We've had this discussion many times now my friend, and while I understand exactly where you're coming from, you seem to have a blind spot. Capitalism is not the free market. Any economy is concerned with two things: producing goods and distributing those goods. Capitalism's built-in class division is the same as in slavery, feudalism and anything else we've had since we stopped living like nomadic tribes; it's the few who own the means of production against the many who depend on those products. Your blind spot stems from an unfounded belief in some magical mechanism in which the accumulation of private wealth does not lead to those handful of people who own it all: Adam Smith called this "the invisible hand". Well, there is no such hand or any other mechanism that turns a fundamentally unjust system into some equitable equilibrium. If you can not understand that, we'll never agree on this point, but that's okay in a debate between so called free adults. Right?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You are stuck on these words. So, I will not say that magic word that you hate, capitalism. I will say free markets. I like free markets. What you are talking is a combination of different things which you label as capitalism and yet it is not that. So, you are making up stuff, you are lying, by conflating and putting a few things into one term called capitalism. An employer should own his stuff. That is a good thing. Are you for communism or socialism? I believe in free markets. Do you not believe in free markets? So, you want globalism as opposed to tribalism? I think you are describing aspects of communism, socialism, redistribution of wealth, Obamism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.
I believe you said somewhere that you are or that you were a teacher; I seriously doubt that, for teaching requires at least some modicum of intellectual prowess. I just said that capitalism is not the so called free market, and you simply go on with equating the two. You never read a word from Marx, that becomes clear in your every response, so stop using his teachings as a defense in your arguments. And how do you make the mental leap to conclude that I'm talking about redistributing wealth, when our entire discussion here revolves around the very existence of private property? How do you conclude that I want globalism as opposed to tribalism, when in fact I'm talking about global tribalism? Here's a free tip: go read some about economy, its history, try to at least have some inkling about what you're talking about before descending into these mindless rants about loving power... I really feel sorry for the kids in your class if you really are a teacher comrade.
Wealth and property is the same thing in some ways. You talked against tribalism. So, what is an alternative to tribalism if not globalism? Can I learn history from Stefan Molyneux who talked about how Rome fell? I love free markets. You refuse to say that you like free markets too. That means you probably don't like free markets. It is not so hard to agree that you like to trade. But it seems you refuse to acknowledge the value of trade. if you said you were ok with buying and selling, ten would have no reason to debate because we would agree on that. But you can't even say that. Instead, you just want to insult. You can say that I started by saying that I was insulting you. But I was simply describing what I was observing.