[Alan]

Alright, I'm back, sorry I took so long. Anyway.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Who's complaining? My life is awesome, but that doesn't mean your critique of me as an "out of touch" middle class guy is valid. I'm FAR below the poverty line.

Oh and my base wage is 7.55, which IS minimum wage. I just happen to be able to average around Ten an hour because I'm really good at my job.

I didn't say you complained about your life. I said you complain about the idea of a planned economy simply because you are able to make more than the average american and way more than 95% of the world. You set yourself as an example of how capitalism works; why else would you talk about your job?

YES. THIS HAS CLEARLY BEEN MY ONLY MEANS OF ATTACK THIS ENTIRE TIME. MY STATUS AS A CUNNING LINGUIST IS THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE FOUND YOURSELF SO THOROUGHLY LICKED.

Hyperbole aside, there are many different theories on socialist thought and it's application which DON'T involve Harlem's syphalitic drug addicts crashing with me on my couch. Just because some versions involve the abolishment of private property doesn't mean that this is a good idea, nor does this being "How socialism works" do anything for your case that capitalism is entirely without merit.

You're still assuming for no apparent reason that if there's no private property, a Harlem's syphalitic drug addict will crash on your couch, so yeah, you're still using hyperbole here. Don't we all just hate when the other uses a red herring?

And true, saying how socialism works doesn't give merit to why capitalism doesn't. But your argument FOR capitalism, limited as that capitalism might be, also doesn't say anything.
Basically you argued for private property because of hard labor. Where the fuck do we get the connection between both?
I'm pretty sure all of us here agreed that hard labor has nothing to do with profit in capitalism. Certainly Adam Smith himself would say that is stupid.
So we are left with no argument for or against capitalism?
I beg to differ. The arbitrariness of private property rights have shown throughout history to exploit and rob a community from its resources. That should count as an argument against capitalism. Why doesn't it?

What JCC said. Arguing against third world economies is a straw-man. I'm not endorsing Argentina's uber-capitalistic economy. Why do you find it so hard to stay on topic? For that matter, why do you keep avoiding my direct questions? It's not helping dude.

So you're not arguing for the norm in the free market, huh?
So I go back to the original question which you yourself cannot answer directly: Where do you draw the line and why?

Once again, pointing out hipocracy is only ad hominime if the argument is saying/implying you're WRONG because of it. You know, like this:


Now, I could continue this "poorer than thou" dickwaving contest, but as I've pointed out, it really doesn't apply to this argument: that capitalism is entirely without merit (which Jillian, so far, has done a massively inadequate Job of arguing for) Lets just agree that we're both super poor dudes with mad working class street cred and go back to using our university educated minds to spend multiple hours a day arguing theoretical economics on the internets.

Cool, so then we'll agree that using your non-profit higher-than-minimum-wage job as an example of capitalism is stupid.

That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was. My argument was that your claim that salaries in a "capitalist" economy were "arbitrary" or "based on hierarchy" there are many factors which go into a persons salary, which I have shown. I am not arguing that all salaries are deserved all the time, nor am I implying that inequalities are not present. Besides, aren't you supposed to be arguing for the abolition of property? What the fuck does how much a person makes per hour even have to do with that?

These words will sound familiar to you:
That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was.
I never said that salaries were arbitrary under capitalism. Far from it. What IS arbitrary is the respect for the private ownership of the means of production.
There you go, back to the problem of private property from the deviation you started when you began talking about your job.

leave the hyperbole to those who are good at it. Everyone here knows you don't have a sense of humor, so quit pretending otherwise.

No attempt at humor. And how is it a hyperbole?
Your boss earns more because he works more. Do braceros earn less because they work less? Or are they worth less?
How do you account for this ACTUAL example of how capitalism doesn't give a shit about hard labor for payment?