how does governing the oneself and your line “since u don’t see a fellow being as an equal to u” relate to each other? i can govern myself no matter how i feel about others.

Nature is a collective resource.So as the goods moulded from raw material of the nature.

Dude what the hell are you talking about? You are just making declarative statements and expecting people to agree to it on its face value. Nature is not a collective resource, because its impossible to justify a bunch of people’s ownership on it. Also when people add their labor to an unclaimed part of nature, they create property, that is they own the product.
If there is a river flowing around and I bring you water from that river, you don’t think you need to pay me for it? You don’t think I should be able to auction off the water I put in the bottles?

Are the people (so called human labour) involved in making it usable are being benefitted properly or not?

That’s again a ridiculous question because you are just arbitrarily judging the definition of ‘properly’. And the problem here lies in a bigger socialism debates rather than the minimum wages being discussed here.
Almost all the people who complain about unfair wages have their own criteria of wages, I mean the question is who are you to decide what is the right wage? Why should we listen to your definition of a proper wage? And on what criteria are you claiming the wages are improper?

You just don’t understand what a Capitalist does, and your criteria is “look at that rich man he does nothing but invests his money and then at the end of the day he takes 90% of the profits from that business, that’s highly unfair”. The problem here is simple YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A CAPITALIST DOES. What that capitalist does is he facilitates longer production cycles. For example a Capitalist has no use in Shabri’s business who just want to pick berries. Why not? Because she goes to the nature, puts her labor into something not anyone else’s property(the berries) and picks them. Her job of picking berries to feed her stomach is completed in a day.
On the other hand if Shabri had to produce a capital good, like a large stick, which requires her to work 5 days to produce that stick, she can now use a Capitalist because now she will go through 5 days without any food, the Capitalist can step in, provide her food for 5 days in return take a pre-determined chunk out of her future production.

So lets say Shabri produces and eats 25 berries everyday, with the help of a stick she can produce 200 berries everyday and the stick will be useful for a year. But she cannot work for the 5 days she wants to work on producing that stick. So what option she has?

1) She saves 5 berries everyday for over 20 days, total of 100 berries and then she uses her savings of 100 berries to sustain the production process.
2) Capitalist feeds her for the 5 days of her production process in exchange Shabri promises to pay 100 berries out of 200 berries she will make every day.

If she opts for second situation you call that exploitation. But the question is why does Capitalist not deserve the share from the profits? Isn’t the only true reason why you think he does not deserve the profit share because you think he already has a lot and you don’t like him for some reason?

I mean what if the capitalist here is an old lady who has a saving of 100 berries? Should she not deserve the profit because she just happens to have a lot of berries with her already, or she deserves it because she is an old lady, and she been a young guy then she shouldn’t get it?

The answer here is, that you have no consistent moral theory by which you can say what is ‘properly’ or not. You just are throwing the term around as you deem fit, but there is no logical consistency here.

Wage becomes a right once you have kept your end of the bargain by doing whatever it is that you agreed to do in the contract.

Wage never becomes a right. there is nothing like right to wage, rather it is a choice, one may choose freely to offer his labor for a particular work for no wage, no return at all, we all keep doing so every now and then.

But there is right to make free, mutually beneficial contract, there is right to choose, there is right to compete for profit.

Once you make a contract freely, it becomes enforceable. Now neither you nor the other person/group can break or cheat that contract. If any of the party breaks or disrespects the sanctity of that contract (which actually represents the sanctity of your freedom to compete, freedom to choose, freedom to bargain and Freedom to own your own including your labor), that party becomes a criminal/offender and subject to punishment/penalty.

Please define “proper benefit”. According to people here, “proper benefit / wage” is that which has been mutually decided upon by the employer and the employee without any form of compulsion / coercion.

“Wage (polishly called salary) is a right, not charity.”

Are you saying I should get money for sitting on my *** and doing nothing??
Wage becomes a right once you have kept your end of the bargain by doing whatever it is that you agreed to do in the contract.

CAPITALISM:-“unequal sharing of blessings”
SOCIALISM:-“equal sharings of miseries”.

Dude this is what the problem is. You are very delusional. you think everything a man needs is just lying there in the nature, so capitalists try to unequally distribute these things, whereas the Socialists try to equally distribute them. But the truth is we don’t live in a society where fruits are just lying around and they can be conjured by a blink of eyes. If that were the case, that everything was readily available in the world and you didn’t even need someone to bring them to you rather you just had to blink your eyes then we will all be Socialists.

But that’s not true, the resources in nature aren’t ‘blessings’, they are parts of nature which needs to be converted into something usable by human labor, and then delivered to the humans. In Socialism you just somehow want everybody to magically work equally to feed everybody equally as a collective. In Capitalism, you allow every individual to get whatever he can from the nature, add his labor and keep the fruits of his labor. This means that if someone works more, and works to fulfil the more unique services of more people, then he deserves to keep more fruits of nature. Like a capitalist, who facilitates the production of product to service people.

This thought comes from a faulty assumption that the gain of one person is the loss of another; that the rich people become rich at the expense of the poor. However, the rich gains wealth by investing & chanelling the resources in such a way that he UNKNOWINGLY works for the maximum benefit of the society. In the process of making money, he creates employment & uplifts the economic conndition of the poor. In capitalism, there is no sharing of blessings or miseries.

CAPITALISM :- “98 people have Rs.100 & 2 people have Rs.2”
SOCIALISM :- “98 people have Rs. 2 & 2 people have Rs.100”

Which society would your “fully functional sensory organ” prefer? The one with more economic equality or the one with greater economic prosperity?

The total wealth in a capitalistic economy is much greater than in a socialist one; Hence, I believe the numbers given in this post are not too far fetched.

to find the cure a propoer diagnosis is required and not the other way round. and the austrian economics is the approach for diagnosis and not the cure.

moderators, can you provide permanant links to the reading material especially for the beginners or whoever want to learn the austrian school or about liberty.your blog makes someone to think and learn. With these links they can readily get acess to the beginner’s material

like
How an economy grow and how it doesnt (Comics) by Irwig Schiff
Economics in One lesson - Henry Hazzlit
Economic reasoning - David Gordan
An Introduction to Austrian Economics - Thomas Taylor
That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen - Federic Bastiat
Economics for Real People - Gene Callahan
etc etc

i can be of some help if needed