A recap and Tim's behavior.
Tim starts by introducing those who accept unbridled capitalism as people who turn other people into commodities. He asserts that this " is all of us, to the extent that we accept unbridled capitalism."
Tim is so adamant about his opinion he admittedly "butts in".
I did preface my interjection with "Pardon me."
So there is one litmus Tim lists: "acceptance of unbridled captialism."
Jim finds this vague, undefined, and therefore, a reference without rational value.
You just referred to yourself in the 2nd person.
I respond by a list of many people who are infamous that fit Tim's definition "to the extent". These totally fit his definition because not one of them accepted unbridled capitalism. Tim looks at the list of these arch communists, socialists, and transformers of America and says, " I don’t think so." By his words, Tim implies that Marx accepted unbridled capitalism.
You look at the list and tell me they accepted unbridled capitalism. This list includes Marx.
You made a list of historical figures, many of whom were vile and tyrannical ideologues, along with some decent folks, and asserted that some of them wore buttons that said "Unbridled capitalism makes commodities of us all". I don't think that they wore such buttons, but if you can provide original photographs or historical reports that they wore buttons that supported that wild assertion, then I would admit being in error.
Perhaps Tim just doesn't get the implications of his broad sweeping statements...?
I answered rather broad and sweeping questions of yours, succinctly. I added qualifiers: "to the extent that we accept" and "unbridled" as a modifier of the word "capitalism". Hence, not so broad and sweeping as you suggest.
I call Tim's statement to task by noting what arrogant statement look like. Tim's statement, not Tim himself, does seem to fit the height of arrogance given my definition.
Again, I suggest that some of
your statements fit your definition.
Tim, after butting in, making sweeping statements indicting others by his vague definition, says, "I didn’t care to engage in dialogue about controlled capitalism vs. laissez faire capitalism".
Butts in, backs out, blames me for"ranting"....
It is true that I didn't care to engage in that conversation, basically because I don't think that it will result in me learning anything useful, or in you becoming enlightened, as you seem to be rather passionately entrenched with your own perspective on the matter. My responses, now, are pretty much just defending myself from your accusations. .
My rant simply and clearly listed specific people who fit his definition of those who do not treat others like commodities, to a tee. Note that the list is full of people who treated other like commodities yet do not accept unbridled capitalism. I contend Tim's statement is wrong.
I was not suggesting that "unbridled capitalism" is the only system that can or has exploited people in terrible ways. But the use of the word "commodities" points directly toward capitalism.
Those who accept unbridled capitalism may or may not treat others as commodities. There is insufficient evidence to support Tim's statement.
Certainly not all of us treat others as commodities. But, I daresay, that we are all capitalists, (in that we all buy and sell) and that if we blithely accept unbridled capitalism, (capitalism that, for example, allows abusive exploitation of others, and is allowed to destroy the environment, in order to unduly profit those who are skilled in this particular manner of gaining power) then we are complicit, to some degree, as well.
Now Tim adds to the vague hit and run statements on capitalism personal attacks on rationality that show further ignorance of words. First is the unbridled capitialism post above.
Second is the opinion my statements were raving. Raving: "to show signs of madness or delirium," Delirium means "Delirium is a serious disturbance in mental abilities that results in confused thinking and reduced awareness of your environment." Mayo Clinic.
To be honest, I don't know whether you may be veering toward psychosis. Some of my responses, I admit, are colored by, what I perceive as the nasty and accusatory tone of some of your posts.
As a teacher of rationality, Tim's behavior is an example of avoidance, manipulation, and full of errant logic, reasoning, and interpretation. It is possible such was not Tim's intent but a symptom of education in America.
Talk about broad and sweeping statements.
Those who tend to denigrate capitalism tend to look for every data point or excuse to take freedom away from individuals and put a bridle on them. I've often told the new left professors that if there was one person starving in antartica, they would advocate to dismantle the who free world and install authoritarian leaders to straighten out the world...which is really one starving person in antartica. These professors tend to be adamant regardless of evidence. Tim says this is "cuckoo". How does Tim know?
Again, I am not denigrating "capitalism", but rather, uncontrolled capitalism. How do I know that the statement "if there was one person starving in antartica, they (liberal professors) would advocate to dismantle the who free world and install authoritarian leaders to straighten out the world...which is really one starving person in antartica." is cuckoo? It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
I maintain the opinion that the cure advocated by those who resist the intent of our framers of the constitution, which was mostly unbridled capitalism, is worse than the solution many times over. I am willing not to run like Tim but engage any and all in this conversation without blame or litmus tests provided by Tim in his original post. It is not them as persons, it is their ideas that lack evidence of anything remotely linked to their utopian dreams. After all, most of us wish the problems faced by many poor people was just gone. Few want to make a local difference. ?
I don't doubt your passion, just some of your reasoning, as suggested by some of your statements. You invoke the Constitution and our founding fathers as providing "unbridled capitalism" as a "cure". That is nonsense. They believed in the rule of law. The Constitution has often been critical in putting controls on capitalism.
Tim is playing fast and loose with words "unbridled capitalism" and "raving". Tim hits and runs by introducing his butt in and then saying he will not engage in any dialogue about definition. Tim judges people based on their acceptance of unbridled captialism and then...what's next Tim?
I didn't hit and run. I am, apparently, just not on your timetable. (Also, I did not say that I "will not engage in any dialogue about definition".)
I
am a bit uncomfortable about high jacking this introductory thread. Since you seem to really, really, really want to dialogue on this issue, would you consider starting a new topic on the matter, under a more appropriate category, e.g., General Discussion or Politics, perhaps.