On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > That's precisely the point: they would immediately recognize the > expropriation for what it is, irrespective of what it is called. I think > it’d be a good idea for progressives to likewise avoid getting distracted > by semantic distinctions. > > > I see you as saying that it’s essentially one and the same thing when > private owners are subjected to to varying degrees (usually modest) of > regulation or stripped of their property. I don’t see it that way, and > don’t think anyone else across the political spectrum would either if the > event actually occurred. > Come on Marvin. Here's what I actually wrote earlier in the thread: "a sufficiently well-regulated private enterprise is indistinguishable from a public one". "Sufficiently well-regulated" is basically the exact opposite of: "varying degrees (usually modest) of regulation". I claim the difference between "regulation" and "expropriation" is a matter of degrees; you claim it is one of kind. This disagreement is not an unimportant one: it has implications for your rhetoric and your politics. But we can disagree on this without mis-stating the argument. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
