“vladimir988: Free market capitalism does not mean theft is legal.”
I didn’t say that. I said that about unfettered capitalism.
“Protection of property and transfer of property is part of unfettered capitalism.”
No, it is not. That’s the point, hence, the ‘unfettered’.
“Interference with these rights, or selective protection of them, is not.”
I want a Free Market, with lots of freedom. I don’t want ‘unfettered capitalism’. And I still want people to be charitable in the Christian sense. I want a lot and will get little of it. That’s how life works.
ˈfetər/ verb past tense: fettered; past participle: fettered
1. restrain with chains or manacles, typically around the ankles.
I realize the disagreement here is probably all semantics, but "unfettered" or "unchained" capitalism means, to me, free market capitalism.
To you, "unfettered" seems to mean some form or degree of lawlessness, rather than freedom. I guess we can agree to disagree on the meaning of "unfettered" in the phrase "unfettered capitalism."
But I think the language used matters in this case. Why do you want to say or imply that capitalism should be in fetters? Because it is inherently evil and must be restrained? Because otherwise there is no protection of property? But capitalism by definition requires the recognition and protection of property rights. Capitalism (in the broad sense of "private ownership of the means of production") inherently entails protection of property and contract rights, or how is there ever any "private ownership of the means of production"?
Capitalism does not need to be in chains.