 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> > with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
> Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things
> were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that
> there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing
> available? I read it as just one example of things regulated by the
> government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and
> that might very well show up in that situation.
I realize that, and I'm not defending it. I don't think capitalism implies
such discrimination, and it was not because of capitalism per se that there
was (and is) discrimination in the US (or in other countries).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> No, I'm saying there is a faulty naivet? to think that "blind capitalism" gets
> us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
> comfortable.
Maybe, but from what I see, it seems to be the economic system which works
best overall. It has its drawbacks, of course (such as big gaps between rich
and poor), but overall it's more beneficial than most other economic systems.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I realize that, and I'm not defending it.
Right.
> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
>
Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a
synonym of
>>> “Communism”
>> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
>> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
>> "the people".
>>
>
> Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
> people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)
That was kind of my point. Hence the question. Once again, please do not
interpret my asking a question as my implying an answer. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
communism do the same?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
>> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
>> legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
You're confusing "causes" with "permits". There's already racial
discrimination. By removing all controls on how you may conduct business,
some people will preferentially patronize businesses that discriminate
against those they don't like.
It's sort of like how freedom of speech doesn't cause anti-government radio
stations. It just permits them in ways that a country with heavy censorship
does not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>> a long time.
>>>
>>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>
>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
>> I heard in a long time.
>
> And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> I have heard in a long time.
>
> You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> situation.
>
It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
place.
Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
context and attack that. Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
have happened). Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
argument.
In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
man I would say.
I am sure you meant something different and more intelligent, but this
is what appeared in this news group, sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
> > No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> > legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
>
> If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
> communism do the same?
>
My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.
I've praised Capitalism a few times now by saying it's the best system for
giving people what they want. Sometimes they want bad things, like to be able
to smoke in restaurants where children are present. As for the American South,
some discrimination was foisted upon those without hate by the state; more often
those with hate used the marketplace to press for discrimination. Civil rights
activists like Millard Fuller wrote of the boycott of black business as a tool
of the racists; the activists became involved haranguing people about where to
shop.
Chocolate. Blind capitalism gave us widespread use of slave labor. Through the
marketplace, you kept saying, give me cheaper, give me cheaper, until
eventually no corner was left to cut but the farmworker's wages. The answer is
not necessarily the State here but nagging. Activists harangued the importers to
stop using slave labor; then harangued people of good will to buy from the
importers who showed more good will than the others in rectifying the situation.
The socialism/ capitalism dilemma is shown here in the famous opening credit for
the Odd Couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odd_Couple_(TV_series)
Felix is not calling the cops, he is not sending Oscar to a prison camp. He is
however harassing, nagging Oscar about having thrown a cigarette butt on the
ground. The look of disgust from Oscar is probably the same you'd get if you
nagged someone about smoking in a restaurant where children are present, about
the MPG of the car they purchased, the age of the "actors" in the DVD they
purchased, what kind of wages were paid the bean-pickers with the chocolate
they purchased. It is the look of Southerners seeing nonviolent activists
driving over the border to tell them how to live with blacks.
Q: When Texas passed a "beef blasphemy" law, under which Oprah Winfrey was sued
for making criticisms of an agricultural process, was law that a liberal or
conservative one, was it capitalistic or socialistic? How about when New York
state flirted with a law that would have forbidden farmers from telling
consumers whether they used growth hormones on the cows?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> >>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> >>> a long time.
> >>>
> >>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> >>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> >
> >> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
> >> I heard in a long time.
> >
> > And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> > I have heard in a long time.
> >
> > You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> > situation.
> >
> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
> place.
Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
will provide it."
Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
they are quoting?
> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
> context and attack that.
Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
be confused about what I was referring to).
It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
context.
> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
> have happened).
At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. Capitalism does
ot lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
racism (while other economic models don't).
> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
> argument.
> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
> man I would say.
What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
meta-straw-man?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
