[quotemstr]

There's no contradiction. My position is that society as a whole benefits when we allocate scarce resources to their most productive ends, and the system of ownership and profit optimization does just that. Adam Smith was right about the invisible hand.

[enwa]

I certainly think there is a contradiction. If you want to base your opinions on some grand theory that is on you. How to apply Adam Smith's theories in modern society is certainly up for debate, e.g:

https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-s...

[quotemstr]

This comment exemplifies a style of argumentation that's become very common. It doesn't address the central point. Instead, it reiterates the commentator's position while using FUD and misleading links to ideological blogs to create the false impression that well-established ideas are "up for debate". Climate deniers use the same schtick for the same reason.

The linked article is one of those tedious affairs that tries to deconstruct what Smith the man may have thought about contemporary mercantilist politics or something. It's not an indictment of Smith's ideas, which are timeless.

I am sick and tired of people today attempting to dismiss profound and influential ideas by pointing out that the people who formulated these ideas were complicated people.

Aren't the people prone to doing this supposed to believe in the "death of the author"?

[enwa]

You are the one using rhetoric like "taking of my property" and "repulsive manipulation", rhetorical questions, dictating that "there is no contradiction" and trying to bury the discussion by referring to larger theories and now even invoking climate deniers. If you don't add anything to the discussion then don't expect anything back.

If your resistance against something is motivated by a theory, then clearly what you are against exists in opposition to that theory. So by definition the theory, or at least its connection to what you are against, can't, or is very unlikely to, be well-established. At least not among the people acting against it. Which makes your argument faulty and the majority of this discussion meaningless.

I certainly think people have a greater expectation to control their living costs than they have to control companies. But that isn't even the issue.

The issue is that you say that stocks have an expectation of control regardless of justification. But then justify why there shouldn't be rent control with the same justification you were warning people against. You say your motivation for this is that, based on these theories, you agree with control over stocks, but not over rent. Which means that you are effectively saying that an expectation is only as good as its justification and not that an expectation shouldn't be affected by justifications. Leaving little practical argument left about why you can't move control away from stocks if there is a good enough justification.