Re: does capitalism like philosophy?

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:09:34 -0700, calvin wrote:

> On Jul 5, 9:39 am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 9:37 am, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > On Jul 5, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > On Jul 5, 8:46 am, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > > On Jul 5, 8:22 am, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > > > On Jul 4, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Jul 4, 1:00 pm, tg <tgdenn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > > > > > ... Free markets only exist when
>> > > > > > > there is no scarcity of resources, and it is difficult for
capitalism
>> > > > > > > to exist without that scarcity.
>> > > > > > Yes, it's hard to sell a box of sand at the beach,
>> > > > > > but what's your point?
>>
>> > > > > My point, as usual, is to point out what's propaganda and
what's real.
>>
>> > > > > You can turn beach sand into computer chips and sell those.
Then there
>> > > > > is a market that optimizes utility. But if someone expends
labor to
>> > > > > prevent you from getting the sand (that is, he 'owns' the
sand), that
>> > > > > labor contributes nothing to the total wealth.
>>
>> > > > So you're against owner****p.  That's the way things are going.
>> > > > I hope you enjoy your Marxist utopia.
>>
>> > > From my statement that you can turn beach sand into chips and sell
>> > > them you conclude that I am against owner****p? How can you sell the
>> > > chips if you don't own them?
>> > > Do all you fundatarians have a reading problem?
>>
>> > Don't be a fool.  Review your own statement:
>>
>> > "But if someone expends labor to
>> > prevent you from getting the sand (that is, he 'owns' the sand), that
>> > labor contributes nothing to the total wealth."
>>
>> You disagree with that statement? Please explain.
> 
> I'm for private owner****p. 

The private owner****p of capital would be part of the definition of
"capitalism".

> I've read The Communist Manifesto.

How nice for you.

> It assumes what it pur****ts to prove, that capitalism is bad;
> that private owner****p is bad, etc.  It is a crock.

irrelevant.

> I've read the U.S. Constitution, and seen that what it advocates
> works. 

Assumes a connection between "capitalism" and patriotism that does not
exist.

> The world is richer wherever its principles, and the
> basics of capitalism are followed. 

Depends on the operative definition of "capitalism".

> I'm not going to argue
> with you about it.  be content that your side is winning.  You
> will have your world of forced equality in mediocrity.  You will
> have your new dark ages.  Be content in your victory.

That oil in the ANWR and offshore is __**OUR**__ oil.  It does not belong
to the politicians or the oil companies.  All oil in the USA commons
belongs to all voters in the USA __**EQUALLY**__.

So much for your tap dancing crap about "communism".

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend