Definitions "Capitalism" (Page 3): I'm not sure that a member of Congress would be my pick. I would say Susan Collins would meet the definition of someone who gets that capitalist and...

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Well stated...

A balance needs to be struck (?)
In your opinion , which member of congress is closest to this balance?

I'm not sure that a member of Congress would be my pick. I would say Susan Collins would meet the definition of someone who gets that capitalist and socialist are able to work together.

I would look to more local sources...in city and state governments (although I'm starting to think that the states are also getting into ideological gridlock). In my city (medium sized by American standards) business owners and environmentalists made common cause to purchase a nice chunk of land from the state because both sides knew that the value of that parkland would benefit both sides. There really wasn't any fighting about the idea, just some discussion on how best to work it out.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

rumitoid wrote:

A personal definition for Capitalism? Strange. No need. And of no use. There is too much of its reality to study. Your two subsequent paragraphs suggest either you did not read my post or did not understand it. Nonetheless, glad you're back. Good choice.

Rumi,
Surprise, surprise, I actually agreed with almost everything you said, even your reply to dear Canuckus.

I tend to be very black and white. It confuses me when someone asks me, "what is your definition of (or position on)..." and, I reply with a dictionary definition or a quote from scripture, and that doesn't satisfy them. I'm like, "what, you want me to make up a new definition that no one's ever heard of???" It doesn't make sense to me partly because in my mind if words and definitions become too fluid, then conversation becomes impossibly meaningless, by destroying the very thing it is designed to do: which is to convey thoughts in a manner that both parties can understand (though not necessarily agree on).

I'm not trying to dis Canuckus, just pointing out that some of us don't necessarily think like that. I guess we tend to appreciate and/or emphasize the objective rather than the subjective, and being asked to describe in our words would be like asking us to think oppositely...in my opinion.

What I would add, to what you've stated on the topic at hand is, and for Canuckus' sake, is that, to me the contrast really needs to include the sub categories of secular and religious and familial (as Coos Bay Tom pointed out).

Capitalism, to me, is how we do commerce whether with those of the same political, religious or familial members or not. Thus our commerce needs to managed legally and/or politically, i.e., primarily "secularly".

Socialism, on the other hand, is how we "care for our own." I'm going to be more "socialist" with my immediate family, a little less so with those in my same religious "family", etc to outer lines of familiarity. The outer most, while still remaining within humanity, being of course "the family of mankind". Being charitable to others in any of these circles is my choice, not someone else's "right" to the fruits of my labor.

To me, "socialism" in its negative connotations is when we take the same secular government we use as arbiter of commerce as overseer and definer of social "responsibilities": first, that's my responsibility, not another person's "right", and secondly, secular governments have only proven their utter incompetence at managing and directing socialism, and thirdly, governmentally overseen socialism always steals from some to give to others, which actually negates the whole "good" of socialism.

Owl32 Loc: ARK

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

It might be difficult to determine how much individual corporations should pay... A flat rate is preferable... Where abouts are you located?

Arkansas a balanced budget state.

Owl32 Loc: ARK

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Well stated...

A balance needs to be struck (?)
In your opinion , which member of congress is closest to this balance?

Sen Rand Paul

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

TommyRadd wrote:

Rumi,
Surprise, surprise, I actually agreed with almost everything you said, even your reply to dear Canuckus.

I tend to be very black and white. It confuses me when someone asks me, "what is your definition of (or position on)..." and, I reply with a dictionary definition or a quote from scripture, and that doesn't satisfy them. I'm like, "what, you want me to make up a new definition that no one's ever heard of???" It doesn't make sense to me partly because in my mind if words and definitions become too fluid, then conversation becomes impossibly meaningless, by destroying the very thing it is designed to do: which is to convey thoughts in a manner that both parties can understand (though not necessarily agree on).

I'm not trying to dis Canuckus, just pointing out that some of us don't necessarily think like that. I guess we tend to appreciate and/or emphasize the objective rather than the subjective, and being asked to describe in our words would be like asking us to think oppositely...in my opinion.

What I would add, to what you've stated on the topic at hand is, and for Canuckus' sake, is that, to me the contrast really needs to include the sub categories of secular and religious and familial (as Coos Bay Tom pointed out).

Capitalism, to me, is how we do commerce whether with those of the same political, religious or familial members or not. Thus our commerce needs to managed legally and/or politically, i.e., primarily "secularly".

Socialism, on the other hand, is how we "care for our own." I'm going to be more "socialist" with my immediate family, a little less so with those in my same religious "family", etc to outer lines of familiarity. The outer most, while still remaining within humanity, being of course "the family of mankind". Being charitable to others in any of these circles is my choice, not someone else's "right" to the fruits of my labor.

To me, "socialism" in its negative connotations is when we take the same secular government we use as arbiter of commerce as overseer and definer of social "responsibilities": first, that's my responsibility, not another person's "right", and secondly, secular governments have only proven their utter incompetence at managing and directing socialism, and thirdly, governmentally overseen socialism always steals from some to give to others, which actually negates the whole "good" of socialism.

Rumi, br Surprise, surprise, I actually agreed wit... (show quote)

Hi Tommy... Glad you could join...

I liked all of your definitions

We can all look up text book definitions if we desire... But our conflicts cone from personal interpretations/understandings of those definitions... By sharing our definitions we grow in knowledge of each other and in knowledge of the terms being defined...

My personal definition of capitalism is similar to Yours and Coos bayw Tom's as well...

Hope you are well

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Owl32 wrote:

Arkansas a balanced budget state.

Amazing how individual States can balance their budgets...

Perhaps balanced States should be rewarded with additional seats in congress

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Hi Tommy... Glad you could join... br br I liked ... (show quote)

Good to hear from you! Yes, am well, hope you are too!

Owl32 Loc: ARK

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Amazing how individual States can balance their budgets...

Perhaps balanced States should be rewarded with additional seats in congress

could be a good idea, those that allow illegal to v**e should lose all but TWO of their reps and only be allowed ONE senator. This might squeeze their cheese!