| > Given the specific word use makes a particular claim, that is the basis for your other claims, it's extremely important. No, but it's always nice to focus on semantics if you got little else to say. > No, this is just your projection. You're engaging in historical revisionism. The standard use of the term 'capitalism' is synomous with free markets. Are you really suggesting that a system of private property rights is not a fundamental part of 'Capitalism'? And that it's historical revisionism to claim that? > formed as juries What jury? Do you think this issue would be treated by a jury if reported? Even if it would be in-front of a jury, a jury is supposed to follow the law, it's not acting in an objective vacuum. That's ridiculous. > Courts deem children to not have the ability to provide consent, which is unlike adults, so your example shows nothing. Yeah, and that's obviously a subjective interpretation? The same can easily be said about adults forced to work by the conditions put in place by the system they live in. Currently under capitalism it isn't seen as non-consensual, since that clearly wouldn't work, but maybe it will be seen as obviously so in 100 years? > That's a totally absurd claim: there were no societies that didn't have free markets / capitalism / work-for-wages and did "just fine wrt food". What's absurd about historical societies not having capitalist wage-labor and did fine without it? No societies? Haha, that's so ridiculously obvious historical revisionism it's entertaining. >That you see no need to get emotional about socialist tyranny shows the lack of conscience behind your crude ideologically motivated position. I'm not sure what socialist tyranny I have promoted in this thread? > oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too: What part of that quote more specifically do you feel addresses some point? It's mostly low signal-to-noise gibberish. > You were earlier implying any one employing someone is an oppressor Yes, and that was regarding trivial semantics that doesn't remove the core of this discussion namely the non-free nature of capitalism. |