skirkle, let us discuss politics, redux

[Conrad]

For the purposes of this discussion let's define "capitalism" as the current economic model used in America.

[Kuya]

Yea but that's not very well defined seeing as how we might also disagree on what the US economic model really is. You have to define it, even if inaccurately or quickly for the purposes of a quick discussion.

[Krye]

Kuya you're making it very hard to respect your good looks by talking about all this gay shit

[Kuya]

You could mean capitalism as a relatively free exchange of products and services in a market where currency is used as a medium for exchange or you could mean free trade between countries, or the free movement of capital, or the absolute freedom accorded to conglomerations such as corporations.

[tyven]

It is important for maintaining grammatical correctness.

lal'd

[Conrad]

A free market which discourages government influence and promotes economic darwinism. It may not be the best definition, but you did say it could be inaccurate or quickly-formed, which it was.

[Conrad]

You could mean capitalism as a relatively free exchange of products and services in a market where currency is used as a medium for exchange or you could mean free trade between countries, or the free movement of capital, or the absolute freedom accorded to conglomerations such as corporations.

This one

[Kuya]

A free market which discourages government influence and promotes economic darwinism. It may not be the best definition, but you did say it could be inaccurate or quickly-formed, which it was.

Given that the definition is vague, i don't think the framing of necessary or evil is valid. There is nothing inherently evil about people exchanging currency for products and services, and it is not always necessary that government influence remain discouraged.

Put another way, the word evil is loaded and is useless for a discussion in politics, and whether capitalism is necessary or not is not a valid question given that nobody specified what it's necessary for. Capitalism is necessary for the existence of great material wealth? Maybe. Is it necessary for our survival? Probably not.

[Conrad]

I'll try and think of a better phrasing for the purposes of this discussion later today.

[Kuya]

This one

In that case, i think absolute freedom for corporations is troublesome and it does not really exist right now. If we want to compare corporations to people, then giving them absolute freedom is no different than giving a person the right to do anything it wants. I think that when it comes to corporations, more restrictions are better than less, given that corporations possess more power in terms of capital than a single individual, and therefore capable of causing more damage. You can't hold a corporation democratically accountable (at the moment) and a corporation is not limited by anything like a separation of powers.

I don't know really know what you wanted to discuss about this though. Is it a necessary evil? I don't think corporations are evil or necessary (necessary for what?).

[Tajin]

(necessary for what?).

Keep the capitalist model of course.

[Beckwin]

interesting that the discussion was pretty much about right-anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) initially but finesse sort of brought in original anarchist theory.

Engels had some interesting stuff about revolution within the state.

[Krye]

Oh wow dude that is interesting

[Beckwin]

Your ass is interested in my dick, faggot.