This analogy is so true!

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

He's not infallible, in anycase. But he's a much better option than revolution.

The "infallibility" only matters because the commie in question was wrong. Do you admit the Regan was wrong?

Anyone who is fallible is wrong.

We all make mistakes. Does that automatically make every statement that you or I say wrong?

No, but Reagan was wrong- even one bit of wrongness makes that person wrong

[New Kereptica]

If yoyu can be fallible and avoid doing wrong? Snatches magic potion.

You are babbling incoherently.

[Collective Systems]

No, but Reagan was wrong- even one bit of wrongness makes that person wrong

Damn, you must be 98.5% proof positive then.

[New Kereptica]

No, but Reagan was wrong- even one bit of wrongness makes that person wrong

In everything the do and say? How?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

[New Amerik]

why is it getting so deep into this?

i think it's a great analogy. Socialists are people who distribute evenly (or want to). Capitalists work for what they gain and they keep what they earn.

i could go into the human nature factor but i don't think it's very relevant.

cap·i·tal·ist
   /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

Please demonstrate how any 3 of these necessarily implies that the capitalist "works for what they gain and keep what they earn"

Socialists beleive the government should control the factors of production
Communists believe the workers should control the factors of production
Capitalists believe individuals should control the factors of production

This is the def. at the most basic, and nowhere does it state that socialists believe in even distribution of wealth

[Natapoc]

If yoyu can be fallible and avoid doing wrong? Snatches magic potion.

You are babbling incoherently.

He had a bit to much of the "body and wine" today at communion if you know what I mean...

[Hindopia]

Wasn't Eternal Life with God deleted for a reason?

Check moderation. It appears however, that it just timed-out.

I think that it was a 72 hour forum ban first imposed by one mod, then he repeatedly broke that by trying to explain his position. ELWG was deated for that reason, as was another one of his puppets for again breaking that ban.

[New Kereptica]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Work takes capital and turns it into product. Investment provides capital. The two are not the same.

[Blitzkrenia]

He's not infallible, in anycase. But he's a much better option than revolution.

The "infallibility" only matters because the commie in question was wrong. Do you admit the Regan was wrong?

Anyone who is fallible is wrong.

Main Entry: fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin fallibilis, from Latin fallere
Date: 15th century
1 : liable to be erroneous <a fallible generalization>
2 : capable of making a mistake <we're all fallible>
fallible =/= wrong, by definition.

If yoyu can be fallible and avoid doing wrong? Snatches magic potion.

Being capable of something does not mean you will always do it. For example, You and I are capable of murder, but that doesn't mean we go around killing everyone we meet.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

why is it getting so deep into this?

i think it's a great analogy. Socialists are people who distribute evenly (or want to). Capitalists work for what they gain and they keep what they earn.

i could go into the human nature factor but i don't think it's very relevant.

cap·i·tal·ist
   /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

Please demonstrate how any 3 of these necessarily implies that the capitalist "works for what they gain and keep what they earn"

Socialists beleive the government should control the factors of production
Communists believe the workers should control the factors of production
Capitalists believe individuals should control the factors of production

This is the def. at the most basic, and nowhere does it state that socialists believe in even distribution of wealth

Any person whose beliefs consist only of this does not deserve our attention.

[Natapoc]

why is it getting so deep into this?

i think it's a great analogy. Socialists are people who distribute evenly (or want to). Capitalists work for what they gain and they keep what they earn.

i could go into the human nature factor but i don't think it's very relevant.

cap·i·tal·ist
   /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

Please demonstrate how any 3 of these necessarily implies that the capitalist "works for what they gain and keep what they earn"

Socialists beleive the government should control the factors of production
Communists believe the workers should control the factors of production
Capitalists believe individuals should control the factors of production

This is the def. at the most basic, and nowhere does it state that socialists believe in even distribution of wealth

Your socialism/communism distinction is a bit non standard and your definition capitalism applies to communism and socialism too.

[Hindopia]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Work takes capital and turns it into product. Investment provides capital. The two are not the same.

Barring loans, how are you supposed to get the money for investment in the first place? By working

[New Kereptica]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Work takes capital and turns it into product. Investment provides capital. The two are not the same.

Barring loans, how are you supposed to get the money for investment in the first place? By working

How the money is procured doesn't matter. Nor is work the only way money can be acquired.

[Conservativeism]

He's not infallible, in anycase. But he's a much better option than revolution.

The "infallibility" only matters because the commie in question was wrong. Do you admit the Regan was wrong?

Anyone who is fallible is wrong.

Main Entry: fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin fallibilis, from Latin fallere
Date: 15th century
1 : liable to be erroneous <a fallible generalization>
2 : capable of making a mistake <we're all fallible>
fallible =/= wrong, by definition.

