capitalisatioN and Occupation links?

There seem to be a tentative possible link between capitalisation and occupation in the sense of control, seizure possession and extraction of “values”.

Occupation as a seizure of time/land and using that to control the property that one got a hold of? I think there is an implicit violence in the act of getting the time/land/object property. ie either by taking the element from some other people, and/or an attempt to ensure some other people will not get a hand on that element. Say we have free internet for all, if that is Occupied by society, it might follow that people will fancy dis-allowing Other bodies to develop a paid-for internet.
When not occupied by society, eg the NHS, we can get the ability of other elements to develop health provision outside the NHS. However, what some of these non-0NHS elements claim is that there is a certain biase to favour NHS. As is the case of claims against BBC.
Perhaps interesting to note that “justifications” for NHS bias tend to be Majoriatarian rather than goods provision. ie that NHS, because its used by most people, should get a special status that might not be afforded to services used by less people.
I think this is a poor argument because it fails to operate in time. ie what would have happened if NHS was used by a minority?
In my mind, a better pro NHS argument is that unlike other, competitive systems and practices in health provision, NHS do9es not in fact preclude other systems, in fact, it allows the emergence of other. For example, NHS trained Drs might go to private – we do not say that if we spent X pounds to train a Dr, they can not go to the private sector. Nor do we say that because the NHS might not treat certain conditions, people should not go private if they also use NHS.
However, perhaps the NHS could be more flexibility and evolve towards being a provision that allows more diverse health services. Some of which might be out of capitalism too?

Capitalisation as a seizure of opportunity for gaining some profits, advantages?
Again, I think the terms seizure as a link between capitalisation and occupation? Obviously this does not make the 2 the same. However, perhaps linked in a stream of similarities?
In capitalisation there is an implicit element of control. To gain some profit or an advantage out of a given chance/opportunity – perhaps we need a degree of ability to do something we rather fancy with that opening? It might imply a temporary control, and does not necessitate getting an ownership – as perhaps occupation requires – however, there is a Kind of either temporary, and/or sense of ownership claim.
e.g. A patent – either by copy or “legal” usage, one might capitalise – take advantage – via various kinds of ownership claims?
What of capitalising on a “gap in the market”? One doesn’t claim to Own the gap. However, a person hopes to have enough control of the perceived gap for extracting price out of people who might find themselves in that “gap”.

In these senses, I think there might be links that could be placed together into streams that come from occupation and capitalisation.
{if (OC^timeness)^(CAPtiomeness) ?}
{if (OCtimeness^private)(CAP)^(CAPsociality) ? }
{ if (CAPSociality)^(Privacy) ?}
{if (Privacy^desireness)^(CAP) ? }
{if (CAPprivacyDesireness)(Privacy) ? }

One reply on “capitalisatioN and Occupation links?”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.