You'e rude, your reading comprehension skills are atrocious, and you're a fucking moron to boot. Good grief.

Individual donations made to presidential campaigns are required to be reported to the FEC, idiot. — Maw

Donations under $200 don't have to be reported, so it's an unverifiable claim unless Sanders would be kind enough go willingly disclose the information. Check your facts before insulting anyone else, you utter nincompoop.

"I do not like to suffer at all from what I call the German disease, an interest in philosophy"
- James Watson

I've heard drunks ramble more cogently than this sentence. — Maw

Your reading comprehension deficiencies are most unfortunate, but no major concern (or fault) of mine.

Do you sincerely believe that adults making less than $30K annually are reading arguments laid out in the works of academics? Or do you think they are able to understand their own material conditions and see how Capitalism doesn't work in their favor? And what of Sanders' wide network of donors who live across America. Not going to let you circumvent that one. — Maw

Why are these people convinced that they're living under capitalism to begin with? Why not any other "ism" that one might throw around? Such views don't pop into existence out of thin air. You don't have to read the works of academics to be influenced by views that originate in the works of academics, so much should be fairly obvious.

You mean the completely unverifiable claim about Sanders' network of donors? You will excuse me if I don't find "Bernie said so" terribly convincing.

By the way, I wonder who was funding the Sanders Institute. And that, by contrast, is a question to which there is a definitive answer. Hint: Not exactly the meek and the poor.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/sanders-institute-suspends-operations-amid-criticism-over-donations/

That fact isn't relevant to your original claim. You claimed that Capitalism is an "obviously desirable thing", and that those who oppose or "vehemently oppose" it are exclusively out-of-touch academics perched within their ivory towers. As I've shown, that's simply not true. There is sustained criticism and skepticism of Capitalism that exists across incomes and demographics. — Maw

This is of course not what I said. The fact that I said "misled by arguments" and not "progenitors of such arguments" makes it clear that I am not talking solely about ivory tower academics.

The inability to even grasp that we're talking about rival views calls into question the validity of an answer given by someone who harbors said inability.

Just giving it back! — Noah Te Stroete

I am pretty sure that you were first to call someone's sex into question because they disagree with you.

Interesting. I will just let that stand as an insight into your sensibilities. — Noah Te Stroete

Take a trip to any political philosophy department at any Ivory League institution and describe what you see. Or just even compile a list of the most influential egalitarian thinkers. I'll spare you the suspense: You're gonna find copious amounts of white affluent males. Those who live in glass houses...

I’ve read arguments for laissez faire capitalism and for socialism. BOTH come from the ivory tower. I do not. BOTH are wrong-headed, except laissez faire capitalism philosophy is driven by selfishness of the capitalists, while socialist philosophy is driven by altruistic impulses. Like I said, both are wrong. — Noah Te Stroete

I think that you might be confusing "reading someone" and "psychoanalyzing someone".

Weird you say that since Socialism is viewed more positively and Capitalism more negatively by adults with family income less than $30K than Adults with a family income of more than $30K. So much for being removed from the "common man". Also weird how Bernie Sanders has the largest number of individual donors who live all across the United States. — Maw

That respondents don't view capitalism and socialism in "either-or terms", despite the fact that these are clearly incompatible economic models, might tell you something about the validity of such results.

Conflating laissez faire capitalism with regulated capitalism is the problem, and, no, I don’t live in an ivory tower. I’m from the ghetto. Go back to your white men cigar and Scotch parlor. — Noah Te Stroete

Ah, yes, the ghetto, where they usually develop theories about "regulated capitalism" or "laissez faire capitalism". I think that that's where John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin are originally from. As for "white men", just who do you think is coming up with communitarian/egalitarian/socialist thought? People from the Congo?

Your accusations are both rude and intellectually vapid, but the delicious irony is arguably the best part of it all.

Capitalism is such an obviously desirable thing that, barring having been woefully misled by a plethora of bad arguments popular within academic circles, it's quite difficult to see just why anyone would oppose it, let alone vehemently oppose it. Those who devise unreasonable conceptions of 'justice' and bark orders at their fellows from their academic ivory tower would do well to at least not have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being far removed from the "common man" or of supporting the cause of "the few".

If my grandpa steals all your land then leaves it to me in his will, would you and the courts be the aggressors when you try to get your land back? I didn't do anything wrong? — ZhouBoTong

There's a salient difference between theft and murder. In the case of the former, some form of compensation, or even restitution, is possible. In the case of the latter, it's plainly not. If my grandfather was a thief, I may justifiably lose property I possess that originated in his acts of thievery, provided solid evidence of such acts. If my grandfather was a murderer, I may not justifiably lose my own life.

Regarding "aggressive marketing campaigns", I have to confess that I am having a hard time grasping just what in the world the argument is supposed to be. Yes, things can be colloquially described as "aggressive". No, that doesn't mean that they are aggressive in the philosophically relevant sense. One might as well accuse libertarians of illicitly "changing the language!" because the libertarian principle doesn't prohibit "passive-aggressive behavior" and doesn't compel us to be particularly kind to our fellows.