Wrong again. This is what I said in its entirety:
"Ironically, capitalism destroys many small-scale operations like this. "
Notice that I did not say all, but many. And this is certainly true, as the majority of small businesses fail within, what, the first five years or so? Do you now wish to argue against well-established statistics, so you can be right?
But really, you’re arguing against a point no one is making. You can’t refute my statement, so you seize on one thing and misrepresent it so that you can refute it. This is otherwise known as a strawman argument. However, even if I give you this to you, you can’t be right here without undermining the very foundation of capitalism. If the competition inherent in capitalism is not responsible for the ruin of a great many businesses, then what is its importance?
I have never once labeled it as “free market capitalism,” and I defy you to find one instance in which I have. It is capitalism, however, contrary to the ridiculous claims of people like Lifticus, who are always eager to further narrow the definition of capitalism to prevent criticism.
Oh! so now you’re interested in free-market capitalism! No, you don’t need to break out the dictionary, but you do need to be a little more consistent. I’m not very interested in what this forum has to say about the definition of capitalism, when they consider such widely varying regimes as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, the European Union, the United States, and Venezuela, among others, to all be socialist, despite widely varying economic and political structures (and when most of them don’t have the first thing in common with socialism), yet they are so particular and exacting with regard to the definition of capitalism as to suggest that a having a central bank or a fiat currency precludes a society from being capitalist. The overwhelming generalizations on the one hand versus the exceedingly fine discernment on the other renders their opinions ridiculous, and obviously based purely on emotion and ideology, and not on any factual analysis.
Haha! The economic system had nothing to do with it! In that case, I’ll also give credit to the state for the steam engine, the power loom, the telephone, the airplane, all our medical advancements, the semiconductor and microprocessor, the Internet, and more all to the government, since after all, it’s “the common denominator” in each, not the economic system. In which case, continuing to advocate limited-government capitalism would be quite silly and inconsistent with your stated views.
Hopefully, you see how absurd your statement was. Especialy since, for instance, westward expansion and the subsequent killing of Native Americans was initiated by citizens despite government prohibitions, before it became government policy (and I’m sure the later reversal had nothing to do with the burgeoning economic growth the nation was experiencing). I’m sure none of our imperialist expansion has been in order to expand our markets. Nope, it’s all the evil government, so that…well, they’re evil, right!
Again, I never said anything about “free market” capitalism, except that it doens’t exist (in prior posts). No, you are a pussy because you’re obviously wrong, you know it, and you refuse to reexamine your conclusions. You’re scared to think. That’s why you’re a pussy. Hopefully you’ll get over this someday.
In the mean time, try to get quotes straight.