[Despanan]

Once again, sorry about the belated reply, I've been busy.

Originally Posted by Alan

Actually yeah; that was the stupidest thing I have said in this thread by far. I apologize.
But now, if the above is still the biggest try at logic, then you're not really trying anyway and would rather take that I am all in all "not a rational person" so what's the point of even trying to talk about the real issue?

This actually surprised the hell out of me, I didn't think you had it in you Jill. Apology accepted.

But to continue this, need I remind you, it's not my logic, it's the logic of your argument, which was clearly broken. Previously in this thread you seemed to be claiming something like it at every turn, that is until:

Originally Posted by Alan

Your argument only works if you believe that people can be reduced to one sole role. A capitalist is ONLY a capitalist and cannot be a human being, nor a family man, nor a friend. Therefore, you say, he is evil all around.
That's fucking ridiculous.

I agree! However, until this statement this seemed to be the crux of your argument. Now that you have agreed that our behavior is more complex than the systems we cleave to, we can move on.

Originally Posted by Alan

You wanted me to stop with the ad hominems, you stop with the ad hominems. Don't be a fucking hypocrite.

Insult /= Ad Hominem it is a fallacy of irrelevance, I was not arguing that you were wrong because you were irrational, I'd already made a very strong case for you being wrong without it. You were attempting to make Ad-Hominem attacks on my position as to why you were wrong about capitalism by trying to draw me into a political discussion where I would be forced to defend my own political beliefs, which I'm sure you presumed would be unable to do and thus be proved a hypocrite/politically ignorant and therefore wrong, when in fact, the fact that I like representational democracy is of little relevance to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Alan

By the way, I never argued that capitalism is hate incarnate, you delusional dimwit.

I was very clearly employing hyperbola to poke fun at this assertion:

Originally Posted by Alan

I argue that all the goodness you people have mentioned come in spite of capitalism

hence the "Yadda Yadda"

But lets get back to your main argument: that all goodness a capitalist has, comes in spite of his capitalism, like a good slaveowner, dictator, or feudal lord. Thus, it is implied, if one supports capitalism on the grounds that capitalism works if the employer and employee engage in fair practices, one should be a fan of benevolent dictatorships etc. ie: Why support a bad system on the grounds that good people make use of it, why support feudalism because of King Arthur?

(For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to ignore the fact that I disagree with the prevailing assertion here, that capitalism is inherently exploitative.)

This is actually a straw man argument. Once again, it is a fallacy of irrelevance. I would argue that slavery is indefensible because it is the ownership of another human being, and thus, unethical on the grounds that it violates anothers inalienable right to liberty. I would argue against benevolent dictatorship and a feudal system for the simple fact that these systems both lack sufficient protection against abuse (interestingly enough, this is also why I argue against Anarchism) even with a benevolent leader, this system will inevitably descend into malevolence as we cannot guarantee that leader and/or those who come after him will continue this behavior.

Now this point might hold water if we were arguing about anarcho-capitalism, a completely unfettered free market, but we're not. No one in this thread has argued for that, nor did the original poster present that as his idea of capitalism. We're not using capitalism in the totally unregulated sense, and thus, Jillian's argument: capitalism is only saved by socialism, thus a mixed economy is a bad idea is totally irrelevant.

This is part of why I have called Alan "irrational" and a big part of why I have given him so much shit over the years: He is a fundamentalist not in the religious sense, but he approaches economic politics with an irrational religious-esque zeal. He equates morality with the system he argues for, and thus, sees no problem with removing all government-imposed restrictions from society, because once people think like he does, they will all be moral, and everything will be fine.

Saya has echoed this sentiment in a big old post a little later in the thread, arguing:

Originally Posted by Saya

I see how majority rules wouldn't work in capitalism because capitalism necessitates at least some kind of hierarchy, but in anarchy there would be no hierarchy. Lets assume we have a country that becomes an anarchist state, for this to happen the vast majority of the people have to agree to this, and would therefore have to agree to the anarchist principle that everyone is equal. This is in our constitutions but in practice today, we know that we are not all equal (gender and racial wage gap, gay couples are considered second class and unworthy of marriage). So in an anarchist state, the principle our countries today pretend to believe in would actually be in practice

Folks, This kind of thought is a huge part of what is what is wrong with the world. This extremism, this zealotry, be it religious, political, or social, be it dedicated to human equality, animal compassion, or social morality, thinking like this robs otherwise normal people of their rationality. It turns normal, rational minds in upon themselves and you get reactions like this:

Originally Posted by Alan

And where do you get that socialism is universal slavery? Are you that deluded?
People, this is the person you side with? An idiot that believes capitalism is defensible if it's not profit-driven and socialism is absolute lack of freedom? Not even Deadman is that stupid. Congrats, JCC.

And that, unchecked, will usually lead to bloodshed.