News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor? by WalterSear on Monday February 27, 2017 @04:26PM (#13748289)
However, there is no universal arbiter of the difference between a 'fair' or 'unfair' advantage.

And consequently, in practice, there are no capitalists and no free markets, by the proper definition of the term.

Re:Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor? by AstralStorm on Monday February 27, 2017 @06:11PM (#13749433)
Capitalists exist, free markets do not. The markets that exist are highly imperfect therefore inefficient.

(As in holders of capital and people following the competitive philosophy.)

Re:Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor? by candiodari on Monday February 27, 2017 @10:23PM (#13750880)
But this is just the power of "no". Like the robot's dilemma

If you're a car careening down a road. You're going to fast, and an accident is about to happen, but you can, say, either hit a group of male toddlers or a slightly smaller group of female toddlers. How do you choose ?

Your answer is simply "No", and that's just not acceptable. Does that mean anarchism ? You must choose, because the real world needs to exist and the economy must keep working. Without it, we wouldn't be fed, wouldn't be able to move any significant distance, wouldn't be anything.

The problem with the "no" answer is that a this refusal to choose, in the economy, would match in the dilemma with first hitting all the boys, driving back and forth a few times to make sure you've got them all, and then get going on the girls. That's what shutting down the economy would do. One might assume this is not in fact what you intend, so what are you going to do ? What is the superior alternative to capitalism ?