: Can I ask what the cheeseburger thing is Lark? Youre posts lately have been pretty amazing stuff - a real prodigious outflow, stream of consciousness, magic key board bonanza thing. I like your style, but I dont get the cheeseburger thing. Maybe I'm being a thicky!It's a twofold thing, first, it's a lampoon of the posts I read that are only when the people's revolutionary this or that wipes away the bourgousie etc. we might as well me talking incoherent cheeseburgers for all the modern day relevance it has. Second, it's a dose of much needed eccentricity, I think anyway, to lighten up the debate and stop everyone feeling like they want to kill each other.
: I'm glad you're reading that book, I won't chastise you if you get page 47 wrong or some other minutae. Smith is good reading because he does have a good understanding of what it means to be 'a worker' although its very outdated in terms of lifestyle details - but he does describe the whole process well in terms of how people actually behave. The quotation which describes how you get your bread because of the bakers regard to himself pretty much sums it up.
What I consider ironic is that Marx had more than a tersery reading of Smith and Ricardo, while a lot of his followers in there 'revolutionary purity' would not attempt to read on the subject at all. Smith was a different kind of capitalist to me, a pre-capitalist anti-fuedalist utopian maybe, I think he viewed political economy as a means and not an end.
: Most ACs think that Smithian Capitalism is more probable when Govt protectionism is removed. I'd add a word of warning regarding crime and 'corruption' as seen in Russia though.
It's very unatural to me to talk of removing the government, we are the government and we wont cease being it until we reorganise society more fittingly, as reference to Russia no doubt indicates, anywhere the state is exiled from the economic sphere or other spheres the powerful just fill the void, instead of government protectionism you get corporate protectionism or business protectionism.
:Like socialism - the free market requires voluntary assent to run at least reasonably in favor of liberty and low 'crime', either that or it requires the miniscule rights enforcing government as described by Mr Ism.
Oh, I understand capitalism as you do, I just think it is not as honourable or idealic an alternative to the status quo as socialism but we each have our own preferences no doubt. I would like an order in which both could co-exist without being any check on freedom or freewill, like there are at present, I've heard it said that there's nothing wrong with capitalism between consenting adults, I guess I never gave my consent so I wont know.
:There is a lot to be said for market forces law - it isnt as devilish as many make it out to be, but it does reluy (heaven forbid) on humankinds generally 'good' nature.
I think it makes the poor or less capable go to the wall no matter what way you square it, which isnt what I'd like to happen to me in similar circumstances.
: It is non-democratic in that the larger gang doesnt automatically get its way.
But eventually it does.
: Thanks Lark, youre a very approachable man when it comes to your beliefs - thats a credit to you.
I'm glad, it's a shame more people arent as happy about debating.
None.
