Your first paragraph contradicts the last thing you wrote to me.
But hey, if it makes you happy, make capitalism into whatever you like. It’s perfectly clear that if these things are “natural”, in your eyes, there is no argument. There is nothing anyone can say. You cannot logic and reason your way out of something you did not reason your way into.
DEBATE UPDATE:
This started with my desire for you to substantiate your claims that “Bitcoin is opposed to capitalism” and “The teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.”
Farthest we got on those was that after I pointed out that Jesus participated in capitalism you wanted to get away from religion so we moved to define capitalism. After my defining and substantiation that free markets, capitalism and property rights occur naturally. You provided in your last post comments that were not specific enough to be meaningful, and seem to show you feel unwilling or unable to make further progress.
CURRENT CLAIM STATUS:
“Bitcoin is opposed to capitalism”
= UNSUBSTANTIATED
“The teachings of Jesus go against capitalism.“
= REFUTED
——
Since you show deep belief that governmental authority must be involved, I’ll assume your statement that you’re an anarchist was a joke, and that you’d like to empower an intermediary to validate this debate update.
If you need that I nominate nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wf6xcutrvyu8ydnpw4ukzae4dc6ksvmvx56ryvnyd568xunex4j85en9v56rvwfkveck2wrnxeckwatyddenwer2w3n8x0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2qgcwaehxw309ac8yetdd96k6tnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqyxwxz8 😃
lol, like a pigeon strutting around the chess table kicking and shitting claiming victory! Go claim your prize.
Mmmk 🤔 You can concede, forfeit, or further substantiate your claims and maintain your integrity. Ad hominem attacks are none of these. They seek to discredit opponents and retain the appearance of continued persistance while detracting from the goal of substanting your claims.
Matthew 6:24
New International Version
24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Here you go Christian. Explain.
Your reason for choosing this could be several. I can assume but shouldn’t. Tell me how you think it supports your claim/s and I’ll respond.
One because it was words of Jesus. Two, it’s very clear and can’t be twisted. Three, capitalism thrives of self interest motivation of profits…money.
Pretty simple really. “Serving“ money as someone “serves” their God is its own end purpose. It is worship as though the money is your God and the most important thing.
In contrast “pursuing” money can have many other purposes including being generous to others and helping the poor and needy.
Beinf “selfish” is not the same as tending to your own “self-interests” or personal needs. Same reason you have to spend time becoming healthy in order to serve others well, or put your oxygen mask on first to breathe in order to help many others breathe. It scales well too. The more fit you are and the better you can breathe the larger the masses you can help.
So the purposes of pursuing money for generosity align well with the purpose of capitalism—to provide mutual benefit and ongoing increase to all through simple free fair trade, and fostering increased freedom, agency, responsibility and mutual respect (and love :)).
So basically the ends justify any means. It’s okay to take from “here” and give to “there”?
I’m trying slow the movement of the target, so bear with with me please.
No. Oversimplifying or misrepresenting my specific statement, or generalizing it into an extreme or distorted version (suggesting “anything goes” or implying it condones something bad) to make it easier to attack would be a strawman fallacy
My statement means that specifically the pursuit of generosity justifies the means of free and fair markets to fund that generosity. …specifically.
Although free fair market capitalism is “justified” by many of it’s inherent benefits.
Believe me friend, I’m not trying to misrepresent. You are making broad statements and implying they are factual just because.
Do you have examples of this accumulation for only charitable purposes?
Also, still waiting for a time period of “true” capitalism.
To clarify… you want me to provide examples of charitable people or entities whose resources were acquired through capitalism in order to prove it is possible?
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “waiting for a time period” of true capitalism.
Yes.
A time period or place where “true” capitalism was able to function without any interference.
Hey buddy, you were strutting around claiming some kind of victory, then abandoned me cause you didn’t want to answer two simple questions.
Do another one of your cute “Debate Updates” I got a good laugh out of that.
It sounds like you’re saying free and fair market capitalism is a strong way to generate wealth that can fuel generosity, like philanthropy or social good, and that this outcome justifies using capitalism as a tool. I agree capitalism has benefits, like innovation and efficiency, but I’m curious, do you think the pursuit of generosity is the main justification for capitalism, or just one of many? Also, how do you define free and fair markets in this context, given issues like inequality or monopolies?
