It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "CAPITALISM" is used, what is meant is a State-administered CAPITALISM aka CORPORTISM aka FASCISM. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.
See what I did there?
In the political space, you are right. But in academics, we know what we're talking about (definitions actually matter).
Nope. I am not "all over the map." You just don't want to accept the truth. You said you own your own body. The Bible says you don't. It's not that hard.
I own my body in respect to all other humans... no other human has a higher claim on my body than I do. While you are right that my ownership is not an absolute title (I did not create it, it was given to me by God), that is the case for all things we call "owned", so it's a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this discussion. What makes ownership of the body uniquely important versus, say, owning a car or a house, is that my body is inalienable ... I can't get rid of it because, without it, I am unable to act in the world. It is a logically necessary precondition to any other action in the world. Thus, if we suppose that someone else could own my body, I would be leashed or enslaved to them, unable to act directly in the world but, instead, forced to go through the "access layer" of their permission/refusal. This construct is extremely broad and includes almost all of what we mean when we discuss "government", which shows that most of what people mean when discussing "government" would better be called slavery.
Socialism requires the shared ownership of all property. The "socialist libertarian" can't explain how this can be universalized, while still leaving individuals free to make choices. After all, Suzie does not own Suzie's body, "the community" owns her body. Should "the community" vote to make Suzie a sexual companion for everyone in the community who chooses to make use of her, she would have no logical/moral objection to that on the basis of a consistently socialistic system. And as soon as we say, "Everything is shared
except ______" we're right back to capitalism (that is, freedom and private property) since many things are already shared, such as the air we breathe, the beauty of the landscape and the skies, and so on.
The idea of sharing cannot be universalized because it immediately leads to contradiction. It only makes sense within a restricted framework. Even Nature shows us this. My body is a "socialistic" organization of cells. No cell works for itself, each cells is performing an assigned role that contributes to the whole. However, the order between organisms is competitive (market-like), not cooperative. The deer does not walk into my backyard, lay down and breath its last just in time for me to fire up the barbecue. No, I have to hunt the animal down and, if it senses me, it will run away from me, as it ought to do. That is the principle of freedom and self-direction (private property) in action. A family or a church is like a body... there is an "ingroup" and "outgroup". Everything in the ingroup contributes to the benefit of that group, as it ought to. And everything that is in the outgroup is left to its own devices, as it ought to be. The idea of universalizing socialism is like trying to make the entire Cosmos into a single, cancer-like, overgrown mono-mind and mono-body.
There are elements of socialism and capitalism in it though.
I agree with what you're trying to say, but I wouldn't say it that way myself.
*sigh* Wrong. A monarchy is a political system. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Neither are incompatible with monarchy.
Yes, God's good order is political. The whole Bible is political. It is not
human political, but it is political. The devil's war is a literal, real political rebellion in the court of heaven with ramifications on earthly affairs. It is so much bigger than the earth, that it cannot be contained merely in human affairs. But it is absolutely political.
The idea of "economic system" is the very thing I'm challenging. When the Founding Fathers sat down to draft the Constitution, they were arguing over how to paint the lines on the basketball court. We've had to revise those lines a few times, usually improving things but sometimes making them much worse than they were. But the essential nature of a Constitution is that it is "the rules of the game", the lines on the basketball court. But the economy is not like that at all. The economy is like the jungle. Sure, you can slash and burn it. But you cannot "remake it", nor can you change the rules by which the jungle exists and operates. You can burn part of it down, pave it and paint lines on it, but the moment you leave it unattended, the jungle just grows right back over your silly lines. In other words, the vast majority of what people call "economic regulation" is just an exercise in egotistical fantasy. The regulators certainly do cause a lot of harm, but they do not and cannot really do what they imagine they are doing -- "running" the economy. Nobody runs the jungle. The jungle runs the jungle. All the slash-and-burners can do is make a mess.
That doesn't mean there is no way to improve the jungle, or that the jungle cannot exist in a beneficial symbiosis with the wise gardener. In fact, the world will not be healed until things are so restored. But this requires real wisdom and insight, which this present evil world-order completely lacks.
