[QUOTE=xilman;399057]I gave you a precise definition. Please do me the courtesy of providing yours.[/QUOTE]

I haven't defined it here, and I'm not trying to declare any such definition as "mine".
Your definition of capitalism was in terms of capitalist, which is reversed.
A good definition must include "based on money", "free enterprise", and
"respect for and protection of private property".

[QUOTE]"respect for and protection of private property"[/QUOTE]

If one has enough of it. YMMV. Larger holdings seem to have much more protection than smaller ones.

[QUOTE=kladner;399121]If one has enough of it. YMMV. Larger holdings seem to have much more protection than smaller ones.[/QUOTE]

Whether you're very rich or practically broke, you still want your stuff protected by law.
And nothing makes the practically broke rightfully entitled to what isn't his. And vice versa.

I do say that the practicality of capitalism makes it the only economic system in which
the poor do really have some chance to improve and rise wealth-wise.

Those who earn what they have/get deserve to have it protected.
Those who get what they don't earn (thieves and such) do not get it protected by capitalism.

"The meta-theory of Capitalism" seems a good book title.

I haven't the slightest idea what to do next with it.
Perhaps something about Economics more basic than
the basis of economic freedom, where a description
of capitalism should begin? Or maybe put capitalism
in the context of the alternate basic types of economic
system (like socialism, communism, etc., which we know
are failed theories) and explain why it works well in theory
and could be perfected in legal practice? Where does
the "meta" begin and lead?

I got it! You are going to write Das Kapital once again
 

You seem to have been boinked on the head with the urn that held the ashes of the elder Marx brother... I think his name was Karl:
[YOUTUBE]LkS3fUImcZE[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE]Or maybe put capitalism
in the context of the alternate basic types of economic
system (like socialism, communism, etc.,[B] which [U]we[/U] know[/B]
are failed theories)[/QUOTE]

There you go again. Perhaps you should give us your special definition of "we". Once again, you engage in rhetorical inclusion of others in acceptance of your bald assertions. :ick:

[U][B]Believe[/B][/U] whatever you care to. Stop dragging others into the mud.

[QUOTE=kladner;399229][U][B]Believe[/B][/U] whatever you care to. Stop dragging others into the mud.[/QUOTE]
Without me having any opinion about the current arguments, I didn't follow them, but let me make this quote my motto today, I really like it. :tu:

[QUOTE=kladner;399229]There you go again. Perhaps you should give us your special definition of "we". Once again, you engage in rhetorical inclusion of others in acceptance of your bald assertions.
[U][B]Believe[/B][/U] whatever you care to. Stop dragging others into the mud.[/QUOTE]

There "I" go again.

Well perhaps "we" doesn't include "you". "You" need not have responded.

[quote] [B]I got it! You are going to write Das Kapital once again[/B]
You seem to have been boinked on the head with the urn that held the ashes of the elder Marx brother... I think his name was Karl:
[/quote]Well, maybe the opposites...

But thanks for the encouragement! :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;399260]Without me having any opinion about the current arguments, I didn't follow them, but let me make this quote my motto today, I really like it. :tu:[/QUOTE]

Nah. I'm not dragging anybody, they're dragging themselves.
Ignoring any substance and only addressing form. Pointless.

[QUOTE=davar55;399116]I haven't defined it here, and I'm not trying to declare any such definition as "mine".
[/quote] Correct. You haven't defined it.

Please do so, then we may have a clue about what you are trying to say.