Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready  I mean you aren't trying to DEFINE what we are attempting to define here, instead, you are debating what to define. |
What do you mean by this? You asked me for alternatives and I've provided plenty of them.
Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready FREE CO-OPS are LEGAL in capitalist, and free-market philosophy.
Point? |
Again, as I've written elsewhere, they are allowed to exist so long as they make X amount of money. They aren't free. There are legally imposed costs for practically any cooperative project to go forward. That's precisely why I gave the Denmark example you dismissed in classic knee-jerk fashion. If you don't have money and don't play by the rules of elite banking institutions and the state, there will be attempts to undermine your freedom and force you to stop your life projects prematurely (almost without exception). It's not some conspiracy theory of mine. It's what happens. Sure, you could call this "free" if you want, but it's a pretty unusual definition.
Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready How does this tie into defining what we are attempting to define, so we can BEGIN to debate? |
You're the one playing semantic games. I've already started discussing.
Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yea..... first we have to agree on definitions, don't we? You can't debate without agreement on the words being used in the debate, can you? |
Well, I'm not sure what you don't understand. I'm using pretty simple words, dealing with elementary facts. What about them haven't I defined?
Grandpa h.