Should People Be Forced To Buy Things They Don't Want or Need? (revised version) - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14984845
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am assuming that you are being sarcastic, but in case you're not:

*sigh*

The "Muh Roads" remark, the splinter in every ancap's eye. lol.

Let me just say; roads can be voluntary. The most important road is the 1/2 mile one I am putting back into to my property, that was done privately and voluntarily.


I actually was being serious. Only because I cannot picture a life today where I don’t have to contribute something towards common infrastructure.

Have you rolled out your own 5G too? :p
#14984846
ness31 wrote:I actually was being serious. Only because I cannot picture a life today where I don’t have to contribute something towards common infrastructure.

Have you rolled out your own 5G too? :p


I don't think there is a good argument for the use of coercion in the funding of "common infrastructure" be it roads or 5G given that government at best is just a middleman in those projects. Hypothetically it would be possible to fund them directly and voluntarily and possibly with a lot less bureaucratic overhead and waste. The involvement in gov with roads always had more to do with their strategic interests in roads as means of moving troops around since at least Roman times and nothing to do with your supposed inability of civilians to do these for their own interests in trade.
#14984861
In this post, buy will be considered in the sense of;
Buy - to get something by paying money for it.

UK TV licence means forced to buy BBC output
In the UK TV and other device owners are forced to pay for their device’s potential ability to receive any broadcast TV programmes, including commercial channels which show advertisements. This is labelled the TV licence. The BBC is funded by the TV licence.
Many people have indicated they despise the BBC and what they consider to be its left-wing bias. However, because people own some of the devices listed below, they’re forced to buy the BBC’s output even though they may never watch any of the BBC channels. The UK government call this regressive TV ownership tax ‘The TV licence’.
A UK TV Licence costs £150.50 (£50.50 for black and white TV sets) for both homes and businesses. In the UK you must have a TV Licence if you:
watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they’re broadcast
download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand
You need a TV licence to cover all of the following in a single property:
• TV sets
• computers
• laptops
• tablets
• mobile phones
any other device that can receive a TV signal

If the only device in a household is a tablet with an ethernet port and/or WIFI, then the householder must buy a TV licence, because it ‘can receive a TV signal’. Whether or not the tablet is ever used to access TV broadcasts is irrelevant. It’s the devices ability to receive TV signals that means the BBC funding TV tax has to be paid. For some owners it’s the equivalent of being forced to buy takeaway meals that they don’t like and have no intention of consuming, or being forced to buy a daily newspaper that they don’t like then refusing the daily deliveries.
I believe that forcing TV, and other device, owners to buy BBC output whether or not they want to consume that material, or indeed whether or not they actually consume that material, is wrong.

"A single TV Licence covers all of the following in a single property TV sets...any other device that can receive a TV signal"

Religious slaughter
In the UK, consumers are forced to buy what, in view of the widespread presence of Halal meat in supermarkets, may very well be religiously slaughtered meat. This arises because of deliberate omission of information. The UK whilst still in the EU does not require labels to indicate if an animal has been religiously slaughtered. There has been some talk that after Brexit labels will have to indicate if an animal was ritually slaughtered. I believe that forcing consumers to buy meat that may have been ritually slaughtered is wrong.
"Four supermarkets – Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury's and Tesco – sold halal meat from animals which were not stunned, without clear labelling to indicate this."

Forced to buy medication
Around 5.8 million people in England are forced to buy artificially fluoridated household water. Fluoridated water is piped to consumers in Cumbria, Cheshire, Tyneside, Northumbria, Durham, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, the West Midlands and Bedfordshire. The UK government believes that the end, (better dental health), does justify the means, (forced mass medication). I believe that forcing households to buy mass medication is wrong.
"Around 5.8 million people in different parts of England are supplied with artificially fluoridated water."

In the above examples being forced to buy does not seem justified.

References
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/buy
https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence
Pages 185/186 in this pdf document;
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc_annualreport_201718.pdf
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/01/unstunned-meat-widespread-in-uk-supermarkets-nss-research-reveals
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/01/halal-meat-could-labelled-method-slaughter-brexit-amid-animal/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11430233/The-extent-of-water-fluoridation-in-the-UK.html
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk ... al-health/[/url]
#14984862
SolarCross wrote:I don't think there is a good argument for the use of coercion in the funding of "common infrastructure" be it roads or 5G given that government at best is just a middleman in those projects. Hypothetically it would be possible to fund them directly and voluntarily and possibly with a lot less bureaucratic overhead and waste.


