Scientific American used to run a great column (sadly, no more) called "The Amateur Scientist". They covered projects to preform PCR, electrophoresis and gene splicing - at home and on a small budget. I'm sure thermocyclers have advantages, and may be necessary for other experiments/procedures, but if a stove, pots of water and a few candy thermometers can replace it, then lacking a 'cycler dosn't keep you out of biotech.
I just wanted to point out that the terms "actual" and "legal" are used to distinguish between the two concepts.
Example: If you are legally guilty, a claim of actual innocence is insufficent grounds for an appeal. So if a jury finds you guilty, merely saying "But I'm innocent!" won't get you a new trial.
This was part of a case we covered in my Constitutional Law class.
What market? What problem? The recipient can show your email to anyone if they so choose. Other than the fact that one party is a company, this isn't any different that my Dad letting my Mom read his emails.
You can keep something to yourself, but when you tell someone else, you have also allowed that someone to tell others (in most cases).
First of all, I do agree with your definition. Part of the problem seems to be that the definition of capitalism is vague, as in:
"As with many common words, and most particularly ideologically laden words, "capitalism" has many meanings. There can be great confusion amongst these meanings, and readers must be careful of which meaning a writer intends in any particular usage. " (under
"Capitalism as an ideology")
Perhaps I wasn't careful enough, but I specifically said that I was using capitalism in the "larger sense of the word". If you know of a better way of saying "all economic systems that include quite a few capitalistic elements", please let me know, because the other reply to my post had roughly the same issue with my wording. As usual, disagreements between intelligent people often end up being disagreements over the use of a word or phrase.
Second, I was arguing against your previous comment that capitalism didn't exist 5000 years ago.
That implied to me that no capitalism existed anywhere, in any way, not just that it wasn't the main economic philosophy of the era. As far as I know, mercantilism is an economic idea of practicing capitalism within the country and state-run colonies outside of it, so capitalism does exist, just not everywhere. I think I could make a similar argument of almost any time period, even if I had to point to limited examples, like feudal lords trading artworks or the Russian mafia selling bootlegged vodka.
And that brings me to my main point. Your original post was railing against the idea that capitalism was a "universal law". The wording is a bit strong for me, but outside of worlds where there is massive government intervention (communism or despots (somehow without black markets)) or you have no contact with people outside of a small group (hermits or small tribes), capitalism seems to be the natural result of people wanting things they can't just walk off with.
To head off your objection, you say that "2000 years ago you had markets where goods were traded but no one considers that as capitalism", but it fits you definition exactly! It might sound strange, but their economy had markets that were (for the most part) free, and they had private property. (You say that private property didn't exist thousands of years ago, which I find... incomprehensible. Judas didn't own the 30 pieces of silver, Rahotep didn't own his mud-brick hut near the Pyramids, and Oog didn't own the bead necklace his Neanderthal brothers lovingly buried him with??? I don't get it.)
Anyway, if you find something that says "Ancient people practiced the (non-capitalistic) economic system known as *blank*", I would love to know what *blank* is.
That's why I specified that I was speaking of capitalism in the larger sense of the word, as in people voluntarily and freely trading things they own.
As far as I know, even barter is capitalistic. It shouldn't matter whether I'm trading dollars or chickens to buy bread from a baker, as long as we own the chickens and bread, and are free to choose whether or not to swap, then that seems to be capitalism (IMHO).
More to the point, you said:
It [capitalism] only manifested itself a few hundred years ago.
I really don't know what else to call the economies of the Middle Ages, Ancient Greece, or even the Bronze Age. They aren't the corporatism we have now, and there might have been massive interference from both church and state, but what should it be called? If you know another name for any of their systems that is distinct from capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., please let me know, I have to plead ignorance (or at lease diminished vocabulary).:)
I looked at
this
and didn't see anything about "controlling the govenment" at all. Representative government is a way of keeping a society free, not the definition of a free society. Freedom DOES mean the ability to do what you want:
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Free countries do limit what you can do when it interferes with other people's freedom, as in "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", but not when it dosn't harm others. Even if, for the sake of argument, a country that prohibits the use of alcohol or heroin is a better place than one that allows it, if it let people vote on the prohibition, even if it is the right thing to do, this country is still less free because its citizens are not free to do it.
I'd rather not be rude and say "you don't understand freedom", but if you think the right to vote for the person that tells me I'm not allowed to say or do something is freedom, the definition certainly IS up for debate, and I would love to hear more about you point of view.
IANAA (I Am Not An Archaeologist), but every society I know of has used some sort of capitalism (in the large sense of the word). Corporatism may be a 19th-20th century idea, and laissez-faire capitalism may be an 18th century idea, but the concept of trade had been around since we had specialization in the workforce, and that has been around since the dawn of civilization. In fact, specialization and trade may be said to be the primary characteristics of civilization.
Is some places capitalism only exists in the margins, like the back market, but it's still there, because trade is capitalism. Some forms of capitalism may be extinct in 1000 years (and I, for one, would not miss corporatism one bit), but I'm willing to bet that some form will survive as long as we're alive, have unmet desires, and are free to trade in order to satisfy them.
Society changes over time, and any static document is bound to become out of date in certain respects unless it is modified to reflect those changes.
Sure, but the Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution is vastly different than passing an ammendment that grants a right to privacy.
Why not use the procedure in the Constitution to keep it up to date, rather than trying to twist the wording? When an ammendment gets passed, people have a chance to see it coming and to voice their opinions. When the Constitution is "reinterpreted" almost all of the checks and balances, as well as input from the public are avoided.
