|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:10 AM EST |
"Capitalism, noun: an economic system in which investment in
and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private
individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to
cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
Far from being a side issue, property is the core issue for
capitalism. The fact that you can so blithely discard it
shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
To be fair, you are not alone, many people do seem to
conflate "capitalism" with "free market economy", but the
two are actually totally distinct and, in theory, it is
possible to have a capitalist system with a severely
restrained economy (actually quite common, and examples are
frequently used to "prove" that capitalism doesn't work -
which makes no sense whatsoever) or to have social ownership
of the means of production, distribution, etc. but still
have a free market economy (one late era eastern European
communist economist proposed such as a way to save communism
in the soviet block - which proposal went nowhere, so this
is pure theory only).
Your posting looks really silly to me in the light of the
actual definition of "capitalism" - you may want to revise
your opinions.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:01 PM EST |
Tenet: a guiding ideal or principle
Tenant: one who pays to occupy property
owned by another
Your careless and sloppy use of language simply
emphasizes your careless
and sloppy thinking.
In a free society,
the government does NOT have a monopoly on the use of
lethal force - see the
Second Amendment, the Federalist Papers, and numerous
other
sources.
I would add that it is not the proper duty of government to
force people to do, or
not do, certain things "for their own good" - which
in practice means "conforming
to the prejudices of whoever managed to get
the law passed". Any law that does
not protect some individual or group from
actual harm, as opposed to outraged
sensibilities, is a bad one. There seems
to be an endless supply of individuals
just tormented by the conviction that
somebody, somewhere, is doing something
they don't approve of, and no limit
to the restrictions they will place on everybody,
"For Their Own
Good".
----------------------
Gentlemen!! You can't fight in here --
this is the War Room![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