Economies of scale is one argument, and that would mean lower costs, and it would avoid the duplication of work ebing done by thousands of bureaucrats who work for the private companies doing the roads.

Also, ensuring access for people with limited mobility works a lot better if all contractors have to abide by a clear set of regulations.

Third, public roads do not require a system of ensuring that non-paying people are not using the roads without paying the owner.
#14984864
Pants-of-dog wrote:Economies of scale is one argument, and that would mean lower costs, and it would avoid the duplication of work ebing done by thousands of bureaucrats who work for the private companies doing the roads.

There are dis-economies of scale also.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, ensuring access for people with limited mobility works a lot better if all contractors have to abide by a clear set of regulations.

This is a recent fad of some western countries so in fact the reverse is also true and more prevalent that ensuring access for people with limited mobility works a lot better with a diversity of regulations so that at least some places have them if not everywhere. It's a "better not to have all your eggs in one basket" scenario.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Third, public roads do not require a system of ensuring that non-paying people are not using the roads without paying the owner.


Public roads also have this. In the UK roads are paid by the road tax and as it happens not everyone wants to pay this and so there exists a vast bureaucracy to track and enforce payers and non-payers.
#14984875
SolarCross wrote:There are dis-economies of scale also.


Yes, but when it comes to roads, it makes more sense for a city to own the roads and have one dedicated bureaucracy that knows what it is doing than having a million small ones all repeating work that has already been done and doing so incorrectly.

This is a recent fad of some western countries so in fact the reverse is also true and more prevalent that ensuring access for people with limited mobility works a lot better with a diversity of regulations so that at least some places have them if not everywhere. It's a "better not to have all your eggs in one basket" scenario.


I am having trouble parsing that run-on sentence into an argument.

Public roads also have this. In the UK roads are paid by the road tax and as it happens not everyone wants to pay this and so there exists a vast bureaucracy to track and enforce payers and non-payers.


How does this relate to my point?

My point was that public roads do not need a way to limit access, while private roads do.
#14984937
@Littaleng_Lander

How much is the BBC tv license? Is it annual and just stuffed in there when you do your taxes? One way or another they will find a way of billing the public for a public broadcaster. At least the the Beebs is quality ;)

The halal stuff, well....what you don’t know can’t hurt you. Is it an animal rights argument? Is halal killing cruel? I’m just not sure it’s a terribly big deal..
I’d have thought the fact that a prayer is said before the animal is killed is more respectful to the animal :hmm: But I’m not full bottle on this stuff. I don’t want to think too hard about agribusiness in general as it will put me off my food.

Fluoridated water? I dunno. Don’t underestimate the convenience of having healthy teeth. But yes, some people say it’s bad for you :hmm:
#14985173
ness31 wrote:@Littaleng_Lander

How much is the BBC tv license? Is it annual and just stuffed in there when you do your taxes? One way or another they will find a way of billing the public for a public broadcaster. At least the the Beebs is quality ;)

The halal stuff, well....what you don’t know can’t hurt you. Is it an animal rights argument? Is halal killing cruel? I’m just not sure it’s a terribly big deal..
I’d have thought the fact that a prayer is said before the animal is killed is more respectful to the animal :hmm: But I’m not full bottle on this stuff. I don’t want to think too hard about agribusiness in general as it will put me off my food.

Fluoridated water? I dunno. Don’t underestimate the convenience of having healthy teeth. But yes, some people say it’s bad for you :hmm:
The issue here is people being forced, directly or indirectly, to pay for stuff they don't want. It's not the quality or otherwise of the stuff they don't want. They just don't want it.

