Since workers were born into a world that affirms private property, they obviously never gave it their consent.

It is just a fiction that developed its own life by the whip, blade, and gun, and also by the pen and press.

Most of the work of leftist criticisms has been simply deconstructing entrenched doctrine, to help expand consciousness, and to build capacity for liberation.

Ellerman seems to prefer instead constructing his own layer of obfuscation. It may antagonize the wage system, but it declines to deconstruct the deeper nature of moral ideals, social constructs, and legal frameworks.

It is worth becoming familiar with leftist criticisms of natural rights.

It feels elusive how anyone could spend so much, but controlling the content of mass media has been of great service for the interests of the Kochs and the Wilkses.

For you, is it more significant that many may achieve such wealth, or that many more may not do so?

I am not denying any of the differences, but the differences you both have with billionaires is even greater, as the billionaire occupies a role in society of power and domination, through control of resources and assets that are utilized socially, for the necessity that we produce our shared sustenance.

Mostly, Ellerman's approach is weighty and unwieldy, by capturing or complicating constructs that leftists have identified as unnecessary, unrobust, and outright fictitious.

Most leftists have no need for recovering natural rights, nor even have need of natural rights.

Workers might simply rebel against the exploiters, because workers have no wish and no need for being exploited.

You are probably not vastly different from a millionaire, just someone with less pomp and perhaps pretentiousness than some millionaires may have.

You may even know someone who secretly holds such wealth but feels too embarrassed to make it known.

A billionaire is someone who has the social role of controlling a vast section of society, through private ownership of resources and assets that are needed by others for use.

Ellerman, according to my understanding, has tended to approach liberal defenses of private property by attaching further abstractions and obfuscation that produce no particular further clarity above established leftist criticisms.

Since money of course is just the means of exchange, having it prevents the suffering resulting from deprivation being imposed.

Communism is not complacency or obedience.

It is simply the eradication of the systems of exploitation.

Exploitation and autocracy are expressly encouraged by particular structure, though, whereas antagonized by other.

I encourage seeking to develop those structures protect the empowerment of everyone.

I feel doubtful that a society being permanently stable is necessarily the most important objective.

Try to understand what people need and seek in their lives, and consider how certain organization may promote or impede their capacity to reach or to achieve such needs and wants.

Try not to worry about the absolute count of negative events or negative actors. Most important is the structural resilience against such stress.

I return to my original observation, that you are viewing human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, rather than being shaped by personal experience and social context.

In your view, every society is a failure in its essence, because humans are in their essence incapable of forming any society that is not a failure.

I encourage you to think about how societies may differ, one from another.

It is the only meaningful path.

Dwelling on the presumed intransigent darkness of humanity leads to nowhere. It is neither constructive nor particularly accurate.