> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:02 AM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:31 AM, raghu <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
Sorry. Now I follow, What do you mean by “sufficiently well regulated” - it would be helpful if, for example, you could specify what regulations you would impose on the financial or energy industries -and, in particular, why would these would be politically more capable of realization than public ownership?
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
