Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 In this sense, I am pro-capitalistic and minarchistic: I have decided that I believe in the maximization of en masse individual liberty and a capitalistic economy with property rights for all balanced with social contracts and easements only as necessary in order to protect life, liberty, property, and natural resources. Thank you and have a good day. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Sounds good to me. To make it interesting though, you allude to some other sense in which are you NOT pro-capitalistic and minarchistic? In what sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Not in the sense in which it would turn into de facto feudalism if property rights were interpreted in a protectionistic manner. Edited November 4, 2015 by Daniel Mullarkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Sounds good to me. To make it interesting though, you allude to some other sense in which are you NOT pro-capitalistic and minarchistic? In what sense? Careful SN about the "sounds good" bit... Note the phrases: "maximization of en masse..." - sounds like a sort of utilitarian collectivism, one may have to sacrifice for the collective maximum "balanced with social contracts" - sounds like a compromise which allows injection of "involuntary" (unchosen) obligations "only as necessary" - restricts rights as non-absolute or equivalently defines them as something invalid i.e. "rights" which could conflict with other "rights" and thus which require restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Intellectual property, for instance, has fair use and that is all that I am arguing for in terms of infrastructure of public use like roadways, for instance. Even if you disagree with me, that still makes me no worse than the average American politically anyway. Edited November 5, 2015 by Daniel Mullarkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Welcome to the forum Daniel, where your feet may still be held to the fire for perceived ambiguity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 5, 2015 Report Share Posted November 5, 2015 Even if you disagree with me, that still makes me no worse than the average American politically anyway. That's quite the understatement.The typical American's politics is a mix of socialism, fascism and capitalism, weighted toward the first two, but coloring it with the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Capitalism cannot survive in any form without the art of compromise between men because the exchange of anything valuable does not exist without compromise between men and yet your philosophy might be incapable of compromising at any level. It is too bad that Ayn Rand is not alive today because we cannot ask her anymore. Edited November 6, 2015 by Daniel Mullarkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 You need to clarify your usage of the the term, "compromise"; in what context is this compromise of which you speak. If you're referring to the compromise of mutual agreed terms of a sale, contract, or other form of bargain, then that is the very nature of capitalism. However, if you are referring to some form of compromising one's integrity or honesty, this form of art falls more into the description of pragmatism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 I am arguing the former and not the latter of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Mullarkey Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 The Founding Fathers tried unanimity in all affairs before the founding of the current Constitution and it never worked to begin with and it never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 The Founding Fathers tried unanimity in all affairs before the founding of the current Constitution and it never worked to begin with and it never will. And a good thing too. As Warren Buffett says (albeit in a different context): "You pay a very high price ... for a cheery consensus". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 It is too bad that Ayn Rand is not alive today because we cannot ask her anymore. What would you ask her that you could not apply a proper process of identification for on your own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I am arguing the former and not the latter of course. Let's dispense with the ambiguity. Yes or no question: Do you support the method by which the US government is funded? (by forcibly taking a percentage of people's earnings) And do you consider that method (forcibly taking someone's property) honest? Edited November 6, 2015 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 The Founding Fathers tried unanimity in all affairs before the founding of the current Constitution and it never worked to begin with and it never will. With the exception of four years, from 1861 to 1865, the Constitution has been working, albeit imperfectly, for 239 years. I find your statement regarding the Constitution unnecessarily distracting, a straw man argument. And it is false. Capitalism cannot survive in any form without the art of compromise between men because the exchange of anything valuable does not exist without compromise between men and yet your philosophy might be incapable of compromising at any level. It is too bad that Ayn Rand is not alive today because we cannot ask her anymore. The philosophy of Ayn Rand quite specifically and uncompromisingly advocated capitalism in its purest form. Objectivism "might be incapable of compromising at any level" with exactly what? Capitalism? Your claim in this post is beyond ambiguity; it is self-contradictory. Of course. And I would be interested to see your response to the preceding post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.