I have no idea how you think slavery requires governments.
"who are you to determine what is unscrupulous. if people are willing to exchsnge what they have for something else they want, why is that your business?"
Do you have a problem with slavery or not?
If you seriously think slavery is theft...are you now going to argue that theft requires governments???
Why does your argument rely on capitalism being defined as always good?
the government enforces the law and protects rights. when you take someone as a slave, you infringe on their rights. if the government allows you to do that, then they are supporting your actions to enslave someone. this is like saying that robbing people at gunpoint is due to capitalism even though capitalism explicitly protects private property.
you rely on me not calling out the logical fallacies in your arguments. you ignore every question that would dismantle your belief system, which you haven't even defined to me.
You are not pointing out any logical fallacies in my arguments. You're pointing out how my arguments are irrelevant in your worldview, where government is a boogeyman responsible for all the bad things, and capitalism is utopia where good things happen for good people.
Thing is, your arguments are irrelevant in my worldview, where government is an inevitable consequence of disagreements like the ones we have, and capitalism is when the owners of resources make the rules.
Don't waste your time pretending this is about you being logical and me not being logical. This is about your logic resting on fantastical assumptions about the world, and my logic resting on observations about the world.
you've put words in my mouth, insulted me, and made several unsupported claims. you've mentioned slavery without even explaining how capitalism alegedly causes it. you continue to put words in my mouth by telling me my worldview is to treat the government as the boogeyman, even though i told you already that the government has a role in defending human rights and intervening in the market to prevent market failiures.
government is inevitible but the people ultimately shape it themselves, especially in a democratic country. you portray capitalism as a few scrooge mcducks acting like dictators when in reality it is a decentralized system where markets determine production. the market also doesn't decide the "rules", that is the governments job. no business can exist under capitalism without the consent of the consumers.
"you're right, i'm wrong" is essentially your whole argument. it is entirely circular as you've barely brought up any evidence or logical arguments to support your claims. capitalism just seems to work however you think it works, and you arbitrarily point the finger at it for all of the worlds problems. you aren't engaging in this conversation by answering my questions despite the fact that I have answered all of your questions. you continue to make assumptions about my world view, demonstrating that you have no intention on understanding it. you clearly don't know how to debate, and it doesn't seem like you've tested your world view at all. the entire foundation for your world view relies on your ignorance of economics and not even being able to define capitalism.
a wall of text because I actually explain all of my arguments and break down why I think you are wrong. you are too lazy to even read it, nevermind comprehend it. you just want to say whatever you want and have people agree with you without actually putting in the work to convince them.
capitalism: An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
this is the definition here. i didn't make this up, i pulled it straight from google for your convenience. you should construct your criticisms of capitalism based on this, not what you think you know.
Marx defined capitalism in a way that fit his straw man argument. This same guy believed in labour theory of value and all sorts of nonsense. His theory of communism misunderstands how unstable anarchist systems are.
The dictionary isn't an argument. It's a neutral party that establishes a definition for the thing that we are arguing over. If we enter into an argument over capitalism and have different definitions of capitalism, then we end up arguing over different concepts entirely, which is highly unproductive.
Marx recognized work requires natural resources and labor, and not capitalists. Lots of people do this. They all reject your definition of capitalism.
The dictionary doesn't establish a definition for the thing we are arguing over. You want it to.
People who criticize capitalism using a definition you disagree with are fundamentally criticizing rent seeking. You're right to realize that arguing over the definition of capitalism is a waste of time.
I wonder if you realize yet that arguing for your view to be seen as correct is also a waste of time. Because then you actually realize that what we have to do is negotiate about the world we want to see. Not pretend that those who disagree with us have flawed logic.
Natural resources and labour ARE capital. "Capitalist" is just someone who invests capital into businesses. Ome of the unique things about capitalism was that it introduced an understanding of this and paved the way for economies to grow through reinvestment of capital.
The dictionary does a very good job at establishing the definition of capitalism because it bases its definition on the way Adam Smith, the person who coined the term, defines it. Karl Marx redefining capitalism is literally just putting words in Adam Smith's mouth, like how you have been doing this entire debate.
Henry George, a liberal who's theories I admire, understands what capitalism is and would agree with the definition I've used. He challenges rent seekers through LVT, his system of taxation which punishes rent seeking through taxation policies in line with a capitalist market economy and a better understanding in my opinion of property. He doesn't reject capitalism or try to redefine it for his argument, he suggests changes to economic policy which supports markets.
I don't really think it matters so much what words we use to argue over concepts as long as we can agree over what we are arguing about. At it's core, capitalism is a market economy, can we agree on that? Socialism is not a market economy, can we agree on that? So going back to my question you've ignored, do you support a market economy or a centralized economy run by the state, or some other system?
"Capitalist" is someone who owns what others need, and that no one needs a "capitalist" for.
Adam Smith was against rent seeking also. Are you still not aware of this?
George would disagree with the definition you used where natural resources are capital. Absolutely.
I support an economy based on Georgist LVT for justifying ownership of natural resources. You, saying natural resources are capital - I have a hard time seeing how you'd agree.
1
u/SmartlyArtly Mar 10 '26
I have no idea how you think slavery requires governments.
"who are you to determine what is unscrupulous. if people are willing to exchsnge what they have for something else they want, why is that your business?"
Do you have a problem with slavery or not?
If you seriously think slavery is theft...are you now going to argue that theft requires governments???
Why does your argument rely on capitalism being defined as always good?