File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2004/anarchy-list.0412, message 35


Subject: Re: LibCapitalism, Enemy of Rationality
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:21:49 -0600


Well, Michael, you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of logic, do 
you?

Perhaps they will introduce that subject in the next grade.  Do pay 
attention when the teacher brings the subject up, there's a good lad, 
but in the meantime I shall give you a short pointer or two.

Now watch closely (look, nothing up my sleeve, see...)

You said:

MJ
>      Since capitalism is two (or more) individuals mutually
>      trading without the coercion or regulation or mandate
>      of a non-involved third party ...

and I responded:

>    Actually, MJ ol' Rutababa, what you have described
>    is the free market, not the system of capitalism.
>    Capitalism is:
>    "An economic system in which the means of
>    production and distribution are privately or
>    corporately owned and development is
>    proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment
>    of profits gained in a free market."

Now be a good lad and point out where, precisely, you said anything 
about "government," or "private" for that matter, in that exchange.

Your definition was that of the free market system.  It was not the 
definition of  "capitalism" as you stated.  I provided you that 
definition.
The fallacy (perhaps you should look this word up before using it next 
time) was your false definition of "capitalism."

If your reading skills are up to it, kindly reread the definition of 
capitalism.  Please note that while the free market is mentioned, the 
essential element in that definition is the "ownership of the means of 
production (Capital)."

What you defined (and mislabeled as "capitalism") is the free market 
system (is there an echo in here...?).  Now here's the clue you so 
desperately need:  Capitalism is not required for the free market to 
exist, but the converse is not so.

We (you and I) are engaged in a free market transaction here.  You see 
that I have knowledge and ask me to give you some.  I agree for to 
impart some knowledge to you for the price of some public humiliation 
on your part.  No "means of production," the essential ingredient of 
"capitalism" is involved.


>    It is you, therefore, who has already "rolled out
>    the fallacy," and given your demonstrated ignorance,
>    one has no problem at all understanding why you
>    expect to be greeted with "childish name-calling."
>
> MJ
> Apparently ENGLISH is not your strong suit either
> as the definition YOU provide supports precisely
> what I stated (other than the silliness of identifying
> a Government entity -- corporation -- 'private').

That sentence makes no sense.  No one here is even remotely surprised 
at this.

> As I suggested to Roger, there is a DIFFERENCE between
> GOVERNMENT and PRIVATE.

Tell us, did you discover this for yourself, or did an adult let you in 
on this?

> Private has no Government.   :)
>
> When Government intercedes into 'production' ... it is
> no longer privately owned.

Don't put your dictionary away just yet.  You might benefit from 
looking up the words "owned" and "controlled (by)."

> Praise be to ignorance, Amen.

> Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
> and conscientious stupidity.   -- Martin Luther King, Jr

One gathers that you consider yourself to be a pretty dangerous lad, eh?

Your real surname is "White," isn't it..?

yer kindly ol' Unka Bar


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005