War and Peace theory of shopping.Follow

The government can't just turn away the sick

Of course they could? The government could let hungry people starve to death if they felt like it.

Governments that let their population starve to death often end up the way of the French monarchy.

Nah, that's a fairly rare sort of event, really. People starve to death in stable governments all the time. China's a good example. People starve to death by the thousands in India, the worlds largest Democracy, every day.

Yeah, but then we couldn't call ourselves the greatest country on earth, could we?

Haha, nothing would prevent that of any nation state. Everyone on Earth lives in the greatest nation on Earth.

My experience with franchises would put it at zilch.

Sure we could, just as easily as we do now.

Not if the vast majority can feed themselves on their own. Our society doesn't care if homeless people starve to death. Many are even happy about it, since they don't have to be inconvenienced by them anymore.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:55pm by Rachel9

"Newsroom" is such a hackneyed parody of liberal thought, it's sort of amazing it wasn't written by Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. It's fucking AWFUL.

Making a consumer decision is capitalism. The fact that you're trying to argue its not because you don't think the reasons are "pure" enough is hilarious and a little sad but ultimately just wrong.

Provides, or makes available? There's a difference. The mandate requires that employers not just make benefits available, but actually pay for the benefits directly where they were free to have a variety of shared pay options prior to Obamacare. My understanding is that the benefits for part time employees at both restaurants are (and have been) pretty much identical. The only difference is that Papa John's has been more vocal about the issue. Pizza hut is also putting hard 29 hour limits on their part time employees for the exact same reason Papa John's is. They're just doing it quietly.

To the degree that a term like capitalism applies to an individuals purchasing choice (which I already brought up btw), capitalism applies less to the choice in question (boycotting Papa John's because they chose to avoid the health care mandate in Obamacare) than socialism.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I agree that neither term directly applies here, because both refer to a system, not individual actions within the system. However, by supporting the boycott in question, one is supporting a socialist action. Certainly, to proclaim that choice to boycott as an example of capitalism in action is erroneous.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I agree that neither term directly applies here, because both refer to a system, not individual actions within the system. However, by supporting the boycott in question, one is supporting a socialist action. Certainly, to proclaim that choice to boycott as an example of capitalism in action is erroneous.

No, the issue is that capitalism relies on enlightened self interest. The enlightened part includes not buying the house of the guy who raped your mother even though it's 50% less than the equivalent house.

Sometimes standing up for principle is more valuable than making a profit.

Apparently not in capitalism, if we take your 10 previous posts seriously.

There's probably no greater indicator of when Gbaji is about to say something silly than when he feels the need to Gingrich it up with some authoritative language.

Papa John's sounds pretty socialist to me with all their "principles over profits" talk. Freedom loving Americans should boycott them.

Edited, Mar 19th 2013 6:39pm by Jophiel

I never said that Papa John's decision to vocally oppose Obama care was a capitalistic act though. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're the one who keeps trying to define this within the context of capitalism, while carefully avoiding mentioning the 800lb socialist gorilla in the room.

Neither is "capitalism". It's a choice. Capitalism and socialism refer to economic systems, and (in this context) usually refer to the degree or lack of government intervention in the market. Your use of the term is far too broad. By that usage, we could say that a person living in Communist Russia's choice to stand in line to get their government issued shoes or to not do so is capitalism. I mean, the choice does affect their personal well being and "wealth", but it would be moronic to say that they were engaging in capitalism simply because they were making a choice that affected their own personal financial condition.

If you choose to not purchase pizza from Papa John's because it opposes a socialist policy you support, it means that your choice isn't about Papa John's pizza, but about supporting the socialist policy. Your decision isn't "socialism" just as it isn't "capitalism". But your choice is in support of a socialist policy.



And the government creating a mandate designed to force Papa John's to pay for health care for their employees is socialist as well. And if you boycott Papa John's for taking an action designed to avoid the intent of the mandate, then you are supporting socialism. Get it yet? To say that the boycott is capitalism at work is absurd.



No, it's not. Not by any actual definition of capitalism. You're confusing "free choice" with "capitalism". There are lots of cases where you have a choice, but there's no capitalism involved. We can't say that the choice is capitalism. But in that example, we absolutely could say that your choice reflected a support of Obama raping John Schnatter. Right?



Again, that's not what capitalism is. I don't know how much more clearly to state this. No amount of calling a bird a dog makes it true. But that's what you're basically trying to do here.

Edited, Mar 19th 2013 6:50pm by gbaji