The TV 'licence' is paid separately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Failure to pay can result in a criminal conviction and a £1,000 penalty. Thirty-eight people – mostly women – were jailed last year for not paying the fine. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4262202/BBC-s-TV-licence-bullies-exposed.html
#14985244
ness31 wrote:Has the age demographic on PoFo dropped dramatically? :?:
I am only 81. I'll be able to answer that when I get old.
ness31 wrote:We get it! I don’t like paying tax, who does? And yet we are forced to.
I was trying to find the silver f’kin lining in your grievances.
I would argue that if you opt to remain in an ordered structured society, then you are volunteering to pay the taxes necessarily levied to maintain that society. Additionally, if it is a democratic society, then voters will have mandated the taxation policies of the party that formed the government.
#14985353
I don’t believe you. Most 81 year olds have come to terms with basic shittiness like public broadcasters and fluoridated water. Unless of course, you’ve got your second wind; you’re growing your eyebrows and going renegade! :p In that case, GO YOU! ;)
#14985411
ness31 wrote:I don’t believe you. Most 81 year olds have come to terms with basic shittiness like public broadcasters and fluoridated water.
There’s nothing I can do about the TV licence. However, come to terms with the BBC? F*^&@#g Never. The BBC gets 150.50GBP for my use of mobile phone etc, even though I never watch BBC channels. The current UK government is going to stop paying the 'licence fee' for people over 75. I will then once again have to find the money myself, or get rid of all TVs, mobile phones, computers, tablets, laptops, broadband routers and any other device capable of receiving TV signals. Supporters of the TV ownership tax claim that means people have a choice not to pay the licence fee. They just have to get rid of all devices capable of receiving TV signals.
ness31 wrote:Unless of course, you’ve got your second wind; you’re growing your eyebrows and going renegade! :p In that case, GO YOU! ! ;)
I gave up eating beans some time ago.
#14985783
SolarCross wrote: Hypothetically it would be possible to fund them directly and voluntarily and possibly with a lot less bureaucratic overhead and waste. The involvement in gov with roads always had more to do with their strategic interests in roads as means of moving troops around since at least Roman times and nothing to do with your supposed inability of civilians to do these for their own interests in trade.


This is correct.

Pants-of-dog wrote:For example, contract law. Contract law requires legislators to make it, judges to interpret it, and police or bailiffs to enforce it. These people, and the associated pages, janitors, lawyers, etc. all need to be paid, and they need buildings to work in, etc. And my taxes pay for all of this.



Contract law currently requires legislators, but doesn't logically REQUIRE legislators. Kings can be the originators of contract law, so can the church (as was the case in much of the medieval period), or some private enterprise (such as family-clans as had been the case with the early Germanic Weregild system) which is recognized by all potential contracting parties. Not to mention, that courts, lawyers, etc could all be privatized; they don't necessarily have to be connected to a third party monopolist of coercion.

As for the taxes you pay, I don't think the above case legitimizes taxation, its still theft and you would be morally correct to be pissed off about it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By this I mean that essential aspects of capitalism necessarily require certain supports which create costs, and we pay are forced to pay those costs.

I would certainly agree that certain essential aspects of our current system of chrony-capitalism requires certain supports; especially since 90% of the monopolies in existence currently could not function without state protection and laws; like patent-law.

I think you are correct in your analysis that these supports are evil and that you shouldn't have to pay for them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I think it would be more correct to say that we do not pay for the whole system, but instead pay for the essential infrastructure that supports capitalism.


Yes, that would be more correct than your previous statement. Though there is no logical basis for the argument that a system of private property absolutism and free exchange would require any such infrastructure; I do agree that our current system which neither absolutizes private property rights nor allows for total free exchange is a monstrosity that should be abolished or seceded from in the pursuance of said abolition.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then capitalism, as it currently stands, is unjustified.


Yes our current system is unjustified, I agree. Though I would hardly call it capitalism. The means of producing violence, security, and law are not privately owned; nor is the market characterized by entirely voluntary free exchanges, nor are individual property rights acknowledged as absolute.

We have an unjust system of the super rich using the mechanism of the state to protect them from what nature would demand; their unmitigated failure.

However, as anything unnatural, such an arrangement is ultimately untenable and will collapse eventually. The state propping up the billionaire class is akin to propping up a dead horse. Eventually your arms get tired.

