[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, "don't try anything new." If that's your only objection, it's incredibly weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't twist my words. Arguments about social phenomena should be grounded in empirical evidence, most of which is going to be historical. I submit that you have very little to support your position. Don't try to squirm out of defending your position empirically with some abstract glance towards possibilism.

[ QUOTE ]
So what? By itself, this is effectively a continuation of the "don't try anything new" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. Beforehand you stated that we had not had "true capitalist economies" because all economies were marked by government intervention. I was merely pointing out that this has never been part of the accepted definition of capitalism. If you want to get serious about arguing about these things, you have to be using concepts in a clear way. Usually this means adhering to some semblance of the definitions that have been in common currency among social thinkers for generations. If you want to redefine "capitalism" in your own way, go ahead, but its rather counter-productive.

[ QUOTE ]
Or still continuing, depending on how you look at it. "Full commodification" cannot occur as long as governments continue to interfere in markets. Your "real" capitalism has not yet been achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post again. I said "more or less" fully commodified.

But let's not get side-tracked. I still want to see your empirical evidence and full argument for the contemporary viability of a system of exchange beyond the level of local economies that is not government sponsored or supported. Please don't dodge the question any longer.