3 ms·

Your analogy perfectly defeats your point. The alternative to drinking hemlock tea is not drinking hemlock tea. You can't not pick an economic system of organ

Your analogy perfectly defeats your point. The alternative to drinking hemlock tea is not drinking hemlock tea. You can't not pick an economic system of organization. Even if you don't pick one, you will have one. So the question becomes "what's the best choice available?" To choose "not capitalism" is still choosing something -- something which may work much worse.

mikestew 5y ago
Thanks, Neil Peart?[0] I'm not saying "don't choose", or "choose differently". I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides. Just because I have a lot of money tied up in the U. S. stock market doesn't mean that it's hypocritical to point out the jackassery that can come with capitalism...like ad tech. [0] https://www.rush.com/songs/freewill https://www.rush.com/songs/freewill
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  In agreement. Far too many "debaters" do not acknowledge this truth. Identifying a problem and proposing a solution are two different things. I get that actionable statements are appreciated, but they aren't a requirement. Conflating the two rhetorically sophomoric. Another way of putting this is the burden of proof to also provide on a solution is not on the problem identifier. Asking as much is implicitly making the argument that the problem doesn't exist because the solution doesn't yet exist. We can all agree how absurd that is.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides Which is a completely reasonable and true point! And it's a rhetorical pattern that, if we could assume noble intent more often, would be way more popular. However, unfortunately, when people act in bad faith, the reasonable expression "x has problems" can have the subtext "we should use [popular alternative y] instead". This is the case with supporters of socialism and communism - "capitalism is bad" is not used in order to try to improve the regulatory mechanisms around capitalism (which, as other people have pointed out, are absolutely necessary), but in order to try to drum up support for their favored economic system instead. The pattern that consistently appears is that people who are trying to improve or draw attention to the regulatory landscape around capitalism consistently talk about regulations (e.g. focusing on the FAA's lack of oversight over Boeing, or old environmental regulations that were revoked under a recent administration), and the people who are trying to advance another agenda instead throw out lines to the effect of "capitalism bad" or "this is the result of capitalism".
InitialLastName 5y ago
Your assumption that selection of a system is binary, as in you either have an absolute unrestricted free market or you have uncompromising centralized state control of the entire economy is missing the question. We don't have either of those things now (neither does China). Control of the economy exists on a multidimensional spectrum, of which there are many possible options; blaming "capitalism" for a problem is shorthand for noting that, in some situation, the unrestricted free market is leading to negative externalities or a poor use of the commons.

mikestew 5y ago

Thanks, Neil Peart?[0] I'm not saying "don't choose", or "choose differently". I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides. Just because I have a lot of money tied up in the U. S. stock market doesn't mean that it's hypocritical to point out the jackassery that can come with capitalism...like ad tech. [0] https://www.rush.com/songs/freewill https://www.rush.com/songs/freewill

kelseyfrog 5y ago
In agreement. Far too many "debaters" do not acknowledge this truth. Identifying a problem and proposing a solution are two different things. I get that actionable statements are appreciated, but they aren't a requirement. Conflating the two rhetorically sophomoric. Another way of putting this is the burden of proof to also provide on a solution is not on the problem identifier. Asking as much is implicitly making the argument that the problem doesn't exist because the solution doesn't yet exist. We can all agree how absurd that is.
throw10920 5y ago
> I'm saying one doesn't need to offer alternatives in order to state that $THING might have downsides Which is a completely reasonable and true point! And it's a rhetorical pattern that, if we could assume noble intent more often, would be way more popular. However, unfortunately, when people act in bad faith, the reasonable expression "x has problems" can have the subtext "we should use [popular alternative y] instead". This is the case with supporters of socialism and communism - "capitalism is bad" is not used in order to try to improve the regulatory mechanisms around capitalism (which, as other people have pointed out, are absolutely necessary), but in order to try to drum up support for their favored economic system instead. The pattern that consistently appears is that people who are trying to improve or draw attention to the regulatory landscape around capitalism consistently talk about regulations (e.g. focusing on the FAA's lack of oversight over Boeing, or old environmental regulations that were revoked under a recent administration), and the people who are trying to advance another agenda instead throw out lines to the effect of "capitalism bad" or "this is the result of capitalism".

InitialLastName 5y ago

Your assumption that selection of a system is binary, as in you either have an absolute unrestricted free market or you have uncompromising centralized state control of the entire economy is missing the question. We don't have either of those things now (neither does China). Control of the economy exists on a multidimensional spectrum, of which there are many possible options; blaming "capitalism" for a problem is shorthand for noting that, in some situation, the unrestricted free market is leading to negative externalities or a poor use of the commons.