@aeleoglyphic @freemo@qoto.org @Vincarsi
Just block @freemo@qoto.org. There's no point in having a conversation with them. All they did was claimed that I was wrong about saying that capitalism is inherently exploitative without explaining why I was wrong, and instead just kept making claims about the competitive nature of capitalism being good for everyone, again, without explaining why. It's like debating with a pro-capitalist AI with a system malfunction.
@Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic yeah, brings me back to the days when I learned apologetics for young earth creationism. So convinced you're correct that any evidence someone presents to the contrary just doesn't compute. It's the same kind of dogmatic thinking, except instead of "God created earth 6000yrs ago" it's "Capitalism is actually the best system if people just stopped messing it up!".
A system for social organization that results in such a massive imbalance is not a good system.
🇳🇱
I mean your the one who keeps referring to these concepts as monolithic pure ideologies rather than nuanced components of a larger system as I keep indicating.
Projecting much?
My reply to you here quite clearly shows that im the only one in this conversation who isnt dogmatic and actually addressing the finer nuance of the discussion:
https://qoto.org/@freemo/112147840720494469
@Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social
> Does the ideology of Capitalism hold that an individual has the right to withhold access to property they own title to, even if the lack of access results in the death of another person?
No, in the sense that, the ideology of Capitlism is not explicit on that singular issue. That would depend on your interpretation of the ideal.
The ideal itself is essentially that a markets need to be free of any sort of centralized control. But it does not dictate that such a market can not have regulations that does not represent a single controlling interest.
Some may interpret capitalism to mean "no regulation of any kind" in which case the answer to your question under that interpretation is yes. Others might interpret it to mean "regulation is needed to avoid centralized control" in which case they may interpret the answer as no.
For example the Netherlands is a capitalist country, just like all of the EU. Yet it has a law, roughly translated to anti-crack laws, that says if you have extra homes you are required by law to give them to someone in need to live in them if you cant find a renter at a reasonable economic rate. So int he Netherlands we have an explicit example of a country which adopts the capitalist ideal where the answer to your question is unequivocally "no".
@Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social
@freemo @Radical_EgoCom @aeleoglyphic Does the ideology of Capitalism hold that an individual has the right to withhold access to property they own title to, even if the lack of access results in the death of another person? Yes or no.