Posted: Apr 13, 2020 12:49 pm
by Hermit
OlivierK wrote:Yes, you're talking is, and I'm talking ought.

Arguing about what is from the standpoint of what ought to be is a well known logical fallacy. Surely, you must know that. In case you don't, please avail yourself to the readily available resources of the internet. The relevant article provided by Rational Wiki could serve as a useful starting point. An excerpt from it:
The is-ought problem ... deals with an apparent logic gap between statements of what "ought" to be, following statements regarding what "is". The first often following the second without any kind of explanation regarding why they are logical or correct.

OlivierK wrote:Edit: also, your take on what I'm "insisting on" is a misrepresentation of my position.

I'm always happy to be corrected. In my defence I can only go by what people write, not by what they didn't. So far I have not noticed anything you wrote, apart from "that government and capitalism both have roles, and that those roles are distinct". You defined those distinct roles as "promoting the cause of capital. It's a wealth creator. That's its role in a mixed economy, and it does it well" for capitalism and "other concerns - particularly social capital and environmental capital - are what government exists to serve, either by regulation of capitalist activity to limit social or environmental harms, or direct service provision" for government.

Feel free to point out the alleged misrepresentation. If you succeed, I will apologise without hesitation, misgivings or clausulations. Be aware, though: You will need to point to some part of any of your posts in which you have allowed that the function of capitalism is not limited to being a wealth creator and the function of government is not limited to being a regulator.