🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@rastinza

Again your viewing capitalism as yes or no, I am viewing the nuance.

Its all capitalism just in different ways and to varying degrees, thats the point, there is no "this is capitalism and this isnt" Everything is a mix of ideologies applied in many different ways.

I would say that what you describe "is mostly capitalism", it has aspects to it that are strongly capitalist (the private person gets a significant portion of ownership rights) and has anti-capatilist components such as lacking certain ownership rights in dealing with how I wish to use my property (in this case to sell it).

@freeschool

@rastinza @freeschool

> Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.

The existent of, or lack of tariffs, if applied equally to all members (usually not the case) is still free market. When you have tariffs the market is no longer internationally free (some countries are at a disadvantage others are) but locally/internally is a free market. In other words, all the players in the market in the country have equal footing.

So the mere existence of tariffs doesnt make a country a capitalism or not, it depends on how it is applied. In fact if tariffs are meant to offset an unfair advantage one party has at the table then it would be against the principles of capitalism to not have tariffs. For example if china had a monopoly on cell phones then putting a tariffs on cell phones would be a requirement to follow capitalist ideals.

> The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done.

Then to my original point you dont fully own those bricks. If someone is **forcing** me to sell those bricks at some price that isnt the market price then I dont **fully** own the bricks. Someone else is telling me what I can or cant do with my bricks, and therefore someone else has some level of joint ownership over those bricks. Now again im not saying this is a bad thing, or even that it should or can be avoided entirely, capitalisms (along with any other ideal) does not exist in a pure sense so that would be nonsense anyway. But absolutely if there is a tariff exclusive to a category of goods, and that tariff is **not** designed to make the markets free (that is, everyone having equal power), then it is contrary to capitalism since it makes markets less free (brick sellers are at a disadvantage due to price fixing).

@rastinza @freeschool

> You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society.

You could, but no one should want that. As I said this goes back to my comment about pure ideologies, they are almost always bad. Ideologies are meant to be principles, default ideas that work **most** of the time, but no ideaology should ever be applied in the absolute.

Nor does capitalism (or any ideology) require itself to be applied absolutely. Capitalism as a principle applied most of the time, and other principles used where they apply is completely in line with capitalism, and should be the goal of a capitalist.

> I feel the Oxford dictionary definition...

as I said words dont have a single definition, that is certainly one of them. It is distinctly different than free-market which is another definition. Since private ownership and free market are two halves of the same coin I find the distinction largely irrelevant. If the market isnt free then you dont truly completely own your products since someone else can force you to sell it as a price other than what it is worth. You dont truly own a thing if you cant choose when and how to sell it.

@freeschool @rastinza

Language is a werid thing, a word means whatever you mean it to mean. There is no "right" there is just varying degrees of adoption, some terms are used by some people.To me the more important part is that capitalism is well defined in a technical way so it is useful. When we talk about capitalism as a principle of free markets, its useful. Using it as a catch all term that isnt well defined isnt so much wrong, as it is just not useful and is counter productive.

@david_chisnall

Silly to assume Canadians would vote blue or red. Canadians aren't stupid enough to buy into a 2 party myth. Chances are they would all vote for the green party.

@bonifartius the reason I went with bowtie was to show off the accent colors of the shirt. Thanks

First bowtie and first time wearing my new pocket watch.

@kopimi They are used less, but they have a place.

Our new business cards are kinda badass.

It's Eron Musk

#ElonMusk #Musk #Funny #Humor

@nat

So welfare deincentavises them? Therefore we should abolish welfare?

I would disagree.

@cobratbq yea but why dont they fly when their born? Vestigial organs make sense.

@dick Its common for animals to loose a capability as an evolutionary advantage. Basically if it isnt benefiting you much then you are wasting energy maintaining the systems for it, so if flying isnt worth the cost it could be lost.

Why do all insects (that I can think of) start their life in a stage that crawls (usually wormlike of some kind) and usually end their lives in a form that can fly. I cant think of any insects that start being able to fly and then their final form is flightless.

Im guess its because the final stage is the stage that mates and flying is critical to mating in some way.

@freeschool

> You mention the "me and you" example of doing a trade without rules and force- PERFECT- But the reality today is the opposite - there are rules and force beyond the 1 time deal and anything more regular between us is wanting to be regulated or punished (basically)... or within more people difficult.

This goes back to what i was saying about seeing it not as a government type or a pure all or nothing ideology but rather just one among many ideologies that should influence the way you structure a government, but not be seen as a hard rule.

More specifically, we dont live in a country that is a pure capitalism, or even much of a capitalism at all... You are right we **dont** have free markets, thats the point. Markets are highly regulated, and there are big players that control it (including the government). Not only is it not a free market, but it is quite far away from being one. That said we also shouldnt strive for one, while capitalism (free markets) should be the default for sure, its not a rule so much as an ideological guidline, and the reality should be a mix of many things, where capitalism is only an influence.

For example there is a strong argument that healthcare shouldnt exist in a free market system because the laws of supply and demand break down since a person would pay anything (usually) to live one more healthy day. So the supply is limited but demand is effectively infinite. So free market cant work in health care. That said the solution there isnt universal or single payer health care. The solution is to design a system that addresses this problem, and that solution would look like co-op based healthcare which would restore free market pressures since the patients are also the owners.

> So are we in Capitalism?

Again this goes back to what im saying, you arent in a capitalism or not. It isnt a binary thing that a government either is or isnt a capitalism, thats kindergarten way of thinking about it. There are many things we handle in mostly capitalist ways, like the buying and selling of gold, thats fairly capitalistic. But the buying and selling of cars is far from a free market, we fix the price of cars such that gasoline powered cars are artificially more expensive than electric ones (through taxes and other mechanisms), so the buying and selling of cars is far from capitalism in the USA in many ways. That said, like i said, it isnt a bad thing to not follow an ideology as a pure idea, in fact, its good we dont.

@kkarhan

transmisogynist is someone who is hateful towards trans people presenting as a woman? New term for me.

But yea people are silly with how much their rhetoric oversimplifies things.. to the point of absurdity.

@cobratbq Ha! Won't be the last time!

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

As far as I know his medal wasnt actually revoked. But this isnt an absurd representation. I would completely expect this to be an actual response and wouldnt even bat an eye wondering how absurd it is because its the norm now.