XogGyux wrote:And yet you ignore how we arrived to this kind of system. This is how it was in the past, tiny communities of perhaps a handful of families on their own. But hey.... the easiest way to acquire more resources is to have a group of people come and steal (murdering if necessary) the resources of other, weaker people. That is why you have a police force and military to protect yourself against your neighbors (police) and against other countries.


Interestingly enough, the existence of a formal police force funded by the state is a somewhat new phenomena in human civilization and has almost entirely existed during the time of human culture where we have the most crime and social decay (last 300 years); however, neither the police nor the military need to be state funded.

For nearly 1,000 years of western history, most militaries in Europe were privately funded either directly by the king's property, or by the nobility; via their own personal assets. Likewise, stats have shown that private security groups can be more effective and efficient than a state-funded police force.

Indeed, after militaries became almost entirely public-funded via the auspices of a social contract regime; wars became bigger, bloodier, and more global than in any prior time in human history; one only has to look at the world wars for an example. the social contract theory has been responsible for more death and destruction than the patriarchal style regimes it attempted to replace, by an exponential degree.

XogGyux wrote:The other "burdens" of the system have also popped out through history for similar reasons. Public schools? It turns out that having a society based on dumb, ignorant people is usually a worse society than one that is not.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions and nearly NO public schools teach logic or critical thinking; hence we have the universalization of mediocrity in education making everyone equally retarded and equally compliant.

Under your argument, you should be very PRO homeschooling then as an advancement over public education, as the academic performance is superior by every metric and is only 1/2000th of the cost; this being a privatized alternative to public education.

XogGyux wrote: The reason why the EPA and FDA and FCC, etc all exist is because in the past, at some point, the most powerful people took advantage of their power and made us sick with lead in the air we breathe, poison in the water we drink, etc.


The reasons these agencies exist is because public uproar and hysteria created bad legislation that allows evil companies to still exist so long as they are "more careful." A more just system would allow bad companies to be sued out of existence for making a bad product, executed if they did it intentionally, and go bankrupt from a massive drop in demand.

NOW, our FDA will almost never shuts down a company that behaves this way; rather, they get a fine and are able to continue business. Some companies are now even protected from the government as to prevent them from being sued at all; like Monsanto (See the Monsanto Protection Act), Vaccine Companies (look up the legislation on that sometime, or I can link it for you), and in some states even Beef Companies or other leading industries.

Likewise, many leaders in these regulatory agencies once worked or were in charge of the companies they now regulate; because they use their expertise in these companies to get hired by the state and appointed to these agencies, positions which are almost entirely non-elected. To many of us, that would appear like a conflict of interests, but that is to misunderstand the fact that it is in the very interest of these corporations for things like the FDA to exist. Big corporations don't want a totally free market; they want government subsidy and protection.

So; in the hysterical call for public safety, people traded away their freedom to these very same companies that hurt them in the first place. Now instead of a beef tycoon losing his company to bankruptcy because people stopped buying his toxic beef and he got sued for most his wealth, he now gets a fine and might even get hired by the FDA if he decides hes sick of the whole CEO schtick. Meanwhile, your kid is still dead.

What was more just my friend? The former or the latter?

XogGyux wrote:To make such a statement is to ignore that not having a government means we pay another price, a much higher price in the form of a less civilized society that is less just and prone to violence.


The 20th century was the time when such a system as you are defending became the most universal and it was arguably the most violent, bloody, and crime-ridden of any we have recorded in human history. Perhaps you would like to clarify your meaning then?
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 04 Feb 2019 14:26, edited 1 time in total.
#14985787
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
Contract law currently requires legislators, but doesn't logically REQUIRE legislators. Kings can be the originators of contract law, so can the church (as was the case in much of the medieval period), or some private enterprise (such as family-clans as had been the case with the early Germanic Weregild system) which is recognized by all potential contracting parties. Not to mention, that courts, lawyers, etc could all be privatized; they don't necessarily have to be connected to a third party monopolist of coercion.

As for the taxes you pay, I don't think the above case legitimizes taxation, its still theft and you would be morally correct to be pissed off about it.


True, but under the current system, contract law getting enforced by governments is there because little people that do not have the means to enforce contracts themselves also need protection under contract law.

Most people are not kings, churches, or mafia dons.