Re:Wow. The rule of the day: don't date psychos
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Sure. She had "I'm a Freaking Psycho" tatooed on her forehead.
How would you feel if a woman got beaten up by her husband and someone told her "There must have been signs that he was a psycho"?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm scheduled for a short interview on CNN Headline News Thusday, July 8, at approximately 7:45 PM EDT.
As though his pitiful pleas for attention were too subtle for the reader, here he is practially begging people to tune in and watch him.
And I'm sure when you get your 15 minutes of fame, you won't tell anyone about it.
...who post 809 comments on some groupthink-ridden online forum like this guy .
Your first sentence starts out with so much promise, and then you had to go and blow it.
Scientific American used to run a great column (sadly, no more) called "The Amateur Scientist". They covered projects to preform PCR, electrophoresis and gene splicing - at home and on a small budget. I'm sure thermocyclers have advantages, and may be necessary for other experiments/procedures, but if a stove, pots of water and a few candy thermometers can replace it, then lacking a 'cycler dosn't keep you out of biotech.
Example: If you are legally guilty, a claim of actual innocence is insufficent grounds for an appeal. So if a jury finds you guilty, merely saying "But I'm innocent!" won't get you a new trial.
This was part of a case we covered in my Constitutional Law class.
You can keep something to yourself, but when you tell someone else, you have also allowed that someone to tell others (in most cases).
"As with many common words, and most particularly ideologically laden words, "capitalism" has many meanings. There can be great confusion amongst these meanings, and readers must be careful of which meaning a writer intends in any particular usage. " (under "Capitalism as an ideology")
Perhaps I wasn't careful enough, but I specifically said that I was using capitalism in the "larger sense of the word". If you know of a better way of saying "all economic systems that include quite a few capitalistic elements", please let me know, because the other reply to my post had roughly the same issue with my wording. As usual, disagreements between intelligent people often end up being disagreements over the use of a word or phrase.
Second, I was arguing against your previous comment that capitalism didn't exist 5000 years ago. That implied to me that no capitalism existed anywhere, in any way, not just that it wasn't the main economic philosophy of the era. As far as I know, mercantilism is an economic idea of practicing capitalism within the country and state-run colonies outside of it, so capitalism does exist, just not everywhere. I think I could make a similar argument of almost any time period, even if I had to point to limited examples, like feudal lords trading artworks or the Russian mafia selling bootlegged vodka.
And that brings me to my main point. Your original post was railing against the idea that capitalism was a "universal law". The wording is a bit strong for me, but outside of worlds where there is massive government intervention (communism or despots (somehow without black markets)) or you have no contact with people outside of a small group (hermits or small tribes), capitalism seems to be the natural result of people wanting things they can't just walk off with.
To head off your objection, you say that "2000 years ago you had markets where goods were traded but no one considers that as capitalism", but it fits you definition exactly! It might sound strange, but their economy had markets that were (for the most part) free, and they had private property. (You say that private property didn't exist thousands of years ago, which I find ... incomprehensible. Judas didn't own the 30 pieces of silver, Rahotep didn't own his mud-brick hut near the Pyramids, and Oog didn't own the bead necklace his Neanderthal brothers lovingly buried him with??? I don't get it.)
Anyway, if you find something that says "Ancient people practiced the (non-capitalistic) economic system known as *blank*", I would love to know what *blank* is.
-Yndrd1984
As far as I know, even barter is capitalistic. It shouldn't matter whether I'm trading dollars or chickens to buy bread from a baker, as long as we own the chickens and bread, and are free to choose whether or not to swap, then that seems to be capitalism (IMHO).
More to the point, you said:
- It [capitalism] only manifested itself a few hundred years ago.
I really don't know what else to call the economies of the Middle Ages, Ancient Greece, or even the Bronze Age. They aren't the corporatism we have now, and there might have been massive interference from both church and state, but what should it be called? If you know another name for any of their systems that is distinct from capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., please let me know, I have to plead ignorance (or at lease diminished vocabulary).-Yndrd1984
- 5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Free countries do limit what you can do when it interferes with other people's freedom, as in "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", but not when it dosn't harm others. Even if, for the sake of argument, a country that prohibits the use of alcohol or heroin is a better place than one that allows it, if it let people vote on the prohibition, even if it is the right thing to do, this country is still less free because its citizens are not free to do it.I'd rather not be rude and say "you don't understand freedom", but if you think the right to vote for the person that tells me I'm not allowed to say or do something is freedom, the definition certainly IS up for debate, and I would love to hear more about you point of view.
-Yndrd1984
Is some places capitalism only exists in the margins, like the back market, but it's still there, because trade is capitalism. Some forms of capitalism may be extinct in 1000 years (and I, for one, would not miss corporatism one bit), but I'm willing to bet that some form will survive as long as we're alive, have unmet desires, and are free to trade in order to satisfy them.
-Yndrd1984
Sure, but the Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution is vastly different than passing an ammendment that grants a right to privacy.
Why not use the procedure in the Constitution to keep it up to date, rather than trying to twist the wording? When an ammendment gets passed, people have a chance to see it coming and to voice their opinions. When the Constitution is "reinterpreted" almost all of the checks and balances, as well as input from the public are avoided.
How would you feel if a woman got beaten up by her husband and someone told her "There must have been signs that he was a psycho"?