what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

...
Slavery is right if capitalism is right. And capitalism is right. And flaky arguments are flaky arguments.

Slavery and Capitalism are opposites.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

Slavery and Capitalism are opposites.

Well if it is axiomatically a premise that capitalism is freedom, then since slavery is in opposition to freedom, then strictly for that tenuous premise your statement applies.

Sticking to this model to avoid contradictions that occur if that premise doesn't apply, then since corporations are people, they have been grievously exploited because they can only participate in every other aspect of politics but do not get to cast a vote in actual elections. Therefore I propose that corporations get 3/5ths of a vote in proxy for every employee or contractor that is not a corporate board member to cast as the corporation wishes. This is a small step but recognizes the proportional importance of job creators.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Slavery and Capitalism are opposites.

So? My argument mirrors yours in every respect.

Anyway, you still haven't given us a clue as to what you mean by the word "capitalism". I gave you mine, which appears to be shared by the vast majority of economists. Until your definition is given we only have your assertion "Slavery and Capitalism are opposites" to go on. I could just as easily claim, with some substantial historical justification, that slavery has played an important role in capitalism. Where did you think the British slave transporters raised the money to build, outfit and run their ships? The capital market, of course. Where do you think the profits were re-invested?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Well if it is axiomatically a premise that capitalism is freedom, then since slavery is in opposition to freedom, then strictly for that tenuous premise your statement applies.

Sticking to this model to avoid contradictions that occur if that premise doesn't apply, then since corporations are people, they have been grievously exploited because they can only participate in every other aspect of politics but do not get to cast a vote in actual elections. Therefore I propose that corporations get 3/5ths of a vote in proxy for every employee or contractor that is not a corporate board member to cast as the corporation wishes. This is a small step but recognizes the proportional importance of job creators.

I get the grey "humor", we have come far from the slavery compromise in the original constitution.

Corporations are not people, they are composed of people and are thus treated as a person in SOME WAYS.

Job creation is an effect, not a cause or a proper goal. It's easy to create low-value jobs. It takes some
kind of innovation or entrepreneurship to create a high-value job.

I don't say capitalism IS freedom, I say it is the only system that promotes economic freedom, and that
without economic freedoms (such as property rights) political freedoms (such as freedom of the press)
cannot be fully implemented.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

So? My argument mirrors yours in every respect.
Anyway, you still haven't given us a clue as to what you mean by the word "capitalism". I gave you mine, which appears to be shared by the vast majority of economists. Until your definition is given we only have your assertion "Slavery and Capitalism are opposites" to go on. I could just as easily claim, with some substantial historical justification, that slavery has played an important role in capitalism. Where did you think the British slave transporters raised the money to build, outfit and run their ships? The capital market, of course. Where do you think the profits were re-invested?

You "defined" capital, capitalist, and then capitalism, and you say your definitions of these are shared by most economists.
Do you mean by pro-capitalism economists or by non-pro-capitalism economists? It matters which. If your definition
includes the basic ideas of free enterprise and protection of private property rights, we may have a definition in common.
You'll note that "freedom" and "rights" are necessary components of a proper definition.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

I get the grey "humor", we have come far from the slavery compromise in the original constitution.

Corporations are not people, they are composed of people and are thus treated as a person in SOME WAYS.

That's a relief because my next step was going to be assigning corporate gender based on a 3/5th corporate board member composition. It looked like mergers and acquisitions would need to consult a BDSM guidebook and might be illegal in several states.

[davar55]

But what is your issue with the legal technicality / identification of a corporation
with a person (in some ways)? Do you have something against corporations in
general? The abuses that have occurred are due to deficiencies in the description
of the laws in terms of their application of the principles of capitalism, not in
capitalism itself. It is the law that should protect against the fraudulent or vicious
among us; and it shouldn't encroach on the freedoms of those who do not abuse
the rights of others. Don't blame capitalism, blame those who haven't understood
its philosophical nature.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

But what is your issue with the legal technicality / identification of a corporation
with a person (in some ways)? Do you have something against corporations in
general? The abuses that have occurred are due to deficiencies in the description
of the laws in terms of their application of the principles of capitalism, not in
capitalism itself. It is the law that should protect against the fraudulent or vicious
among us; and it shouldn't encroach on the freedoms of those who do not abuse
the rights of others. Don't blame capitalism, blame those who haven't understood
its philosophical nature.

We still don't know what you mean by the term "capitalism".

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

We still don't know what you mean by the term "capitalism".

Nor I you.

[ewmayer]

Rejoice, brethren of The Faith! I have wonderful tidings:

o Fracking Used to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades | Waking Times

Unearthed articles from the 1960s detail how nuclear waste was buried beneath the Earth’s surface by Halliburton & Co. for decades as a means of disposing the by-products of post-World War II atomic energy production.

A lovelier example of the core tenet of The Faith, the gospel of "capitalism is freedom" - could scarcely be found.

Also mentions more-recent Good Works by The Believers like the 2005 “Cheney loophole,” which allowed the industry to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting fracking fluids.. And note the laundry list of freedom-promoting industrial luminaries: Dow Chemical, Union Carbide (most famous for liberating Bhopal, India), and of course the freedom-loving U.S. government nuclear weapons industrial complex.

I would write more, but don't want to come off as unduly gushy, and more importantly, I feel an irrepressible urge to rush outside and madly wave the Made-in-China U.S. flag-on-a-stick I still have from last July 4th.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Nor I you.

I gave you a precise definition. Please do me the courtesy of providing yours.