For Rand, the definition of capitalism, was free market capitalism, only.

And 'free market' in Objectivist philosophy is 'laissez faire', or let it be.

I think the confusion of the language by socialist with the intent of affecting the way citizens think about those subject issues is the greatest danger to our society.

Agreed

I get it. It's the separate delineation that caused my rather snarky comment. Rand used the phrase "mixed economy" in order to keep the word capitalism from being weakened by calling it this, that, or the other type of capitalism. However, doing so, is perfectly valid in my estimation.

Now on that we totally agree. Willful ignorance is anti-man and anti-life.

I agree, because it doesn't work. But I'm not convinced that it ever 'helps' anyone.

Zenphamy when you say "state or community owning and/or controlling all production and distribution", you're referring to an extreme of socialism seen in places like North Korea, Soviet Russia, early Communist China, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc. It's not quite as binary as you describe. Most 'socialist' governments recognise the productive capability of capitalism and allow it to whatever extent in their view maximises its benefits while mitigating what they see as its common drawbacks. Each socialist government draws the boundary at a different point. But for a socialist administration to "own and/or control ALL production and distribution" is virtually unheard of today.

Stupidity and ignorance are two very different things. Stupidity is the inability to think while ignorance is the condition of having a limited store of knowledge which restricts what you can think about. The greatest crime is that of willful ignorance.

You're welcome.

Yet we're born in a state of ignorance having to rely on our mental ability to observe the actions and instructions of adults to learn how to accomplish most things in life until we gain enough knowledge and experience to begin abstract thought.

I would guess that 'stupid' in place of ignorance in your comment would be more to the point. It's my thought that human evolution has actually been slowed down due to the ability of the stupid to survive and reproduce. Further that a great deal of the isms of history have been the result of the stupid in our species including the altruisms imposed in order to take care of the stupid.

Some would argue that those thoughts edge into the realm of eugenics, but it is never-the-less, true.

david; I'm not comfortable with your limited, i.e. "helping", definition. Socialism is collectivism at the level of the tribe up to the level of the state, with the state or community owning and/or controlling all production and distribution.

But that's kind of been the point of most on the left--to gain control of the definition of words and confuse and conflate. And, yes, to a large extent, they've been successful.

The difference is in the context of the argument it's included in. In general, free market or laissez-faire capitalism (let it be) is completely free of control or intervention, while various forms of capitalism exist in many forms of political systems and always involve some form of intervention, such as anti-monopoly controls. Ayn Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism.

'Global Studies' sounds like geography.

Well that's fine if it gets them to vote for it.

I would rather think that they were Objectivist.

Can someone explain the difference between capitalism and "free markets?" Up 'till now, I was under the impression that capitalism meant free markets. Is it merely the different terminology that has people choosing free market over capitalism? Has all the lefty raging against capitalism had that effect?+

Well, that shows what education is doing for young
people; apparently, they don't understand, or know
how to read, their own language. They seem to
think that there is a difference between "free mark-
et" and "capitalism". Ayn Rand said, "If it is not
laissez-faire capitalism, it is not capitalism."

The word 'socialism' is somewhat meaningless and highly misleading unless properly qualified. There are actually two dimensions of 'socialism':
(1) "Helping" the less fortunate through subsidies and tax breaks extracted from all, eg subsidised doctor visits
(2) "Helping" the most fortunate through subsidies and tax breaks extracted from all, eg subsidies for corporate expansion programmes.
These can exist separately or in combination.

There is much debate too on how "free" a market can effectively become if left to itself - the idea of "market failure" - loved by micro-economists - of how monopolies/oligopolies can inflict levels of market inefficiency rivalling or exceeding that of many governments, due to their monopoly rents functioning similarly to a form of taxation, distorting the supply-demand curves. Austrian School adherents on the other hand argue vigorously that there is no such thing as market failure, and that any state a market is in, is ipso facto its most efficient.

but the survey didn't honor that, and the respondents
didn't know it -- apparently. . good education. -- j
.

Great article. Thanks.

As Inigo Montoya would say: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ignorance kills more people than any other component of the environment. If you don't know how to produce food you will starve. If you don't know how to swim you drown. If you don't know how to defend your self someone will kill you. Ignorance is an important part of the evolutionary process.