Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbdiesel
not an answer. Do you or do you not stand by your previous statement?
I believe you are incorrect.
Your own source concedes that there are differing forms of capitalism, yet you cling to a very narrow definition which fits the framework of your arguement.
If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences. Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.
|
I do stand by it. And that ENTIRE ARTICLE goes on to provide why the state is the biggest impediment to capitalism, at any and all degrees. Notice the quotes. Perhaps Rothbard and I use the term capitalism differently. Even still, we're both talking about the same thing. And since I've pretty well made clear what capitalism is and means it shouldn't be an issue. AND since the guy who got this started WAS INDEED speaking of "unrestrained capitalism", this whole line of debate is moot.
What's the title of that article? Oh yeah "Capitalism versus Statism"...
Besides, how is it any different from your cherrypicking(poorly) to defend your position?