Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 540899467856052249
Does not follow.
Yes it does.
"The market isn't free"
"Therefore, interventionism is socialism"
This is a fallacy
Nope it’s just socialism has its goals to abolish the market
Or restrict it
If x group advocates for y, then z is a policy of x
Hence any interventionism is socialist
`If x group advocates for y, then z is a policy of x
`
Is what you're saying
Are there any capitalists in the world except ancaps?
That doesn’t make any sense
Well no
Exactly, it doesn't make sense
No your example doesn’t
It doesn’t make sense literally
My point is socialism actively tried to restrict and/or abolish the market
You're really stretching it with your definitions. You're taking the broadest definition of socialism possible, and then using it in defense of the strictest definition of capitalism possible.
Also
another note
"mixed economy" doesn't mean mixed between capitalism and socialism
Who are the people who call themselves capitalists but are not ancaps?
You dont know what the term means
I’ve used the same definition width for both
Although it can refer to this
typically when viewing it in the context of the United States
Mixed economies are socialist and capitalism elements mixed in
it means
mixed between a command economy and a market economy
@Kazimir Malevich is North Korea a democratic republic
Not...all....socialists....want...a...command...economy <:brainlet:508484031625691156>
Most don't
Mixed is between a capitalist or socialist economy. Market forces mixed between interventionist policies
most do
Only a few don’t
Nope
Yes they do
Although that is an example of a mixed economy
it's not the only form
It **is** a mixed economy