Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I notice you are unable to demonstrate I'm wrong in any fashion.
Wrong about what? lol
This is what you're down to arguing about:
That Adam Smith invented capitalism--I didn't say he did invent it.
That Adam Smith coined the word "capitalism"--I didn't say he did.
What I said is that he knows more about it than you do in that he wrote the most influential work ever written about it, which he did. And you haven't been able to demonstrate that I, or Adam Smith is wrong in any fashion, because I don't take you're simply saying he's wrong as proof of anything, because your say-so isn't proof of anything. You think Smith is wrong, prove him wrong.
That Adam Smith invented capitalism--I didn't say he did invent it.
That Adam Smith coined the word "capitalism"--I didn't say he did.
What I said is that he knows more about it than you do in that he wrote the most influential work ever written about it, which he did. And you haven't been able to demonstrate that I, or Adam Smith is wrong in any fashion, because I don't take you're simply saying he's wrong as proof of anything, because your say-so isn't proof of anything. You think Smith is wrong, prove him wrong.
LOL!!!!
I am arguing NOTHING about Adam Smith. Adam Smith did not define, nor did he invent capitalism, nor did he recognize such a thing existed. You're trying to invent a controversy where none exists. Further, Adam Smith did not create the most influential work on the theory of capitalism. Here, let's save a little time and use Wikipedia's description:
Quote:
Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment,[1] Adam Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the "father of modern economics" and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.[2]
So, Smith wrote one of the very first books on the notion of 'economics'. While influential, he wrote neither the definitive works on any topic, nor did he invent anything. He wrote what he thought were explanations for what he had observed, and why he thought things were as they were.
Nowhere in this does it support YOUR assertion that referencing Adam Smith by name is in ANY way a rebuttal to what I said. The term "capitalism" was invented much later as a pejorative, and has been used variously by a huge assortment of people to mean an infinite variety of things.
However, I, like most others who have some understanding of what's commonly called 'capitalism' (in opposition to socialism, feudalism, mercantilism, fascism or any of the other ism's) in that it embodies a right to ownership and individual freedom of enterprise. This is reflected by Smith's writings as well - as I pointed out to you. And none of this requires any 'authority' to be true. It is true... simply because it is obvious.
And meanwhile back in the real world the government health care web site is still down with who knows who is trying to fix it. People are losing their health care plans and don't know what will happen to them next with the really sick people in a panic and Sibelius still has her job like nothing happened.
I am arguing NOTHING about Adam Smith. Adam Smith did not define, nor did he invent capitalism, nor did he recognize such a thing existed. You're trying to invent a controversy where none exists. Further, Adam Smith did not create the most influential work on the theory of capitalism. Here, let's save a little time and use Wikipedia's description:
So, Smith wrote one of the very first books on the notion of 'economics'. While influential, he wrote neither the definitive works on any topic, nor did he invent anything. He wrote what he thought were explanations for what he had observed, and why he thought things were as they were.
Nowhere in this does it support YOUR assertion that referencing Adam Smith by name is in ANY way a rebuttal to what I said. The term "capitalism" was invented much later as a pejorative, and has been used variously by a huge assortment of people to mean an infinite variety of things.
However, I, like most others who have some understanding of what's commonly called 'capitalism' (in opposition to socialism, feudalism, mercantilism, fascism or any of the other ism's) in that it embodies a right to ownership and individual freedom of enterprise. This is reflected by Smith's writings as well - as I pointed out to you. And none of this requires any 'authority' to be true. It is true... simply because it is obvious.
"Adam Smith is considered the first theorist of what we commonly refer to as capitalism."
Boom. I believe that's game.
*drops mike*
As you should.
Being the first economic theorist does not make him anything other than the first theorist. It's time you backed on out of here with your inane stupidity and let the adults talk.
Even Smith had no name for what he described as the natural rights and liberties of a free person. He also did not invent those rights, nor did he change humanity to conform to his theory. He RECOGNIZED SOMETHING THAT PRECEDED HIM. As did the founders of our country, when they wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
They did not invent rights. They did not invent the theory of rights. They RECOGNIZED what existed long before they existed and has existed for as long as man has existed. They disagreed with each other over much. They agreed over some. But NONE of them invented anything.
I do not cite the authors as proof I'm right. I cite them because they stated something so amazingly eloquent beyond my command of language.
Being the first economic theorist does not make him anything other than the first theorist. It's time you backed on out of here with your inane stupidity and let the adults talk.
lol
You just tried to disassociate him from capitalism completely and you got beat. Give up already. It's game over, you lost.
Then you post an appeal to authority fallacy as if it's always wrong to defer to authority. You think you could take issue with a neurosurgeon over the principles of neurosurgery and if I trust the neurosurgeon more than I trust your say-so, I'm guilty of some kind of logical fallacy. I'm not. The neurosurgeon is right, you're wrong. It's over. Deal with it. You own personal definition of what you think capitalism is doesn't trump Smith's.
You just tried to disassociate him from capitalism completely and you got beat. Give up already. It's game over, you lost.
No, I just pointed out your fallacy. You argued Adam Smith was an authority on capitalism. That's a fallacy. While Smith was considered the first to write pursuasively on ECONOMICS, being first does not make you the ultimate authority. And, since he neither claims to have invented it, nor be it's definer, he's simply not the ultimate authority on what capitalism is. In fact, there IS NONE.
Quote:
Then you post an appeal to authority fallacy as if it's always wrong to defer to authority.
No, you just have to make sure that when you appeal to authority, that person actually IS an authority. Adam Smith is famous, for good reason. But the definitive authority on what capitalism... he is not.
Quote:
You think you could take issue with a neurosurgeon over the principles of neurosurgery and if I trust the neurosurgeon more than I trust your say-so, I'm guilty of some kind of logical fallacy.
Wrong. Your analogy is more correctly stated that you're not citing an authority on neurosurgery, you're citing the first author of a book that proposes we have a nervous system.
Quote:
I'm not. The neurosurgeon is right, you're wrong. It's over. Deal with it. You own personal definition of what you think capitalism is doesn't trump Smith's.
He did not define it. Duhhhhh. The word itself didn't exist in his day, even. Sorry. I posted the fallacy link because you're posting a fallacy. Duhhh. I'm not detracting anything from Adam Smith. I'm just not incorrectly using him as an authority on something he wasn't.
Quote:
Now, I don't talk to suckas, boy.
Ad hominem is yet another fallacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
