Author Topic: RY  (Read 172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,809
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
« on: October 13, 2020, 12:21:18 PM »
Quote from: Living in Modern Times
Unfortunately, it's not just extremists like purple haired person depicted in this meme who believe that capitalism is to blame for the problems they face. In reality, free markets have lifted billions out of poverty and we need to move closer to pure free market capitalism, not ask the state to control even more segments of the economy.

➽ Reply to: Capitalism has failed.  ➽ ➽ 200 years ago 85% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today that number is less than 9%.
What, specifically, does Capitalism mean to anybody engaging in a Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Communism discussion/debate/argument? Ditto the other labels.

I find labels generally, and these labels specifically, to be worthless. Unless the meanings of these terms are understood, the bickering continues without understanding.

There's a saying I saw on a shingle on a back road: If you eat, you're part of agriculture. Thank you unknown farmer for giving me that concept.

If you purchase food, you're part of capitalism. If you and a friend trade music CD's, ones you don't like for ones you like better, you're part of capitalism.

This comment of mine is only because I'm still cogitating on the topic that I've seen many bickering about.

I would like to engage in discussion with all the opposing sides for my own edification. Which would also present things to consider for all the sides. 2¢
respect for private property...
My understanding is that the anti-cap side observes a difference between Private Property and Personal Property.

Further, my understanding of that side, Private Property is, for lack of better words or cognition, what I would call Common Property "Appropriated" for "private" utilization.

Because of these label's and term's meanings, intended or ignored, I must translate respect for "private" property to respect for property owned by an (an)other.
besides tooth brushes, these terms are intentionally fuzzy. (Laptops, cloths, cars, etc... Remain a grey area because there is no clear foundational logic for these claims. So, (somehow) theoretically these items are "common." Practically, they are utilized by a politically privileged few.

You're right, respiratory is key. Which is why I'd never advocate something as important as ajudication to a monopoly.
Intentionally fuzzy by whom and for what purpose?

I have dipped my toe into the issue with a discussion about "property"...

IMO, something like the Earth is owned by "everybody" and "nobody" at the same time.

So the fact that access to the planet and its resources is a requirement for life. Enter the Socialist's complaint: To own is to control: to own and control is to deny others the resources for life. And the Capitalist's complaint, resources were expended making trees bear more fruit. That is, the tree's fruit production was increased by capitalization.

For whatever reason, a capitalist owns an appropriated chunk of earth and thus has captured the means of production of the fruit.

The Marxist Socialist thinks the Capitalist's means of production shouldn't be owned by the Capitalist. And according to that line of thought, the capitalist has "private property" meaning a chunk of land and its resources. Definitely different from toothbrushes, "Laptops, cloths, cars, etc... "

I don't have time at this moment to fully flesh out my thoughts, so this post can be thought of as a warmup primer.
why? To maintain the illusion there is still a debate. By who? Whoever's promising these magic solutions without trade offs.

This debate ended when the Kremlin used a copy of the Sears catalog to set prices for their economic calculations. Sense, value is subjective, it cannot be centrally mandated. That's not even taking account of the 1/4 billion deaths (in the 20th century alone) this loonacy has lead to. (It should have ended when Marx knocked up his maid and refused to take responsibility for their children)

If prohibitions on private property we're good ideas you wouldn't need force or a monopoly on accepted violence to enact them...
Okay. Finally had some time to read and think. Though in more than one post, it looks to me that your definition of "Capitalism" means having respect for private property.

Which, IMO, means respecting the owner of that property.

Notice I did not label the property as "private". Meanings of terms can end up being very important in discussions, and a failure to understand the other side's meanings for a given word or term destroys polite discourse. Regardless, I piss people off because I challenge the meanings of the words used. I want no arguments caused by equivocation, yet there are those who refuse to present what they actually mean and intend with a word.

Without that equivocation nipped in the bud... It was/is my intent to understand the Socialist mindset.

Where this crosses the trajectory of my narrative and agenda is where it requires government to make Socialism happen. I don't think the Socialists understand the irony of their claim that capitalism needs government, its force and its violence, to make Capitalism happen. In my crystal ball, I see Socialism of the Marxist and Leninist variety needing government, its force and its violence, to make Socialism happen. /Digression.

In order to respect property, property rights, and the owner of any given property, that property needs to be owned. And that ownership needs to be justly acquired... As well as being known as being owned.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 01:12:33 PM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters