# Capitalism, The Communism Of Economic Systems?

22 replies to this topic

### #1 Snax

Snax

Questioning

• Members
• 177 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:39 AM

Capitalism is to economic systems as communism is to government systems. They both look great on paper, but in practice you end up with an elite few who didn't fairly earn their top 1% spot with 50% of the wealth of a nation.

"But capitalism allows freedom!" Why would you want freedom in an economic system? That just seems stupid to me, as it did to all the starving child laborers in industrial America before there were labor laws limiting the amount of hours someone under the age of 14 could work to 45 hours a week, which is still ridiculous. Why would you want freedom to **** people out of healthcare, which is basically like being the shooter yourself (if someone got shot and needs medical assistance), or the "freedom" to pay employees a penny an hour or nothing at all? A purely free Capitalist system sounds stupid right? That's because it is. Granted, we don't have a purely capitalist system, our system is heavily regulated, but why not finish it off and make it full socialist?

All the Scandinavian countries are doing it, and they're enjoying the greatest economic success of any nation in modern history. Sweden and Finland both have higher GDP's per capita than America, in fact Sweden has the highest GDP per capita in the world. So why haven't we switched to this kind of economic system?

I guess "bureaucracy and politics" get in the way, on top of socialism being "that commie ****," but the Scandinavian countries are democratic countries, that used to have capitalist economies, and they made the switch just fine.

Is there something I'm missing or is America as far down the bell-curve slope of Empire Power as I think it is?

### #2 SaxonViolence

SaxonViolence

Understanding

• Members
• 315 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:02 PM

Dude,

You seem to leap into your argument in the middle.

You assume facts not in Evidence, not postulated as "Self-Evident Axioms"—except as implied ones—and wander all over the place.

The "Capitalism" of the Conservatives is more a form of State Socialism—Fascism if you will.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism—the only Genuine Capitalism—is based on the High-Minded Ideal that people have a Moral Right to dispose of the products of their Labor-or Speculation—or Whatever.

In Practice, I'm a Generous and Easy-Going Fellow—probably too generous.

In Theory though—If it's mine; It's Mine...

If clinging to what's mine causes people to Starve to Death in Wholesale Lots and Live in Squalor...

Screw them!

Poor people deserve to be Poor.

Jesus said, "The Poor you have with you always."

Meaning that it is Not Possible to Totally Eliminate Poverty.

However, when you create this great grinning bufoon—The Wealth Redistributing State...

And that Heathen Deity "Society"...

You condemn man to Eternal Servitude.

If I grant The State the Moral Right...

{I cannot "Grant" Moral Rights—I mean if I grant the supposition...}

To say to me:

"Hey Peckerwood! You have more than you 'Need'.

We'uns gonna extort 1% of your gross undeserved wealth and give to to the Poor..."

I have No Moral Recourse when they say,

"1% Won't cut it. We want 10%....

30%...

68%...

Well
Hell's Belles and Cockleshells Dude, you just ain't a team player.

We'uns gonna Nationalize you'un's Property—

For the 'Good of
Baal'...

er...

'Mammon'...

er...

'Tophet'...

er...

Ooooh, Don't tell me...

'For the Good of
Society!' "

As Crabby Old Ayn Rand pointed out repeatedly...

The Answer to "Societist's" arguments about the General Welfare is the Cold Shower Question:

"Who Is To Decide?"

Personally:

I will never have the satisfaction of owning the most modest piece of Real Estate in this Life.

I joke about Oprah Winfrey—who I don't like and have never met...

Dying and leaving her $18 Billion to me... But if she would, I still couldn't afford a 40 Acre Hillside Farm in Eastern Kentucky. Between "Eminent Domain" and "Property Tax" No one ever owns Real Estate... They purchase the "Right" to Rent the Land from the Govie, unless and until the Govie decides to Evict them. Scandinavia? If Scandinavia was a "Bright and Enlightened" spot on the Map... Then Scandinavian Citizens would have Even More Freedom to own Arms than we have here in America... But they Don't. Hell, I'd rather live in Peshwar or Nigeria... Do read Ayn Rand and get your Self-Righteous Maudlin Altruistic Heart off your Metaphorical Sleeve! Saxon Violence ### #3 Turtle Turtle Member • Members • 15452 posts Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:27 PM [quote name='SaxonViolence' timestamp='1378494163' post='329265'] ... If clinging to what's mine causes people to Starve to Death in Wholesale Lots and Live in Squalor... Screw them! Poor people deserve to be Poor. Jesus said, "The Poor you have with you always." Meaning that it is Not Possible to Totally Eliminate Poverty. ...[/quote] Let me just say -again- what a sorry *** point of view you espouse here. Nothwithstanding the sorry *** formatting you employ. Shame on you. Anyway, if Jesus is to be your example for governments then you damn well ought not take him out of context. [quotename='Jesus']Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. [/quote] Edited by Turtle, 06 September 2013 - 03:28 PM. ### #4 SaxonViolence SaxonViolence Understanding • Members • 315 posts Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM Context: Jesus didn't tell everyone to sell everything and give it to the poor... {And even if he had, he didn't Authorize The State as the Agent of Extraction.} He told one rather trying young rich dude that. Note his earlier quotation of The Law—He was trying to get the rich man to realize that he was Unrighteous under the Law, but the Rich young man's very narrow and self-satisfied attitude caused him to slough off Jesus' attempts to Create Guilt... Therefore he gave him a command that he knew perfectly well that the fellow wouldn't follow—to get him to realize that he wasn't "All that Spiritual". Esau sold his Birthright for a bowl of Lentils. Unlike some, I don't believe that he was being Unduly Frivolous. I believe that he was at the point of Death—or at least very sick. But let us not take Esau for a Role Model. Let us not sell our Birthright and our Children's Birthright for Bowls of Soup. The Golden Rule says : "Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you." Instituting a Socialist Government is Selling one's Birthright for a Bowl of Beans... {And sometimes you don't even get the promised Beans...} I'm not going to sell my Freedom for Security—not even if I'm starving—and though I may not look it now, I have pushed the fasting thingy to within hours of death. I know exactly what that entails. Do unto others... If I had a Son, would I sell his Birthright for a Pot of Porridge to keep him from Starving? It might be hard to watch him Starve—but since I wouldn't sell my Freedom for Soup... How can I rationalize selling his? I must be Strong—even though I hate to see him Starve, it is the Lessor of two Evils. So why would I agree to give up my Freedom to (presumably) put soup into the Bowl of Strangers? I don't much care for that term "Tough Love"... But turning one's back on the Hungry—when the only Alternative is to sell them and me into Slavery is an Act of LOVE—and INDEPENDENCE. But Folks seldom Starve in this Modern World—Nor are any of us particularly Free. Extreme Cases in Ethics are generally the most Rewarding Subjects for closer examination though... Was it Mo Tse who said that the Truly Enlightened Man would not pluck one hair from his head to save the Universe from destruction? But he said that only such a sage would be fit to Govern the Universe. Good Lord, if you realized how poor that I am... Sitting here typing on my sister's computer—wearing my one and only "Tee" Shirt and my only pair of Jeans... Trying to live on$850/Month Net...

Sure, if they're throwing money around—I might as well get mine.

Ayn Rand even said that it is a Double Penalty to be Taxed to Provide Govie Largesse and then not to Accept any Largesse...

Whether the Govie should be Playing Santa Claus or not.

I see Govie as the greatest Evil mankind must endure...

I will not strengthen the hand of the Enemy by Advocating Greater Power of Economic Redistribution to it.

So yes, when you really believe in something, sometimes you have to take the Hard Line and say,

"Screw Them!"

{And me Dude—I'll be in that Cross-Fire...}

Saxon Violence

### #5 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:24 PM

Context:

blah blah blah

I don't give a rat's *** for your justification. You have never made a post here that is not underlain with hatred, bigotry, criminality, and of course violence. Get out; you are not welcome here.

Edited by Turtle, 06 September 2013 - 10:24 PM.

• DFINITLYDISTRUBD and Snax like this

### #6 Snax

Snax

Questioning

• Members
• 177 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:15 AM

You seem to leap into your argument in the middle.

My argument is the first sentence.

You assume facts not in Evidence, not postulated as "Self-Evident Axioms"—except as implied ones—and wander all over the place.

...

Poor people deserve to be Poor.

Jesus said, "The Poor you have with you always."

Meaning that it is Not Possible to Totally Eliminate Poverty.

I stopped reading because the hypocrisy was too thick. Burn, heretic.

I saw a thing about Rand at the bottom when I deleted the rest of the unintelligible text you created, and whatever you said about Rand, if you're supporting her, you're wrong.

Edit: I read stuff here again because I searched the forums for "Scandinavia" and your post had it. About gun control, you do realize that Sweden and Finland both have mandatory gun ownership for every household right? They have more guns per capita than America... and their burglary rates are also the lowest in the world... so your comments about them having less freedom to own guns are somewhat true, but in the wrong direction lol.

Edited by Snax, 07 September 2013 - 02:55 AM.

• DFINITLYDISTRUBD likes this

### #7 SaxonViolence

SaxonViolence

Understanding

• Members
• 315 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 09:48 AM

Wow...

Like WOW Man!!!

I don't believe that I've engaged in any personal attacks on anyone—here or elsewhere on the net.

I am not a Follower of Ayn Rand.

Gee—I thought always referring to her as "Crabby Old Ayn Rand" gave that away.

She was a seminal thinker of the 20th Century and did a better than average job of defending both Capitalism and Individualism than most.

Some people think that it is possible to totally eliminate Poverty.

It isn't.

Jesus himself said it wasn't possible.

I thought of that as an Irrefutable appeal to the Ultimate Authority...

How is that "Hypocrisy"?

Jesus as a God setting out the tenants of a New Theology...

And with the presumed power to reward followers supernaturally both now and in the afterlife...

He is coherent and worth listening to.

Jesus as a mere Social Reformer—perhaps with occasional Delusions of Grandeur—seems not only to be teaching a rather muddled Philosophy...

But if I can't expect to cash in on all the sacrifice in the next life, it all seems extraordinarily masochistic.

"Social Christians" are always accusing True Believers of Hypocrisy though.

I don't quite get the Rationale behind this.

I'm just mean and hateful and spiteful?

O, and I done been a Bigot?

Dude,

It is like:

Did you read my article on how much I enjoy Nigerian Movies?

About an Irish Ballad that I enjoyed?

About the tiny Human Brains the Scientists are growing in vats?

I was told that the Forum could use both new posts and new members...

I've been striving to post a bit more...

And trying a wee bit not to step on toes—Though tact is not one of my Vices.

And o yeah, the last two or three members came from my promotion of this site...

I don't know what to say.

But hey, you get together two or three Moderators to Ask me to leave...

Because I'm a bad influence—or whatever—I'll go.

I took a long time-out awhile back.

Mostly I'm a presence on Survivalist/Gun Building/Anarchists type Forums and I told myself that highly intelligent folks such as y'all done have like WAY Thinner Skins than I done been used to...

But this is kinda Ridiculous.

And anyway Turtle—It is Like:

Who Died and Left You Boss?

{And yes, that is a very mild Personal Dig}

Saxon Violence

### #8 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:46 PM

Capitalism is to economic systems as communism is to government systems. They both look great on paper, but in practice you end up with an elite few who didn't fairly earn their top 1% spot with 50% of the wealth of a nation.
snip...
Is there something I'm missing or is America as far down the bell-curve slope of Empire Power as I think it is?

What you may be missing is how these systems evolved. The paper analysis is an outgrowth of the trials and tribulations humans have faced as social creatures. Economics and governance are not independent variables. The US dollar does not get its world value by decree, it gets it because it is reliable in practice.

Wow...

Like WOW Man!!!
snip...
And anyway Turtle—It is Like: Who Died and Left You Boss? {And yes, that is a very mild Personal Dig}

Suxon Violets

No one died and I put myself in charge. Here I go to all the trouble to ignore the system of forum governance & go rogue/anarchist on you and you start whining like a petulant child and deferring to the mods. If you had the strength of your convictions you should be applauding me for employing your espoused principles.Go away son; you bother me.
• DFINITLYDISTRUBD likes this

### #9 DFINITLYDISTRUBD

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

tsilcycrotom live

• Members
• 2291 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:31 PM

Mostly I'm a presence on Survivalist/Gun Building/Anarchists type Forums and I told myself that highly intelligent folks such as y'all done have like WAY Thinner Skins than I done been used to...

It has nothing to do with the thickness of our skins, but everything to do with the thickness of your head.

This is a science forum, not a place to rant, rave, attack and belittle, misrepresent facts, misquote texts, or in general act like a belligerent boob.

Nor Snax, is it the place for....

Snax- "that commie ****,"...freedom to **** people.....

.

All of the above are violations of this site's rules. Kindly read and at least attempt to follow them.
• CraigD and JMJones0424 like this

### #10 SaxonViolence

SaxonViolence

Understanding

• Members
• 315 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:01 PM

"This is a science forum, not a place to rant, rave, attack and belittle, misrepresent facts, misquote texts, or in general act like a belligerent boob."

"Misrepresent facts"?—What facts have I misrepresented?

"Misquote Texts"?—Eh!?!

"Rant and Rave"—Cryin' in a Kerchief...I try hard to see where there is a Rant.

I don't attack the general Intelligence, personal hygiene or the sexual mores of folks who don't agree with me.

No ad hominem attacks.

I just try to present my views in the most "clean" and "abstract" way possible.

I did say, "Screw the Poor"?

That was my forceful and perhaps colorful way of expressing my total disinterest in...

Well what?

I'm convinced the Poor suffer as much or more as anyone under Socialism.

Perhaps my disinterest in the Collectivist's Caricature of "The Poor".

Misquote Texts?

If you think that I "Misquoted" either Jesus or Ayn Rand then I beg to differ.

So far as offering to go away—No one...

Correction...

I don't want to stay where I'm not wanted.

But I want to make sure that it isn't a movement of one—or two or three.

Y'know, If you think that I've slammed someone—a real person, not some Platonic Ideal held up for Rhetorical purposes...i.e. "Statists"...

Or you think that I'm deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting—then ask me for clairification...

{In a reasonably recent post...)

Ask me to clarify.

HMMMmmnn...?

I really don't perceive this hostility y'all seem to be sensing coming off me.

On a bad day, I might rant against the "Right Brained" or the "Non-Verbal"...

But I don't recall having an attack here.

.....Saxon Violence

### #11 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:02 PM

I really don't perceive this hostility y'all seem to be sensing coming off me.
...

.....Saxon Violence

Stop formatting you posts in single sentences double-spaced. Don't make a post to justify it, just stop it. Notify an Admin and change your name. Don't post to justify Violence in your name, just change it. Get rid of your sig referring to guns. Don't post to justify it, just get rid of it.

If you can't see that those things provoke hostility, then you do not belong here any more than you belong here if you persist in them. .

### #12 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:37 PM

Capitalism is to economic systems as communism is to government systems.

That’s a provocative statement, and avoids the common, cliché misconception that capitalism and communisms are oposite governmental principles, but I don’t see that you’ve made a logical argument to support it, Snax.

I’ve long found comparisons of these two terms problematical.

Capitalism as a governmental principle is that the means to produce goods are controlled not by the government, but by the governed. Communism as a governmental principle is in a sense, the exact opposite: that the means to produce goods are controlled by the government. However, since communism essentially equates government ownership with collective ownership by the governed, it is also in sense the exact same.

Given the ease with which arguments like these can use these two terms to produce contradictions, I think it’s better to avoid them, addressing social and political issues pragmatically, rather than in reference to ideologies.

Capitalism and communism can refer to economic or government systems, but are fundamentally, I believe, ideological systems. While the study of ideological system can be interesting and fruitful, the application of them to problems solving is, I believe, and I believe history shows again and again, troublesome and ultimately unfruitful.

They both look great on paper, but in practice you end up with an elite few who didn't fairly earn their top 1% spot with 50% of the wealth of a nation.

Although concentration of wealth like this occurs in nations that self-identify as capitalistic, I’ve not read that it occurs in ones that self-identify as communistic. Can you support this claim with links or references, Snax?

Granted, we don't have a purely capitalist system, our system is heavily regulated, but why not finish it off and make it full socialist?

All the Scandinavian countries are doing it, and they're enjoying the greatest economic success of any nation in modern history.

The economies of the Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Norway, and Sweden – aren’t described by economists as socialist, but rather as mixed, meaning being both state and privately controlled, partially planned, partially market following. Economists also describe the US economy as mixed. Private ownership of the means of producing goods is permitted in all of these nations, where in what I would term a “full socialist” economy, it is owned by the state or collectively by the people. A economic system in which the means of producing goods is owned by the state or collectively by the people is the conventional definition of socialism.

In my experience, in the US, the Scandinavian countries are described as socialistic economies primarily by self-identifying rightist/conservatives, who seek to discredit Scandinavian social programs and policies in order to prevent the consideration or adoption of similar ones by the US and US state governments. This use is political rhetoric, not economic or social science.

Sweden and Finland both have higher GDP's per capita than America, in fact Sweden has the highest GDP per capita in the world. So why haven't we switched to this kind of economic system?

I believe you’ve confused you Scandinavian countries. Snax. Of them, at a 2012 nominal per capita GDP of US$56,202, Norway is higher than Sweden, at$55,158 or Denmark at $56,202. Although Norway has the higher per capita GDP of the Scandinavian countries, it is only the 2nd or 3rd highest in the world, behind Luxembourg at$107,206 and, barely, Qatar at $99,731. All are higher than the US, at$49,922.

However, comparisons of per capita GDP between small countries such as Denmark (population about 4,953,000), Luxembourg (537,853) and the US (308,700,000) aren’t economically valid, because wealthy smaller countries have a higher proportion of a few high-productivity business sectors (eg: manufacturing, finance, and fuel exporting) than larger ones, which have large low-productivity sectors (eg: agriculture and unskilled labor). For example, the US city of New York, population about 8,337,000 comparable to Sweden’s 9,449,000, has a per capita GDP of \$ 153,658, much higher than any nation’s.

The major distinction between the Scandinavian countries and the US is not, I think, with their economies and economic policies, but with their social welfare and closely tied tax policies. In the Scandinavian and many other wealthy countries, nearly all basic needs, such as medical care, are government provided. In the US, however, state provided basic needs are considered by policy to be “safety net” service provided to the temporarily disadvantaged or permanently disabled. This is paid for with higher taxes. The total tax revenue of Denmark, for instance is 49% of its GDP, vs. 26.9% for the US.

Sources: Wikipedia articles List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita; List of U.S. states by GDP; http://en.wikipedia...._cities_by_GDP'>List of cities by GDP; List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP

PS to various posters in this thread: Support you claims with links or references, and play nicely! None of our forums are intended for ideological rhetoric and debate.

### #13 C1ay

C1ay

¿42?

• 6488 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 11:23 AM

Capitalism is to economic systems as communism is to government systems. They both look great on paper, but in practice you end up with an elite few who didn't fairly earn their top 1% spot with 50% of the wealth of a nation.

That was enough for me to quit reading. The world is not fair and debates on economic systems should not be based on such.

### #14 Snax

Snax

Questioning

• Members
• 177 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:34 AM

That was enough for me to quit reading. The world is not fair and debates on economic systems should not be based on such.

The world isn't fair because of people. People have a choice to screw other people or to not screw them (in a capitalist system). Socialism doesn't eliminate this, but it effectively controls it.

I started this thread to see reactions, and I got them (some were off topic, but reactions nonetheless). I will be using sudo-socialism like the swedes for the Online Nation. Meaning health care and drinkable water will be provided by government services but there will also be allowed private companies to gain hold in any market the government is involved in. These private businesses that are not government ran may provide better service than their government opposition (granted not for free like the gov.) and so private ventures are still allowed.

On top of this I'm working on the crediting system (this will all be moved to the O-N thread eventually). The government will create and destroy credits proportionately to the population 1,000-1 so every citizen on average has 1k credits (granted they will not be evenly distributed but w/e) and a single credit unit can be broken down into 0.0001 increments. Depending on how this works out, it might instead be 10,000 credits per person, and 0.001 units, but it's the same either way. Having it be directly proportional like this allows for a never-inflating economy, which yes presents problems, but as those problems arise they will actually aid the transition into no currency at all (a few hundred years away, but whatevs).

Oh, there will be ISK-sinks as well (like EVE online), but with credits, which is how the government will continuously deflate the economy.

I'm really behind on consolidating this into the Constitution but it'll get there eventually.

Edited by Snax, 11 September 2013 - 01:38 AM.

### #15 phillip1882

phillip1882

Thinking

• Members
• 654 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:16 PM

okay, i don't even know where to be begin.

The world isn't fair because of people. People have a choice to screw other people or to not screw them (in a capitalist system). Socialism doesn't eliminate this, but it effectively controls it.

umm no. not even close.
have you looked at the rampant corruption in various governments, all over the world, who have tried socialism?
there's no way to control trade, in a fair balanced way such that everyone is better off. screw the rich, and you lose investments in large scale projects. screw the poor, and you lose the most vital resource in manufacturing and construction.
i assure you freedom means that people are capable of making mistakes, both rich and poor alike.
freedom also mean voluntary transactions, win-win negations, and a better standard of living for all. how much fairer do you want a system to be?
over 90% of the things you have today are here because of capitalism, not socialism.
the poorest person in America has more capabilities and resources at his disposal than the king of France did in the 1800's, and the vast majority of it was developed during the period of time with the least government regulation. what does that tell you about capitalism?
• CraigD, TheBigDog and JMJones0424 like this

### #16 phillip1882

phillip1882

Thinking

• Members
• 654 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 03:10 AM

Why would you want freedom in an economic system? That just seems stupid to me.

okay! i have a great offer for you. join a prison camp. no freedom there. you get a warm cooked meal of gruel every day,
a bed to sleep in a night that is prone to rats, and a nice anal raping by your fellow inmates. your right, no freedom sounds nice.

as it did to all the starving child laborers in industrial America before there were labor laws limiting the amount of hours someone under the age of 14 could work to 45 hours a week, which is still ridiculous.

okay! i have a great offer for you. go live on a farm for fifteen years. wake up at 3 in the morning to milk cows, harvest grain with a machete, by hand, for hours at a time, and get a year salary of 10 dollars. then tell me how much you would like to work in a factory for less effort and higher salary.

Why would you want freedom to **** people out of healthcare, which is basically like being the shooter yourself (if someone got shot and needs medical assistance), or the "freedom" to pay employees a penny an hour or nothing at all?

because these freedoms also mean the freedom to boycott a medical insurer, boycott a company that pays shitty wages, and if you are really angry, hire private detectives to inspect their assets.

A purely free Capitalist system sounds stupid right? That's because it is. Granted, we don't have a purely capitalist system, our system is heavily regulated, but why not finish it off and make it full socialist?

no, a purely socialistic system sounds stupid to me. i have no idea how you control corruption in a socialist system, you explain to me how you would solve that problem first and i might consider it.
• JMJones0424 likes this

### #17 Snax

Snax

Questioning

• Members
• 177 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:13 AM

okay, i don't even know where to be begin.

It's best to begin at the start when unsure.

have you looked at the rampant corruption in various governments, all over the world, who have tried socialism?

Yes I have and the Scandinavian countries have far less corruption in their governments than America does, in every objectively measurable way. And remember, we aren't talking about total-saturation socialism, I only said sudo-socialism, but either way.

there's no way to control trade, in a fair balanced way such that everyone is better off...
freedom also mean voluntary transactions, win-win negations, and a better standard of living for all.

There are plenty of ways to control trade, governments do it all the time, in fact most of them do it on massive scales, it wasn't until recently that world-trade was so prevalent. A lot of times an underdeveloped country's government will cut all trade with other countries for specific industries in order to allow their internal industry to grow. Also, if you're going to go the standard of living route, I think it's pretty obvious that Sweden and Finland have far superior standards of living than America... or any other country on the planet for that matter...

over 90% of the things you have today are here because of capitalism, not socialism.
the poorest person in America has more capabilities and resources at his disposal than the king of France did in the 1800's, and the vast majority of it was developed during the period of time with the least government regulation. what does that tell you about capitalism?

How long has socialism existed? About 200 years, and how long has capitalism existed? You're arguing that elephants are better animals than Humans because their evolutionary lineage is older. Also, of course the majority of the things I have in this capitalist country are from capitalism, such an argument is recursive. If I lived in sweden then you'd be saying that over 90% of the things I have today are because of socialism, not capitalism. That argument is null. And the poorest person in America does not have as much as the king of France, let me count the ways: Articles of clothing in quantity, articles of clothing in quality, any furniture at all (quantity), furniture (quality), food (quant/qual), servants (quant/qual), houses (quant/qual), colonies to rules (quant/qual), etc... I mean the poorest person in America has less than the king of France in almost every measurable aspect. I don't even see how that argument was supposed to be true... So what does that tell me about capitalism? Pretty much the same things I've already said, that it's an unfair, more importantly an unsupporting, economic system that does not fair well when dealing with the masses, but fairs amazingly well for a few individuals.

okay! i have a great offer for you. join a prison camp. no freedom there. you get a warm cooked meal of gruel every day,
a bed to sleep in a night that is prone to rats, and a nice anal raping by your fellow inmates. your right, no freedom sounds nice.

Prison is not an economic system, and if you come stepping to me again with threats of rape, I'd suggest you watch your six son cause you's the one thasa bout ta' get ****ed. Niggas be the ones gettin' knowledge dropped on them, niggas be the ones turnin', and now nigga, you's learnin'. Bonus points if you know the song.

okay! i have a great offer for you. go live on a farm for fifteen years. wake up at 3 in the morning to milk cows, harvest grain with a machete, by hand, for hours at a time, and get a year salary of 10 dollars. then tell me how much you would like to work in a factory for less effort and higher salary.

I'm not sure you did this on purpose, but after all that I would probably love to work less for higher salary. I think what you were trying to argue is that someone who works harder should get paid more. I never argued against this, and the fact that you think that socialism makes everyone's wages equal no matter what amount of work you put in makes me think you don't understand socialism one bit, let alone government-socialism, which is what we're talking about here. The economy is regulated in a socialist capacity by the government, but there's nothing about wages being offset (at least not any more than they are in a purely capitalist system). Speaking of which, America doesn't even have a purely capitalist system, we have a lot of socialist policies, so I don't see how you still aren't understanding this.

because these freedoms also mean the freedom to boycott a medical insurer, boycott a company that pays shitty wages, and if you are really angry, hire private detectives to inspect their assets.

I don't think you understand the fundamental differences between economy and government... Those freedoms to take action are not provided by some economic policy, they're provided and enforced by a government, entirely separate from the economic system it uses.

no, a purely socialistic system sounds stupid to me. i have no idea how you control corruption in a socialist system, you explain to me how you would solve that problem first and i might consider it.

How do you control it in a capitalist system? You answer that and both questions are solved.

gg no re rez.

Edited by Snax, 23 September 2013 - 12:22 AM.