The problem of Capitalism

I don't know how you have arrived at that conclusion...

 

So we agree that owning a person is very very different from owning, say, a car.

 

There are similarities and differences. None of this distracts from the comparison you can draw from owning both.

 

The difference is that it is completely evil to own another human being. Do you agree?

 

Based on the philosophical premise I may or may not agree with that statement. However, I will grant you that it is "evil" and I will agree it is wrong to own own another human being. How does this invalidate comparisons?

 

It doesn't invalidate comparisons. Any two things can be compared. But we agree that owing a slave is very different than owning a pair of socks, right? Why do you think that is?

 

We only agree because we understand the context of owning slaves is often very different from the context of which someone would own clothing.

When comparing slaves (an asset/resource) to items such as real estate or machinery (also an asset/resource), there is no longer any ambiguity in the context.

 

Except that slaves are sentient beings being held against their will. And a pair of socks isn't. There's that difference, right?

 

Perhaps. Historically people may have had to sell themselves into servitude to settle debts and obligations. This was a common thing in Ancient Rome.

But if the only distinction between owning people versus other assets is that someone may or may not have become a slave of their own volition, then it's the only meaningful distinction.

 

Fascinating. So you see no difference between owning another human and owning a pair of socks? How do you think the other human feels about your opinion?

 

You previously quoted me explaining the differences between owning socks and people, so you stating this as a dispute fact is just dishonest.

Irrelevant.

 

Ah, okay, so we agree that owning a slave is very different from owning a pair of socks. Because the slave is another person. Socks aren't people.

For a second, I thought you were going to try to support slavery.

 

I agree. Because land is not a person.

 

Says who?

 

Just as I thought, you have limited capacity for comprehension: reread this sentence carefully:

The classical liberal proposition is that all people are equally free to make rational choices.

and then explain how this is equivalent to "... no person can make rational choices".

 

Wow! It's not equivalent at all.

And why do you want to use violence against your fellow man and tell them how they should live and what they should do?

 

[I will focus on this statement for the moment, before considering the rest of your post].

Please explain - in logic - how introducing an open, universal (public) study of the various opposing political, economic, and religious ideologies is...... ideological.

 

That's what I said.
But as expected, your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

See my previous post to crank, it may assist you...

 

Your previous post to @crank was enlightening.

But why do you want to use violence against your fellow man and tell them how they should live and what they should do?

 

You missed the mark by a mile. Exclusive of IDEOLOGY does not mean no history. After all, history is a science - dealing in names, dates, and actions - it is not philosophy. Likewise, public schools can (and do) teach comparative religion as an anthropological science. In the same vein, sex is explained via biology classes, therefore 'sex ed' isn't needed, and oversteps the line between academics and social engineering.

As regards your Aristotle thing .. the point of that is to parent your child thoroughly while they're still young. Public schools have no business in any part of your child's life beyond literacy and numeracy. If you want your kids indoctrinated with your favourite ideology, send them to a private school.

And don't call me 'he', thanks

 

It isn't. Commenting on or promoting one of those ideologies over all others, is. And I guarantee that all public schools are promoting a single ideology. They have overstepped the line between academics and social engineering. They kicked out religion - after which there were a few years of relative non-bias - then the Progressivism crept in to replace religion and we're back to where we started. 1950.

 

Sure, I guess. You can "technically" own anything. You're just making a legal distinction, not a physical distinction.

Again, I don't know how you've arrived at these conclusions.

 

Glad we agree on this important point of logic.

"Commenting on", as part of a national (education) curriculum studying the history and content of different systems of politics, economics and religion is NOT "promoting one of those ideologies over all others".

There's your mistake right there.

Well, if so, they are failing in their duty to educate.

I love how Conservatives regard comparative studies of religion, politics and economics, as "social engineering". [But I note: there is precious little of such education happening in any public or private schools...)

Now, teaching children eg transgender and homosexual issues, ought to be very low down on the curriculum, but unfortunately ignorant, prejudiced ideology has been responsible for much abuse (including murder) re these matters in the past.

Likewise, any attempt to teach comparative study of religions will have the conservative Religious Right howling, so that progressives are likely to concede the field all-together, as you are in effect insisting I do right here and now, in this debate about ideology in education.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe"

Can you now understand what H.G. Wells was saying?

 

Before I can answer, you will need to relate your question to my refutation of the idea that "all people are equally free to make rational choices" (......which we agree is false, given the reality of the largely unconscious conflict between conscious ego and unconscious instinct in all individuals).

I note Socratica is dealing with a similar issue at present, with you arriving at apparently unrelated conclusions.

 

I think you're confused. I never claimed that all people are free to make rational choices. Perhaps you're confusing me with another poster?

Why do you want to use violence against your fellow man and tell them how they should live and what they should do?