4 ms·

I'm Irish and I like Canada. > First Im Canadian and I like Canada. You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That

I'm Irish and I like Canada. > First Im Canadian and I like Canada. You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind. > However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate […] No. That's not defining something, that's stating a belief. Your have opposing beliefs. Neither of us is wrong by definition. When you think about it, that's not how belief and ideology works. My point is though that the overwhelming majority of Canadians and Americans agree with my position even if that position is not reflected 100% of the time in the social policy of the day. We could be all wrong, but hey, you got to either convince us all (and you're not doing a good job of it) or hope that the powers that be prevail. And history tells us they won't I know about negative and positive liberty, I studied philosophy. I've also read Chomsky. He's a frickin' anarcho-syndicalist, he's on record as being an anarcho-syndicalist. A syndicalist is someone who believes in unions! How can you say your views are reflected best by someone like Chomsky and in the next breath decry unions. Everyone is self-interested. That's as close to a law of human nature as any that you can get. Randian capitalism relies on the fact that people ought to only look out for themselves, and invariably do. Capitalism is a _system_, humans _animate it. It's been great debating you, but please read over what I've written a couple of times before you reply to me. That might sound really condescending, but I don't mean it to be, I swear. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on a lot of things …

petermcneeley 8y ago
Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Private property is antithetical to Communism just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.
- igravious 8y ago
  > Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims. > I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. You're not describing what Capitalism means, you're describing what you _think_ it means. When I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism, if I wanted to say Mixed Market economy I'd say Mixed Market economy. > Its sorta like the Communism. Vacuous. > If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Never disagreed with this. Not that Communism was mentioned. > Private property is antithetical to Communism True claim, the hint is in the name. > just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism. False claim. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free-markets-that-reduce-inequality-not-capitalism-or-socialism/#3a3af7c66ec7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free... And to reiterate, neither are unions antithetical to Capitalism. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-should-forget-about-unions https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-... [2] https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions-socialist-or-capitalist-48098/ https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions... --- If your entire argument hinges around the assertion that once an entirely 100% pure Capitalist system (market economy w/ attendant private property rights and share-holding and dividends and profit taking, the whole nine yards) has any tweaking whatsoever it stops being a Capitalist system … giving you what Forbes says “[a] social democratic version of a market economy” … then I don't know what to say … It's entirely correct to still classify a version of a market economy as a market economy. So long as the fundamentals and essentials are unchanged a thing remains itself, not to be trite but a blue house is still a house. To argue otherwise is unhelpful at best.
  - igravious 8y ago
    > but a blue house is still a house. This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?

petermcneeley 8y ago

Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Private property is antithetical to Communism just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.

igravious 8y ago
> Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims. > I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. You're not describing what Capitalism means, you're describing what you _think_ it means. When I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism, if I wanted to say Mixed Market economy I'd say Mixed Market economy. > Its sorta like the Communism. Vacuous. > If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Never disagreed with this. Not that Communism was mentioned. > Private property is antithetical to Communism True claim, the hint is in the name. > just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism. False claim. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free-markets-that-reduce-inequality-not-capitalism-or-socialism/#3a3af7c66ec7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free... And to reiterate, neither are unions antithetical to Capitalism. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-should-forget-about-unions https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-... [2] https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions-socialist-or-capitalist-48098/ https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions... --- If your entire argument hinges around the assertion that once an entirely 100% pure Capitalist system (market economy w/ attendant private property rights and share-holding and dividends and profit taking, the whole nine yards) has any tweaking whatsoever it stops being a Capitalist system … giving you what Forbes says “[a] social democratic version of a market economy” … then I don't know what to say … It's entirely correct to still classify a version of a market economy as a market economy. So long as the fundamentals and essentials are unchanged a thing remains itself, not to be trite but a blue house is still a house. To argue otherwise is unhelpful at best.
- igravious 8y ago
  > but a blue house is still a house. This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?