>>29
We're not talking about words, we are talking about definitions. Marx's definitions are pointlessly abstract, if you had intelligence exceeding that of a shortbread cheese cake you would realise this and if what you were studying was truly a science you would not use his definitions just as people studying chemistry do not use the term "phlogiston".
>>30
I'm sorry to say, but you are also an "artsy fartsy" type. You are no where near being an intellectual otherwise your line of thought would have gone directly towards proving the validity of marx's concepts instead of whining incessantly.
>>31
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/there
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/their
Morality actually hasa scientific basis, since we are all sentient and that fact is automatically important to a sentient being, whether they have emotions or not.
>>32
Note the distinction between the free market as envisaged by Adam Smith and the fantasy realm of capitalism envisaged by Karl Marx. Anarcho-capitalists have an equally tyrant loving economic system as socialists and communists.
>>33
A small number of monopolies can exist under criticism from a democracy enough to reduce corruption. Too many and many go from "good ones" to "bad ones".
>>34
Wrong. Adam Smith said nothing about redistribution, he revealed that redistributing wealth only leads to the corruption and waste of that money in an inefficient manner. Every unit of currency must be allocated to the upmost efficiency by people who have the incentive to do so. Redistribution makes the market less competetive and corrupts the value system capitalism depends on.
I have to go now brb