I was giving you a compliment if anything. In my opinion, professional gamblers are usually at high risk of going bust, and I complimented you on taking an effective action to lower this risk.

I favor capitalism over socialism because I think capitalism leads to better long-term economic growth, and I view economic growth as one of the main priorities of economic policy. Safety-net programs are one of the benefits of strong economic growth, yes.

Sure, capitalism doesn't require bankruptcy. However, a capitalistic society with relatively easy bankruptcy laws will tend to have a higher entrepeneurship rate, which leads to higher productivity, so I would favor bankruptcy laws. Plus, debtor's prison is inhumane.

I'll give you some love....

I'm curious what the violent crime rate was between the "suburbs" and the city...

What is the voter demographic and actual number of people who vote in the city....

Thank you. The way I use my words, the professional part of 'professional gambler' refers to knowing your job. OTOH, 98% of people who have told me they are professional gamblers* were FOS (*not counting employees). As I said, I was just clowning you.

OK fair enough. Your thinking is wrong. But I'm more curious about something else.

That's not my priorities. And there's a price to pay. I favor enslaving feminists. Taking the risk of unintentionally 'strawmanning' you, I'm going to guess that isn't your priority. And the feminists would pay a price too. Who is who to violently enforce their priorities upon others?

These are all things that capitalism causes, not features. The only reason safety net programs exist is because civil society pushed back against the capitalists.

The government obviously. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, nor do I only support capitalism. I also support democratic government, liberal principles of a just society, and so on.

Great. A strong civil society is an integral part of a well-functioning liberal democracy and can assuage some of the harms resulting from capitalist economic systems. BTW, we are using the word "capitalist" differently. I'm not talking about "capitalists," i.e. people who own capital. Rather, I'm referring to economic systems that emphasize private ownership and free markets over public ownership and price controls.

Obviously. A capitalist regime's cops will enforce capitalism, a Communist regime's cops will enforce Communism/etc. My question was who gets to decide what kinda regime I have to suffer under.

Yes, it can partially treat some symptoms.

Fair enough.

The way I use my words, modern 'capitalism' refers to regimes that revolve around the wage system, rent, and loans at interest. Historically, you can add slavery, indenture, share cropping, and several other such unsavory practices. When I refer to 'capitalists' I'm referring to members of the owning class. And 'socialism' refers to worker control of the means of production.

The people who have power (this is tautological I realize). That is, people with money, influence, expertise, formal authority, organized backing, fame, military or legal support, bureaucratic skill, and so on. Of course, in places like the US, there are also old institutions of American government and society that arose before any of us were born, but yet still hold a great deal of sway over how things are done.

WTF, you talk about enslaving a lot. I have always thought it was some weird rhetorical ploy. The bolded appears to be an assertion of your preference or goal.

At the risk of unintentionally 'strawmanning' you... in the US, that would be the owner class... or the capitalists, as I like to call those peeps.

Well, to tell the truth, I'm kinda a jack-Neo-Gorean. Nothing is stopping me from moving to Syria, buying some Yazidi sex slaves, and fighting for ISIS.

And yet, here I am at my beach shack in SoCal, on a beautiful night, Sabo by my side... typing this gibberish.

No...as I said, it is not just wealth, but also influence, such as political, religious or cultural leaders. Or expertise, such as civil servants and academics, and so on.

Sure. In an absolute monarchy or dictatorship all power isn't held by exactly one dude. It's always a team effort. Yada, yada.

I'm using the word 'class' here in a bog-standard way. Should we chat that on out?

A lot of dumb things are said on 2+2. This is an example of that.

OK, I'm really making some progress learning Librulz jabber. Below is where our Rosetta Stone is at now...

Librulz	peeps who take action -vs- wage system/etc
reward	+EV
??	0 EV
punishment	-EV
discount	higher variance
premium	lower variance
capitalists & capitalism	economic systems that emphasize private ownership and free markets over public ownership and price controls
anti-capitalists & anti-capitalism	economic systems that emphasize public ownership and price controls over private ownership and free markets
socialism	??
peeps of the owning class	capitalists
violent enforcement of the wage system, rent, and loans at interest	modern capitalism
(add) slavery, indenture, sharecropping/etc	capitalism
peeps who take action -vs- wage system/etc	anti-capitalists
taking action -vs- wage system/etc	anti-capitalism
workers controlling their means of production	socialism

why can't you understand that the "means of production" are mostly the product of the entrepreneurial class

people willing to take a steady pay check are as numerous as raindrops, people who go out on their own and build businesses are rare

workers can own the means of production peacefully buy owning stocks or through working in worker owned businesses which are plentiful in the US.

what you mean tho is the stealing of the means of production by the workers through w/e means necessary. because somehow working at a firm means you deserve part of that firm

Who put you in charge of what the workers can own?

did you just finish a bender at the ol' opium den.

I say, people can own cars in the US

you slam me with the, why are you in charge of what people can own in the usa?

jesus christ wtf

What are you? A mere wannabe boss?

Here is the limited range of options you declared:

So who put you in charge of narrowing the options to these?

i stated options for workers to own the "means of production" to show that its possible without theft

I did not exclude other options for them to owns these means of which Im sure there are many.

still time for you to claim inebriation because this line of inquiry is just ridiculous. If I said "hey man if you want to lose weight you can do Atkins or intermittent fasting", am I putting myself in charge of people's weight loss? what is going on with you

So a claim of theft is your excuse for limiting what workers can own?

You are not even observant enough to realize your insults towards me are a waste of your time.

wtf are you talking about mate

Im so confused, I'm sorry that in my post I did not list all the options for workers to own all the means of production. ****ing lol man

Please do proceed to run on about "the workers" like some wannabe boss.

I forgot before...there was a thread a while ago where I clowned the Communists (of the card carrying kind) so bad they all turned tail and ran away.

LMFAO@ commies !!!1!

this is the dumbest things I've seen you post

you really should stop and think what you are posting

Acting like a wannabe boss bolsters my guess that is what you are.