If yoyu can be fallible and avoid doing wrong? Snatches magic potion.

Being capable of something does not mean you will always do it. For example, You and I are capable of murder, but that doesn't mean we go around killing everyone we meet.

yes, but I've yet to meet someone's who's never wrong.

[Natapoc]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Peeing in a river= making a contribution. Oh no! I'm a capitalist!

[Conservativeism]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Work takes capital and turns it into product. Investment provides capital. The two are not the same.

Barring loans, how are you supposed to get the money for investment in the first place? By working

How the money is procured doesn't matter. Nor is work the only way money can be acquired.

Nay, contribution in any form is contribution. So we cannot buy a phone, but must work for it?

[Nobel Hobos]

P.S You know me. i'm Eternal Life with God.

Are you a human ?

Lots of old chat bots I used to play with used to respond to the question: Are you a hacker? with a list of information it stored on various things. There are so many bots around now that the chances of it working with this one are pretty slim.

Capitalism is good.
Socialism is bad.
I'm a proud Christian.
I'm a Proud Conservative.

You did not answer my question.

Are you a human ?

[Albignano]

Thw world seems to be full of advocates of extremist theories.
Each of them TOTALLY rejects and despise the opposite one.

But a few things startle me.

I can understand (if not approve) that TRUE communists (not those that right-wingers call "communists", i.e. almost everybody but them) could be extreme in their rejection of capitalist rules. After all, true communism IS a totalitarian ECONOMIC theory, leaving no space for most, if not all, of the capitalistic economic rules.

I cannot understand why most (maybe all) die-hard capitalists (and I live in a region considered a stronghold of self-confident capitalism) are very ready to cry and ask the government for help and punitive import tariffs against "evil" foreign competition.

I've come to suspect that any economic theory we support has to confront with our deep, "animal", self-protective nature. When something is threatening me (my job, my lifestyle, my bread, etc.) there's no theory whatsoever: "I'm right and to the hell with others".

Having said that, the main difference between "left" and "right" could be the distance one has to walk before getting at that "to-the-hell-with-others" point.
Socialists think that they (as a collectivity and as individuals through their taxes and work) must be ready to suffer a bit for others, maybe sometimes up to the point of setting up a rather "unefficient" state.
The result often is a country a little poorer on the whole, with lots of cases of inefficiency, where there are lazy bastards living after other people's trouble, but also where you can rest assured that, if ill, you'd be cured without having to sell your house.

Die-hard capitalists think that thousands of people starving are not worth their "hard earned" swimming pool.
The result is often a country where there is rich and poor people. If you're rich, you are richer than in a "semi-socialist" country (that means you can have TWO swimming pools instead of just one: how handy!) If you're poor... better prey not to need anything 'cause you'll never get it! And if you're ill... maybe you cannot even sell your house 'cause you don't have one.

[Natapoc]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Work takes capital and turns it into product. Investment provides capital. The two are not the same.

Barring loans, how are you supposed to get the money for investment in the first place? By working

Typically by being born into a wealthy family or getting really lucky in some other way.

[New Kereptica]

yes, but I've yet to meet someone's who's never wrong.

No, but you've been in this thread, and there are certainly people (a person) who are always wrong.

[Conservativeism]

Investing can be considered a form of working.

No. Investing is providing capital so that work can be done. It does not imply work on the part of the investor.

Providing money=Making a contribution
Work=Making a contribution

Peeing in a river= making a contribution. Oh no! I'm a capitalist!

And you do get something in return- Bad quality fish.

[New Amerik]

why is it getting so deep into this?

i think it's a great analogy. Socialists are people who distribute evenly (or want to). Capitalists work for what they gain and they keep what they earn.

i could go into the human nature factor but i don't think it's very relevant.

cap·i·tal·ist
   /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

Please demonstrate how any 3 of these necessarily implies that the capitalist "works for what they gain and keep what they earn"

Socialists beleive the government should control the factors of production
Communists believe the workers should control the factors of production
Capitalists believe individuals should control the factors of production

This is the def. at the most basic, and nowhere does it state that socialists believe in even distribution of wealth

Your socialism/communism distinction is a bit non standard and your definition capitalism applies to communism and socialism too.

Well, it could be. A socialist totalitarian dictatorship means one person controls all the factors of production, but I concede.

Actually, much of this argument from Eternal is based with a democratic/republic capitalist and, I'd imagine, a dictatorship/totalitarian socialism/capitalism. Surely there has to be something said about that? apple.

[Conservativeism]

yes, but I've yet to meet someone's who's never wrong.

No, but you've been in this thread, and there are certainly people (a person) who are always wrong.

Who? You mean Eternal Yerushayma?

[New Kereptica]

Nay, contribution in any form is contribution. So we cannot buy a phone, but must work for it?

Buying something is neither work nor investment.