Quote from: MoonShadow on June 10, 2013, 06:12:55 AM

Quote from: ktttn on June 10, 2013, 05:34:39 AM

...
Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated. Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position. Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything. I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused. I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

Says he who assumes that anyone who doesn't fit the An-Cap / Libertarian / Laissez Faire world view must be a government agent...

Quote from: MoonShadow on June 10, 2013, 04:48:27 AM

Quote from: ktttn on June 09, 2013, 09:37:48 PM

+>9000...

Dude, just walk down the hall. I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

Anyway, to try and summarise this "my Capitalism versus your Capitalism" debate:
-An-Caps + Libertarians seem to be using the word 'Capitalism' to describe a set of Western values: free/voluntary trade, using money and/or barter. And it's seen as purely an economic system.
-ktttn seems to be saying "no, it's also a political system. Those 'Western values' re: money, contracts, property rights, freedom, etc, are not natural, they are enforced, even if that enforcement can be a bit sloppy and incomplete."

Though I don't agree with everything kttn says, it's a refreshing change from the:
-"property rights are totally natural"
-"I don't know how my mind got to inhabit this body, but I hereby claim ownership upon it (the body)"
-"property rights are derived from the axiom of 'self-ownership', which is derived from property rights "
-"freedom is a wondrous thing, let's relabel it 'security' and have friendly ~~freedom companies~~ 'security companies' sell/restrict it on the 'free' market"
-"competition is great, cooperation is great, but monopolies are evil...
-unless they're natural monopolies because sometimes economies of scale make cooperation more efficient than competition...
-unless they're governments because self-enforcement doesn't count as 'natural'"
-"and a majority exerting its will over a minority is coercive and evil...
-but a minority exerting its will over a majority is less evil because it's obviously more righteous...
-however, the coercive minority shouldn't be too small because then they become leaders in an authoritarian system of government like an oligarchy or dictatorship...
-therefore all governments are evil in principle,
-but without them there would be total anarchy and chaos, which is where the (haaallelujah!) Non-Aggression Principle comes in...
-Surely everyone agrees with The Golden Rule? Right? We'll just quietly slip in some Western values here like property rights, which implies concepts of theft, justice and all that other stuff we can't imagine living without (no thanks to our evil government that keeps oppressing us) NOTHING TO SEE HERE!! Hopefully no-one will notice"
-"Of course we wouldn't be so silly to presume we'd ever actually get this utopia, which kind of works in our favour. Conveniently, our idealism cannot be disputed with the help of real-world examples, and whenever someone engages us in debate it's always a great opportunity to for us to educate them about the error of their ways..."

...mind-numbing circle-jerk that regularly besieges the politics forum. Grin