There are many types of Capitalism.
If you want to limit the discussion because of how you… and no one else… defines things then I guess we are done.
In “pure” capitalism, individuals or groups are able to accumulate and control resources. While that can be monetary resources, it can also mean basic resources such as food, building materials and medicine. You could also extend that to services some may consider resources such as education and healthcare.
Regulation can help to control the distribution/availability of these resources.
Yes there are. State isn’t one of them. What is the definition of socialism?
1 Like
So there is a “right” to equality of access to resources?
1 Like
Ah, so it’s good in theory, but not in practice.
If an individual or group causes harm or deprives a person of their rights and freedoms, then yes, you could consider it a right. There is no black and white definition to when that line is crossed however.
If a group were to purchase all freshwater resources and charge people prices they could not afford and people died because of lack of water, I think it would be easy to say the availability of that water resource is a right.
If a group were to make a drug that cures cancer, but charged a high price and only a few were able to afford it, then you’d move into a gray area.
Yes there is.
So it becomes a right when the price gets too high?
In this case, what right am I being deprived of?
I have good grass. You think you have a right to it? Or the water out of my well?
When it causes undue harm or loss of freedom. Price is relative.
Which case?
I probably would bother if you had any understanding on the subject or a shred of intellectual honesty.
South Korea is a better example of state capitalism.
1 Like
I wouldn’t say there is. But there’s an assumption that if basic needs are met then individuals are free to explore new areas of labor.
there has never been a society in history where everyone was poor relative to their piers.
I added relative to their piers because someone would argue amazon tribes, but then they have leaders that are wealthy compared to the average tribesman.
I think the point is obvious by your response that you have no understanding other than a leftist book that speaks of exploitation on natural resources.
if you could reason you would dismiss the line of thought.
To water, you bet.
You asked the easiest question on the planet.
they were not built with private money, the government was heavily involved in their construction.