Let's assume government contract enforcement didn't exist. If I make a contract (as I have done verbally) to share 50% of building a fence between our properties, and he stiffs me. How I would enforce that?
#14985791
Rancid wrote:True, but under the current system, contract law getting enforced by governments is there because little people that do not have the means to enforce contracts themselves also need protection under contract law. Most people are not kings, churches, or mafia dons.


All contracts are enforced by violence, the ancap objection is that no one third-party should have a monopoly on this violence; whereas, any pro-state system argues that a monopoly in regards to violence is acceptable.

Regarding the "little guy," his choice isn't between himself alone or the state; thats a bit of a false dilemma, so though he himself may not be a church or a mafia don; either of those said groups can be a third party to the contract.

So, lets say you were living in Brooklyn in the 1950s as an Italian immigrant in an immigrant community. You don't trust the U.S. governemnt and NYPD and you don't think they understand your native customs or respect them anyway. You have this same issue with your neighbor that you described in your example, what do you do?

Likely, you went to the mafia, you would call over the local lackey for the mafia and would have him witness your handshake. Once the neighbor stiffed you, you would go to the lackey and then to the don and the problem would get "resolved," possibly for a small fee; though the mafia had an interest in you not taking justice into your own hands leading to more police presence in their neighborhood. Typically, the mafia wanted their italian communities to remain italian, insular, and and self-governing (as well as profitable).

If you were a peasant in the 11th century, you went to your local priest for the same purpose, he would authorize and witness the contract, and if one guy renigged and wouldn't heed rebuke, the priest could authorize you or some other entitiy to enforce the contract privately.

Once again, the arbitration is such cases was voluntary and the third party did not have a monopoly on violence and had its own interests in keep random acts of chaos limited.

Rancid wrote:Let's assume government contract enforcement didn't exist. If I make a contract (as I have done verbally) to share 50% of building a fence between our properties, and he stiffs me. How I would enforce that?



If there were no government contract enforcement, it would revert to how contracts for most of human history were enforced, via a private mechanism through family-clans, private organizations, or church organizations; however, if you had no third party present, its an agreement, not a contract per se, and whether there was a state or not, a simple handshake on your front lawn with no witnesses can hardly can be enforced by anyone (the government, church, mafia, or otherwise); however, if he renigs and you have no other recourse, I would be fine with you taking justice into your own hands regardless of whether you lived under a state or not.

There is always a way to get back at shitty neighbors. ;)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Added Later


@Rancid, another important example is marriage. The marriage contract has existed almost universally among human beings since the dawn of time and existed independently of the state; though states came to recognize its enforcement at different times in human history. Same thing for the west, in general the terms of marriage contracts were enforced by the family and mediated by the church until the state became involved quite late in western history.


The point being, if contracts required the state to exist and be enforced, then prior to centralized states no marriage could have possibly existed. This is obviously not the case; quite the contrary in point of fact.
#14985805
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Contract law currently requires legislators, but doesn't logically REQUIRE legislators. Kings can be the originators of contract law, so can the church (as was the case in much of the medieval period), or some private enterprise (such as family-clans as had been the case with the early Germanic Weregild system) which is recognized by all potential contracting parties. Not to mention, that courts, lawyers, etc could all be privatized; they don't necessarily have to be connected to a third party monopolist of coercion.


We do not live in any of these systems.

Right now, I am being forced to oay for capitalism.

And if you want to imagnie a fantasy world where it is all privatized, go ahead, but I am talking about what really happens.

As for the taxes you pay, I don't think the above case legitimizes taxation, its still theft and you would be morally correct to be pissed off about it.


I do not see taxes as being immoral or unjustifiable.

But by the arguments posted in this thread about how it is unjustifiable to pay for things that you do not want, need, or ask for, the current system of capitalism is unjustifiable.

I would certainly agree that certain essential aspects of our current system of chrony-capitalism requires certain supports; especially since 90% of the monopolies in existence currently could not function without state protection and laws; like patent-law.

I think you are correct in your analysis that these supports are evil and that you shouldn't have to pay for them.


Again, the supports are not evil.

