myconv: ...

myconv: You mean like this? myconv: The biggest problem with this utopian fantasy is that it's been proven wrong time and time and time again actively now and in the past. There mountains of evidence that your "utopian fantasy" of capitalism is false. That you remain blind to such is astounding. myconv: I see you conveniently ignoring all the taxation by another name that goes on under capitalism. But more importantly, capitalism need government and taxes. Anarcho-capitalism is ideological BS because business needs government to enforce it's will, till it becomes government.. Theoretically socialism does not need either aside from the basic protections against violence, it's called anarchism. (and no, anarchism does not involve anarchy) myconv: How is the ideal of people keeping the value of their labor a "method"? This fails basic English. myconv: Irrelevant. The point was there is enough resources to give everyone in the world the basic necessities for life. myconv: And then what? Move to another apartment, that is likely run by a different asshole who doesn't care about fixing things? Perhaps another apartment owned by the same company because they own most apartments in the city.
And the base topic was rent going up by $100 verses getting $100 more in taxes. (and let's be real, rent is typically way more than taxes in a city) You can't typically move away to lower rent. You can't opt out of capitalism. myconv: That isn't capitalism. myconv: And if there are no other jobs that will take you? What if the boss then blackballs you, you'll need references to get a new job, the old boss won't give you any good ones. What if the new jobs crappy too, you going to leave that one as well? Oh yeah, that's going to look good on your resume. Also what are you going to do for money while you seek jobs? Job hunting is expensive and requires money to sustain you while you search.

Many times capitalism stands in the way of innovation. For example car companies for the longest time suppressed electric cars because it was bad for their bottom line. Yet cars run by electricity have been around since cars.

You know Linux was developed purely with volunteer services? A whole complex OS, completely free. myconv: Nonsense. It is vague and not at all specific. myconv: In order words you think libertarian is against capitalism. You changing your tune so much is giving me whiplash. myconv: In other words, capitalism. myconv: This is not a very good definition of capitalism. But we weren't even talking about the definition of capitalism, we were talking about the definition of Liberalism You defined the wrong word.

But based on that shoddy definition of capitalism, I take it you are a neoliberal. So if a business wants to make a deal to dumb toxic waste in the cities water supply, as long as they agree and "own" the water and land, it's fine. Assassination of children agreement, it's fine. Nothing should stop these things short of not agreeing, according to you?

So in place of defining liberalism, you defined capitalism, does this mean you agree with my definition that liberalism simply means pro-capitalism?

Capitalism is the system of owning other peoples shit, their work, their homes, the system where those with money can gain rulership of others to gain more money.

Let's further defined two words. Not talking about dictionary definitions here.

Personal property is your stuff. The places where you live. The product of your work. The stuff that you own and use.

Private property is owning everything else that is not your stuff, AKA owning other peoples stuff.

For example, the house that you live in and own outright is personal property. But if you rent an apartment that apartment is the private property of the landlord, you know, the lord of your home (it's in the term "landlord" even) Even though it is your home, they can enter it as they wish, because it is their private property. So personal property and private property are two very different things. And that distinction is where you find capitalism. Private property is capitalism. Personal property is not.

This also apples to labor. If your labor, whether it be physical or mental, is for your own profit, your personal labor, that is not capitalism. Just like the amish farming their own land for their own profit or crafting stuff and selling it is not capitalism. But if farmland was owned by a conglomerate that the amish had to pay rent to, that would be capitalism. If you own the product of someone elses work, then that is capitalism, as in, most employees are victims of capitalism. Ones boss owns your work as "private property". And you know the thing about other people owning your work is? It doesn't exactly encourage workers to work hard or well, they need masters to look over their shoulder to get all the labor they can out of them, and thus the worker does as little work as they think they can get away with doing, most of the time.

The net result is, the more money you have, the more of other peoples stuff you can own which results in getting more money which can be invested in owning more of other peoples stuff and so on till you have people with hundreds of billions of dollars ruling the world from the shadows. And this theft by private ownership inevitably leads to other people suffering. Socialism says there has to be better ways. Maybe the average socialist understands they can't know all the answers, but capitalism has been tried alot more than socialism, like many times more. And capitalism failings have been shown over and over again, history is packed full of the failings of capitalism.

myconv: Gamez, what a troll response. You don't want to read it, then don't read it. Only a troll would give effort to make a point to say they aren't going to read what they are replying to.

GamezRanker: Says the likely troll who has been mocking people for several pages.

*For you...pic related*

GamezRanker: Ontopic: Anyone else wonder what will be considered good and evil say even 20 years from now?
(as it seems such things can change wildly even in such a "short" time frame)

kohlrak: You answred your own question, there: it changes wildly in a short time, therefore not likely to be particularly predictable.

GamezRanker: Still, do you have any predictions you'd like to make?

kohlrak: Oh good, i caught you again, even implicitly admitting you're strawmanning me.

See, there's the the thing: you insist on telling someone their definition is inadequate (thus their use of terms is misused), but fail to provide one of your own, even by your own admission, but claiming that people should adopt your definitions instead of the standard ones. The hubris. And you don't even catch this yourself, for reasons beyond me and, surely, everyone else.The purpose of my responses to you were to call this out, not to provide any positive argument, which also failed to catch. I have my own problems with scientiae, but I can't really bait him into a proper discussion about said problems when you're catching his eye with your chest thumping. I hope this was enough to demonstrate that you are bringing nothing to the table outside of blind acceptance to some vague appeal to your own authority, which wouldn't hold weight, even if you managed to come up with some sort of way of announcing it, let alone verifying it. I don't normally feel the need to go personal, and even advised Orkhepaj not to go down this path, but how could i resist when i realized you're not a troll, but actually a parody of an archtype, but somehow ironically so. The question is, what do i call this? Academentia? The textbook useful idiot? The frankfurt socialist? I have no doubt this won't have some interesting effects on my account and reputation, but i think having a textbook example of something to point to is actually worth it. Thank you, even though it was not your intention. This conversation should hopefully serve as an example to others. At least you can rest easy knowing you're worth at least that much.

kai2: I will not get into politics and governance, but re: economic systems...

Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever been proven to move people out of poverty.

Socialism has never moved a society out of poverty; socialism has always moved populations into general states of shared poverty.

scientiae: I would agree it is a textbook useful idiot. (Münzenberg would have called him an innocent.)

scientiae: I think we are in violent agreement.

scientiae: ....specifically trying to exhaust any interlocutor with quantities of verbiage which need even larger tracts to refute.

kai2: I will not get into politics and governance, but re: economic systems...

Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever been proven to move people out of poverty.

Socialism has never moved a society out of poverty; socialism has always moved populations into general states of shared poverty.