Political Crossfire Forums

I disagree with your definition of a capitalist and probably capitalism. You're assigning traits to that economic system that aren't part of its original definition. We're not going to have a coherent conversation unless we're talking about the same thing.

Fundamentally: A combination of two factors

1) not only limited resources in a total sense, but limited ability to make use of thouse resources at any time.

2) The fact that
a) People have different skill levels. Not even is capable say of on the fly arithmetic or has a natural propensity to tell convincing lies.
b) People favor people based on their relationships in this order: lover, family, friend, neighbor, society, nation/relgion (largely identifiable socio-cultural group basically). Then nested versions of the last one, so northern, Englishman, British is a good example.

Even if you did a proper 'distribute the worlds resources according to your principles you deem fit'. I wager (like Nozick wagers though for slightly different reason) given enough time (maybe 3 generations) you start to see an unequal distribution arise again, no matter what those principles are.


So facts of environment + facts of the human animal / time = equality in basic distribution of resources.

I am however open to there being other variables in that algorithm , but that's the biggies.

*awaits grumpy anarchist/marxist response)*

Oh and pls can we skip the question begging.

no one interested in tackling the anthropological angle of all this?

or does everyone just agree with me?