|
|
On July 03 2012 20:35 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 17:32 WhiteDog wrote:
Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left. Show nested quote +
Capitalism and free market aren't the same thing. Capitalism is "an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit".
Is Obama against private ownership of the means of production ? No, so he is not an anticapitalist.
Hes not against the ownership of production... but he is for control of it. ...hence ObamaCare. Romney too, although there's talk about repealing it, if you've read some of the previous articles I've posted, What Romney did in his home state was like a prequel to ObamaCare... both have different ideas of how you should be your brother's keeper, but have the same end game.
Erm, the ACA has nothing to do with state-ownership of production. The ownership of the means of production remains private, so by definition it is not anticapitalist. In fact, even the public option - which is not in the ACA - would not put into question the capitalist nature of the US' economic system.
On July 03 2012 20:35 Epocalypse wrote:
Oh and Capitalism is a social system...
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
No, capitalism is an economic system. Look it up in the dictionary, not on aynrand.org.
|
Google: Define Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
The more important point that this definition fails to capture is "based on individual rights" so the previous definition I have makes it more clear, identifies the essentials, and separates it from everything else. Definitions are very important.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
|
On July 03 2012 22:03 Epocalypse wrote:
Google: Define Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
The more important point that this definition fails to capture is "based on individual rights" so the previous definition I have makes it more clear, identifies the essentials, and separates it from everything else. Definitions are very important.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
Your definition is a bullshit one from Ayn Rand. It's about as legit as using Marxist definition of capitalism.
Only a quack like you would operate with your definition in any sort of serious discussion.
|
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow.
Plus, you do realize that taking the right to property absolutely directly implies slavery, right?
|
On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow.
I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers).
Hello, tragedy of the commons!
|
On July 03 2012 22:03 Epocalypse wrote:
Google: Define Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
The more important point that this definition fails to capture is "based on individual rights" so the previous definition I have makes it more clear, identifies the essentials, and separates it from everything else. Definitions are very important.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
Merriam-Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market".
Collins dictionary: "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions".
You're welcome.
|
On July 03 2012 17:24 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 16:43 WhiteDog wrote:On July 03 2012 16:22 Epocalypse wrote:Article describes differences between world views... How one party can view an event in one way, and when another party views the same event, they view it different. Also reminds me of when Obama antagonized George Stephanopoulos for daring to look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary. http://onforb.es/MRMVSzClarity and Exact definitions work to the advantage of the honest. I've never read such a stupid article. Obama is an anti-capitalist now ? What the... Made me laugh out loud that someone could think otherwise. Romney is not a capitalist either, neither is the republicant party but they claim to be. Both are defenders of mixed economies, but are looking to push things to the left.
The capitalism that you seek is a fairy tale that can only exist in some abstract fantasy. It's little different from the kind of "pure" ccommunism that some idiots harp on about when they spew out their apologia for their impossible socio-economic system.
|
On July 03 2012 22:30 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow. I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers). Hello, tragedy of the commons!
What? That makes no sense in terms of everything being privately owned. Someone would own the air or water before anyone uses it. The idea that "we own what we use" is, if anything, a communist idea. And that's just downright confusing.
And I believe the politically correct term is Randroid.
|
On July 03 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 22:30 sunprince wrote:On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow. I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers). Hello, tragedy of the commons! What? That makes no sense in terms of everything being privately owned. Someone would own the air or water before anyone uses it. The idea that "we own what we use" is, if anything, a communist idea. And that's just downright confusing. And I believe the politically correct term is Randroid.
The newer models prefer their entire name be used, as in, "Good morning, Ayn Randroid Peikoffbot.
|
|
|
Reading you is sad Epocalypse. Capitalism is not a social system, capitalism can exist in democracy, facism, dictature or whatever (even if it is sure more efficient in some political system than others).
There is a reason why it is communism and socialism that are against capitalism, because they believe the means of production should be the property of the community or should be socialised.
|
Eh, I think a little too much is being made of Romney's problems with Obamacare being considered a tax given its similarities with Romneycare. At the end of the day, all that's going to matter are 1) whether voters want to keep Obamacare, and 2) whether voters believe that Romney will repeal Obamacare. I don't think that there's going to be much about that Romney will repeal Obamacare. With regards to the first point, I don't think that Obama has done a particularly good job defending it thus far (judging by its consistent unpopularity). He's going to have to step up his efforts in that regard over the next few months.
|
On July 03 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 22:30 sunprince wrote:On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow. I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers). Hello, tragedy of the commons! What? That makes no sense in terms of everything being privately owned. Someone would own the air or water before anyone uses it. The idea that "we own what we use" is, if anything, a communist idea. And that's just downright confusing. And I believe the politically correct term is Randroid.
I believe the idea is that resources belong to whoever claims them, possibly with the requirement of exploiting them and therefore "giving them value". For example, to a hardcore Randtard an unowned patch of forest has no value and belongs to no one, but when you claim it and chop it down then the resulting lumber has value and belongs to you.
In other words, Randroids respect individual rights but completely fail to understand public goods or externalities (and that's why they oppose all regulation). If this sounds insane, remember that Randtards believe that natural resources are infinite and that the invisible hand will naturally take care of everything because humans are that awesome.
|
|
|
The average American hasn't the slightest idea what Obamacare even is. Every poll about it is useless. They need their pea brains to be swayed one way or the other during the debates.
|
Those are pretty good numbers for Romney -- particularly the numbers among independents.
|
On July 04 2012 06:35 DannyJ wrote:
The average American hasn't the slightest idea what Obamacare even is. Every poll about it is useless. They need their pea brains to be swayed one way or the other during the debates.
Yeah, that's also true. I saw a poll a couple days ago showing that 40% had no idea what was going on with regards to Obamacare.
|
41% didn't know the SCOTUS upheld it, I know that.
If you aren't aware or care about major news like that you obviously have no idea what's going on in general.
|
On July 04 2012 06:38 xDaunt wrote:Those are pretty good numbers for Romney -- particularly the numbers among independents.
I dunno, it's not like Romney is the anti-Obamacare candidate. Honestly, now that it's constitutional it seems like a strict win for Obama because Romney has to be pretty disingenuous when trying to criticize.
|
On July 04 2012 06:41 DannyJ wrote:
41% didn't know the SCOTUS upheld it, I know that.
If you aren't aware or care about major news like that you obviously have no idea what's going on in general.
59% of Americans don't vote either, and those two groups probably overlap heavily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
