere, for the car, which I'm purchasing here.
Communists: Over complicating simple shit and investing it with voodoo rituals since 1848.
