 | | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) Or a true capitalist with no conscience. ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) Now that's a tautology! Richie (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) No, actually it's an oxymoron. A true capitalist recognizes rights and doing what's right, and does so. (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) I don't think so - conscience could unnecessarily inhibit the free interaction of supply and demand. (...) Which rights would they be? How does 'Doing what's right' apply to true capitalism? What *is* right? Richie (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) True capitalism is more than just supply and demand, it requires recognition of property rights. Selling stuff that you stole is just thuggery or fencing, not capitalism. (...) All rights are property rights. What is right is to respect them. (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) Amen to that! Terry (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ture Capitalism and Property Rights (was Re: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Could you explain what you mean by 'all rights are property rights'? (...) Why? (Is it purely so capitalism will work?) (...) No respect for rights = socialism Respect for rights = capitalism ? No. If all rights are property rights then: (...) (22 years ago, 8-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ture Capitalism and Property Rights (was Re: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Sure... (URL) 118 (1998) is the first place I think I use that phrase in this forum. (22 years ago, 8-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: People are idiots...
|
|
(...) Well, my good friend Larry, you are totally wrong here. Capitalism is nothing more than putting a price on everything, including the rights. Your definition of capitalism is idealized. On the other hand, socialism does NOT operate without (...) (22 years ago, 8-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pure Capitalism and Property Rights (was Re: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Lots of interesting stuff there. Plenty of examples demonstrating that specific rights can be construed as property rights, but apparently nothing demonstrating it to be the case for all rights (but I could have missed it - there are, after (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pure Capitalism and Property Rights (was Re: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Dunno. I haven't found one yet that wasn't. (Meaning either a putative right is a property right, or it isn't a right) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
Capitalism merely refers to an economic system in which the capital is controlled by private rather than public interests. All this "capitalists with a conscience" stuff is silly. (...) How do you figure? What you're discussing is either a matter of (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I agree that existence is a property right (and truly the most fundamental one). This does imply a right to a place to exist. However, assuming that the resources of the universe are limited, clearly one doesn't have an unlimited right to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) I think that one must agree to either: a) because people have a right to exist somewhere, space/volume/area/land is not a good in the normal sense and we have to figure out what it is and how we handle it, or b) because space/volume/area/land (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Hmm, if land is not a good, then what rules should govern trading it? If you always have a right to some land as part of your right to exist, then what stops you from "selling" your land, and then demanding a land grant because you're now (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
