Many people would like to extract rents from you. I'm sure a lot of people would like a steady trickle (or torrent) or money they don't work for. The beauty of #capitalism is...you don't have to give it to them, in a free market. I don't pay a subscription for my car, or pay for proprietary ink cartridges. There are other options.
Under #socialism? You pay the #government and take what they provide. Don't like it? Well, tough shit; there are no other choices.
Selling a child is hardly a legitimate example of a "free totally unregulated market". That would be selling someone else's property without their consent.
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Selling someone else's property isn't a "freer" market, it breaks the market, because trust in ownership is required for exchange to work.
Selling people is different: it's only possible if you allow people to be treated as property in the first place. That’s about what can be owned, not whether markets function. It's not possible to sell people, because the market is regulated.
"Selling someone else's property isn't a "freer" market"
Correct. That is why selling a child is NOT an example of a free market; that child is their own property, and not yours to sell.
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Ah, then I misunderstood you, sorry.
What about if the person puts themselves up for sale, by their own free will? Would you deny the person their right to do that?
In any case, my point was not about capitalism to start with, but about socialism, of which you seem to have a somewhat stereotypical and old-fashioned view.
It's nonsensical to imagine someone could sell themselves. Now, you can RENT your time and effort out, AKA have a job.
Tell me; what is my view of socialism? How do I define it?
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Quoting you: "Under #socialism? You pay the #government and take what they provide. Don't like it? Well, tough shit; there are no other choices."
That is neither a definition or much of a complete view. So what is my view of socialism? How do I define it?
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
That is the view that I know of. To say that under socialism, you have no choices but what the government provides, seems a bit old-fashioned. That is not a society that I believe any now-living socialists would want to see.
You could, of course, develop that view a bit, so that I understand it better.
So, you don't really know what my view is or how I define it, but you're willing to judge that view?
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
As I said, I have not much else to go on, so you may want to expand on it, because as-is, it is rather dated. And yes, I would judge it as being dated.
If you give me nothing else, I'm assuming that there is where we'd leave that. But I sense that you will continue to question how much I know of you knowledge of socialism none the less.
If you don't have much else to go on....why pass judgement? Why not, you know....ask first?
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
You don't seem very interested to tell. In fact, so far you have only asked me what you view is. I can only echo what you said (that under socialism, government will provide a singular alternative). That's the bit that I responded to. That's the bit that is outdated. Call it a judgement if you wish. You have already alluded to the fact that it's not a "view", but it's at least an expression of _something_.
I'm just trying to understand your method of conversation. I don't see the point in an explanation if you're just going to make assumptions when you could easily ask. Is that your general approach? Have a question and assume an answer instead of asking for one?
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
That's a fair request, and I have already made it clear that I seem to be lacking sufficient information to be able to converse in a way that you find passable. Still, you move the conversation to a meta level, being obviously more at ease talking about _the conversation_ rather than about the topic.
It's a request you only made after I asked you to flesh out your understanding of my position. You judged my view and I wondered, legitimately, how you came to that judgement, given your sparse information. Only then did you ask for more. And you go on making bad assumptions; I am perfectly at ease talking about many topics, including economics. I just don't want to waste time trying to have a worthwhile discussion with someone who prefers assumptions to questions.
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Well, as you don't seem to want to share more, I'm assuming that the conversation ends here.
I can't honestly say I'll miss it; you've said nothing that has improved my life or my understanding of anything, save that you prefer assumptions to answers. Please let me know if that ever changes.
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Well, if you ever want to say something, I'm happy to listen.
@AlexanderKingsbury You can have free markets without capitalism, even under socialism...Feudal Japan operated a sort of free market economy.
The sad reality is that capital tends to accumulate under the ownership of the select few (or you could even argue that it was taken away centuries ago) while the rest of us become serfs paying rent and being forced to work for meager wages just enough to pay rent and utility.
"You can have free markets without capitalism, even under socialism"
That is nonsensical. A fee market is a market without government intervention. Socialism, by definition, is an economy where the government owns the means of production.
No, communism describes (in part) a stateless society. To say that the state owns the means of production when there is no state is also nonsensical.
I agree; you can have collective ownership without government ownership. In fact, we do have that, on a vast scale. Just look at the stock market; nearly every company of any significant size in the US is owned by a group of people, not an individual.
@AlexanderKingsbury @drmambobob
Owning stock shares is not the same as ownership of the corporation. Corporations really own themselves.
Raptor's Nest (He/Him)
AKingsbury
Kusalananda
RD