ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Do you know what that means? It's means there are several, not just one.
America Wastes $22 Trillion In War On Poverty
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
And every last one of them includes private ownership of economic infrastructure.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So privatized socialism. Cool story bro.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
you can't be real
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
hold on, I'll pinch myself...
yep, real.
yep, real.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
So what do you get from "There is not one single definition for a mixed economy"
Please tell us
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
OK, and thank you for allowing this stagnant discussion to move forward beyond all of the pettiness and petulance that has been directed at me simply because I identify as a socialist.
What I get from it, is No True Scotsman. It is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.
The original assertion was that our economy, in particular the Healthcare Industry is moving toward socialism and away from capitalism. The original assertion, as I understand it, is that "the war on poverty" and all forms of social welfare are socialistic, either in origin or intent. The assertion therefore is to blame socialists and socialist ideas for economic downturn.
I reacted to this assertion by pointing out (cogently despite that you and GW may disagree) that none of the measures which have been pointed to, save VA healthcare, were in fact socialist. This is sound because only the VA system is actually state provided and run and owned which by definition makes it socialist. However, it is not available to the market and therefore exempt from claims that market infrastructure has been removed from private ownership. All of the rest of the measures which have been pointed to have been demonstrated to be subject to private economic infrastructure. Therefore, no part of the economy has been shifted from private hands and into nonprivate hands, such as collectivization or nationalization.
The response to my reaction is the insistence that these private market forces which have been strengthened by gov't intervention do not indicate any true form of capitalism but are socialist. This fallacy is called No True Scotsman.
One need only go as far as the definition of Capitalism in order to verify that an economy characterized by private ownership of economic infrastructure is wholly capitalist.
A "mixed market" or "mixed economy" refers Keynesian capitalism, which is not socialism, since it does not according to any of the varied definitions include removal of economic infrastructure from private ownership.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't think that answers the question of how something can be both "private" and government licensed.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't think anything can be private with out gov't license.
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
I still find it funny that you can't use your dollar bill to buy anything you want, it says for all debts public or private.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Or... everything is inherently private by default, until someone else claims the property of another as their own?
I find the title disingenuous: "America" is a conglomerate entity, consisting of many sentient creatures who don't always agree. I don't think "America" is doing ANYTHING as a united group. The whole country is divided, intentionally, and being conquered from within. "Wake up." All the states have different laws, and in many cases, the same law in one region is applied differently to different people (for various reasons), and i don't think i've ever met two people who completely agree on every important issue, or even what all the important issues actually are. "United States" my ass!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't. Privatization requires force.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. Owning private property only requires others to acknowledge your ownership.
Taking things from other people requires force. Owning what is rightfully yours, only requires force in its defense from those who would steal it from you.
Unwarranted aggression is wrong; defense against it, is not.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That requires force.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Not if you choose to respect others and be reasonable.
Hence "reason-evangelist." I like to evangelize reason, because without people being reasonable, a whole bunch of unreasonably detrimental stuff happens, such as "might makes right," and violent perpetual conquest.
I should not have to force anyone to acknowledge that what is Mine, is Mine, and Not yours. My property, belongings and person, belonging only to Me, should be self-evident to anyone who is acknowledged as mentally competent.
If you can't understand that what is mine is mine, and that what is mine is not yours, then you are the problem. If you try to take what is mine, you have chosen aggression, and justified any amount of retaliation necessary to stop you from stealing from me, or injuring me or damaging any of my property, in the process.
"don't start none, won't be none."
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It's easier to put up a fence and call the police or wield firearm.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
How is building a fence "easier" than choosing not to initiate aggression with anyone who is not attacking you?
Doing nothing is much easier than you seem to think.
Calling police would be a defensive maneuver, just like wielding a firearm, just like building a fence.
But if people weren't making the choice to attempt to take what is not rightfully theirs, from others, there would be no need for defense. Without an aggressor, there is no conflict.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Wherefore doth thine nonaggression principal reconcile upon exclusive deed regarding innate wherewithal?