Yes, that would be more correct than your previous statement. Though there is no logical basis for the argument that a system of private property absolutism and free exchange would require any such infrastructure; I do agree that our current system which neither absolutizes private property rights nor allows for total free exchange is a monstrosity that should be abolished or seceded from in the pursuance of said abolition.


Feel free to abolish, or secede from, capitalism.

Yes our current system is unjustified, I agree. Though I would hardly call it capitalism. The means of producing violence, security, and law are not privately owned; nor is the market characterized by entirely voluntary free exchanges, nor are individual property rights acknowledged as absolute.

We have an unjust system of the super rich using the mechanism of the state to protect them from what nature would demand; their unmitigated failure.

However, as anything unnatural, such an arrangement is ultimately untenable and will collapse eventually. The state propping up the billionaire class is akin to propping up a dead horse. Eventually your arms get tired.


Yes, it is capitalism. The fact that it does not rise to your unrealistic ideal does not make it something other than capitalism.

Interestingly enough, the existence of a formal police force funded by the state is a somewhat new phenomena in human civilization and has almost entirely existed during the time of human culture where we have the most crime and social decay (last 300 years); however, neither the police nor the military need to be state funded.

For nearly 1,000 years of western history, most militaries in Europe were privately funded either directly by the king's property, or by the nobility; via their own personal assets. Likewise, stats have shown that private security groups can be more effective and efficient than a state-funded police force.

Indeed, after militaries became almost entirely public-funded via the auspices of a social contract regime; wars became bigger, bloodier, and more global than in any prior time in human history; one only has to look at the world wars for an example. the social contract theory has been responsible for more death and destruction than the patriarchal style regimes it attempted to replace, by an exponential degree.


I doubt it.
#14985810
Pants-of-dog wrote:We do not live in any of these systems.

Right now, I am being forced to oay for capitalism.

And if you want to imagnie a fantasy world where it is all privatized, go ahead, but I am talking about what really happens.


This is not an argument.

However I did answer your problem with our current system and I agreed that you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not see taxes as being immoral or unjustifiable.

But by the arguments posted in this thread about how it is unjustifiable to pay for things that you do not want, need, or ask for, the current system of capitalism is unjustifiable.


Under your own argument, your taxes are paying for this system, it would therefore follow that your paying taxes would be regarded by you as immoral, if not, then you have no problem paying for this system and your argument collapses.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the supports are not evil.


So you have no problem with paying for them? :eh:

So whats your argument then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to abolish, or secede from, capitalism.


I shall secede from the current system indeed. Which only a delusional marxist would call capitalism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it is capitalism. The fact that it does not rise to your unrealistic ideal does not make it something other than capitalism.


No, its chronyism. The fact that is does not fit with your marxian presuppositions does not make its something other than chronyism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.


Not an argument.
#14985813
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is not an argument.

However I did answer your problem with our current system and I agreed that you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Under your own argument, your taxes are paying for this system, it would therefore follow that your paying taxes would be regarded by you as immoral, if not, then you have no problem paying for this system and your argument collapses.

So you have no problem with paying for them? :eh:

So whats your argument then?


I did not make an argument.

I merely pointed out that according to the logic of you and @SolarCross, capitalism is currently unjustified.

I shall secede from the current system indeed. Which only a delusional marxist would call capitalism.

No, its chronyism. The fact that is does not fit with your marxian presuppositions does not make its something other than chronyism.


It is spelt cronyism, by the way.

And it is called capitalism.

Not an argument.


Your unsupported claims seem incredibly unrealistic.
#14985822
Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not make an argument.

I merely pointed out that according to the logic of you and @SolarCross, capitalism is currently unjustified.

Capitalism defo:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism


For further disambiguity:

Private defo:

(1) : not holding public office or employment a private citizen
(2) : not related to one's official position : personal private correspondence


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private
----

I don't know how many times we have to post these definitions before the marxists will choose to use words correctly.
#14985823
What was that?

Are you trying to yell over the internet?

Please note that the given definition describes our current economic system in North America and Europe.

And this system is currently supported by tax dollars, including taxes taken from those who oppose capitalism.

Oh, so now you don't believe Amit Soussana, @Pant[…]

Oh please post those too :lol: Very obvious p[…]

No, it does not. It is governed by the rather vagu[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]