One problem is that there's a lot of politics tied to such job postings. For example, a company might want to have a US IT job posting stay unfilled so they can bring in an H1B.
In the event of an emergency, secure your own oxygen mask before attempting to assist others.
Back in the day we had Newtonian physics and we liked it! Quantum mechanics is degeneracy! Go to hell with your insane quantum nonsense and give us back our clockwork universe!
Here's hoping southern Ontario gets their heads out of their asses.
The rest of Canada got with the program some time ago.
The rest of Canada got with the program some time ago.
It annoys me that of all the extraordinary beers we have, this one would call itself "the" premium beer.
https://wolfballs.com/post/108026?scrollToComments=true
RIP wolfballs. :(
Sort of an odd name, but it was a great lemmy site (and there's a limited number of those) with a fun community.
RIP wolfballs. :(
Sort of an odd name, but it was a great lemmy site (and there's a limited number of those) with a fun community.
So you fundamentally misunderstand the history of the world.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.
Ok, not my problem. You got a definition of capitalism. Even a pithy one. The fact that you don't like it sounds like a you problem.
Yeah, that's how it works. When you're wrong about underlying facts, your conclusions will as a consequence come out wrong most of the time. Even when your conclusions are correct by accident, if the means by which you came to the correct conclusion is flawed, then the correct conclusion is less useful.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
It all goes back to the establishment of legally property rights and how it can be regarded as one of the key moments to the establishment of what we consider capitalism, since without private property rights there cannot be capitalism even though there can be wealth, because ultimately ownership and control of property wasn't private.
Which brings us to the other incorrect part of your post.
To keep it short: The concept of sharing resources and working collectively is prevalent in early human tribes and predates humans. Tribe and clan exist in primates. The concept of property as we understand it today is a more recent development in human societies. It can be argued that humans developed property as societies evolved from tribal communities to more complex forms of social organization, and the concept of private property as we understand it is quite modern.
So given all this, saying "This my rock. You no take. Me stab." is not an accurate way to look at the concept of property in prehistory.
You're proving my original long definition was required after all, and the problem was that I actually didn't make it long enough.
The thing is, you're wrong, and because you're wrong, you're wrong.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
My post proves you're wrong because the US court system still utilizes English decisions to protect people's civil rights, therefore your conclusion that the way English common law regards human rights doesn't matter to American courts is incorrect.
The US, Canada, and the UK share common roots in the common law system characterized by the concept of precedent and of lower courts being held to decisions by higher courts. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they share every precedent, but they are all based on the same common law system, and cases in each jurisdiction sometimes make use of precedent set before the legal systems split off.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.
As an example of this, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the US Supreme Court considered the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. The Court relied on English common law to establish the principle that excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race is a violation of the defendant's right to an impartial jury. The Court specifically cited the case of Straud v. State (1670) from the English common law tradition as evidence of this principle.
Actually, that's the opposite of reality. French legal systems are based on the civil law system, which is fundamentally different than the common law system. Quebec in Canada shares that, but english speaking canada is also based on common law like US law.
The difference between capitalism and wealth is that for most of the history of the world, protection of private ownership wasn't really a core concept of law. For most of human history, although an individual may accrue wealth, ultimately ownership and control fell to the tribe, or the community, or the king, or the gods (through the priest class).
It wasn't until very recently that private ownership was a concept, particularly in law, and that concept of private ownership ended up becoming a cornerstone of liberalism. Once the state protected your ownership stake in a thing, it opened the door for protecting other rights, which is why many human rights in common law are conceptualized as a property right.
It wasn't until very recently that private ownership was a concept, particularly in law, and that concept of private ownership ended up becoming a cornerstone of liberalism. Once the state protected your ownership stake in a thing, it opened the door for protecting other rights, which is why many human rights in common law are conceptualized as a property right.
So the real reason you've never seen a definition of capitalism is that your definition of definition is so damn narrow.
Now you can't say nobody gave you a definition of capitalism. Now you've got two from two different people.