# Capitalism vs Socialism



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

I would like to see what the community thinks in regards to the economic system of government. 

I didn't include a poll because people might hold more complicated views. Personally I prefer a left-leaning free market based economy. So proper government regulations are put into place to keep the market more fair and protecting workers rights.


----------



## monotonous (Feb 1, 2013)

sorry i could be wrong but isn't right wing pro free market?

i prefer capitalism, although i'd live better materially in a socialist country, but that's only because im a loser

idk which aspect you were referring to, but economically speaking, capitalism is not perfect, actually far from perfect. technically there's no pure capitalist country in the current world. most countries swing between socialism and mixed economy.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

I hate socialism. And I like socialists only slightly better. Some of them rise above their ideology to be decent people that I can at least come to an understanding with but not many.

Am I pleased with my place in the capitalist world? No. But that's my problem. Most people can scratch out a decent existence in it even if they don't want to. My position is pretty unique.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Most people can scratch out a decent existence in it even if they don't want to. My position is pretty unique.


 Really? I'd say that only a relatively small proportion of people in the world live well under capitalism. Remember that the prosperity of western nations is linked vitally to the conditions in other countries and exploitation of people there.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> Really? I'd say that only a relatively small proportion of people in the world live well under capitalism.


 One of the things that bugs me about socialists is selective comprehension. I didn't say anything about "living well". Living well is secondary to just having a job and being able to pay your bills. Most people can do that if they really want to.

If there is a fewer percentage than "most" under capitalism, it's mostly people who don't want to work hard.



> Remember that the prosperity of western nations is linked vitally to the conditions in other countries and exploitation of people there.


 Yeah. You tell me why so many American companies outsource jobs to foreign countries? Why?

Without any capitalism, most people would be living like people do in North Korea. You cannot make an example of how socialism works without capitalism without finding a socialist country that is completely cut off from the rest of the world in every way. Almost none of the "socialist" countries that are regularly cited as examples of socialism succeeding are true socialist countries. Without a mixture of capitalism they would all be wastelands.

And the only reason they succeed as much as they do is because they know where to stop. They know they are being held up as examples in political arguments so they are not going as far as they would if they had nothing to fear. If they weren't still in the process of trying to sell socialism to people who don't want it they could do whatever they want.

Even in countries that are more socialist than others, their standard of living is good because they leech off of capitalist countries and haven't eliminated capitalism altogether.


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

I agree with you OP, capitalism but with limited government intervention to stop extreme inequality and to help the most destitute, and also to regulate the environment. Ideally, I hate capitalism but realistically, it works better than socialism can. Socialism wrongly believes in the capability of humans to shirk any individual aims for the sake of the community, when evidence shows that there are people who don't care about anyone else but themselves.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> One of the things that bugs me about socialists is selective comprehension. I didn't say anything about "living well". Living well is secondary to just having a job and being able to pay your bills. Most people can do that if they really want to.
> 
> If there is a fewer percentage than "most" under capitalism, it's mostly people who don't want to work hard.


 But "paying your bills" is a capitalist creation on its own.... so how can that be a positive aim of capitalism, as opposed to living well? It seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Most people can probably get a job, in most parts of the world. But that job may be dangerous, degrading or/and alienating, and take up all of their time.



WillYouStopDave said:


> Yeah. You tell me why so many American companies outsource jobs to foreign countries? Why?
> 
> Without any capitalism, most people would be living like people do in North Korea. You cannot make an example of how socialism works without capitalism without finding a socialist country that is completely cut off from the rest of the world in every way. Almost none of the "socialist" countries that are regularly cited as examples of socialism succeeding are true socialist countries. Without a mixture of capitalism they would all be wastelands.


 The idea that countries would be worse off if the west wasn't stealing their resources and putting their populations to slavery is frankly ridiculous.


----------



## Amphoteric (Sep 11, 2011)

The Nordic model has been kind to me. But what to define it as?

"_Sometimes mistaken by Americans as socialist, while simultaneously being criticized by Scandinavians as overly capitalistic, the Nordic model could best be described as *a type of middle ground*._"

There we go.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> But "paying your bills" is a capitalist creation on its own.... so how can that be a positive aim of capitalism, as opposed to living well?


 All the resources for living have to come from somewhere. You wouldn't be sitting there on your butt spreading virulent socialistic propaganda all over the planet on your "Made in China" computer if it wasn't for evil capitalism. You think the people who made your keyboard live well? You think they enjoy their jobs? The one I have costed about $15. That's probably more than the people who made it make in a day. In fact, it would have to be.

Are you going to tell me that the world isn't a better place with things like the internet? Are you going to tell me capitalism wasn't the engine that created the personal computer and made the internet what it is? Good luck.

Individuality. There's a reason you instantly recognize names like Robert Noyce, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Because they are not ordinary people. They might be basically human but most people are not equal to these guys.

None of this would exist in a stagnant hippie commune where nobody has any bills. There might be people who have the desire to create something like this but it would be impossible to realize without industry and people who work reliably. People don't do any of this stuff for free.



> The idea that countries would be worse off if the west wasn't stealing their resources and putting their populations to slavery is frankly ridiculous.


 So why aren't they helping and defending themselves? What advantage does the US have over them?


----------



## Putin (May 21, 2013)

Words like "capitalism" and "socialism" are so loaded that they're hard to even use.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

What's with the black-and-white thinking?


----------



## hammerfast (Mar 8, 2012)

I prefer nationalism


----------



## will22 (Mar 28, 2011)

For the U.S. at the moment I support a mixed economy. I'm a Social Democrat in theory. It rejects a totally free market. It is pretty much a polar opposite of U.S. capital L Libertarian policies. If FDR's second bill of rights, or economic bill of rights was passed before he died, the U.S. would be much closer to a social democracy or Nordic model.

"Social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy." 
"Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, worker's compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Are you going to tell me capitalism wasn't the engine that created the personal computer and made the internet what it is? Good luck.
> 
> None of this would exist in a stagnant hippie commune where nobody has any bills. There might be people who have the desire to create something like this but it would be impossible to realize without industry and people who work reliably. People don't do any of this stuff for free.


Industrialism and capitalism are not the same.

_"People don't do any of this stuff for free."_

That's not entirely true. I work on technology for free (websites and video games), because I, well, like technology? I think our technology is so advanced to the point where we don't need to rely on slave labor anymore. Also, why is it that some people think that if the world embraced more socialist ideas, all the work in the world would suddenly halt? That's not necessarily true either.

People would just move to the professions they're skilled at or have desire to learn. A person who wants to become a veterinarian, for example, because she loves animals, wouldn't be working at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage. I'd also feel more comfortable around a skilled doctor who genuinely wants to heal people than a skilled doctor who only views my health as a dollar amount (or number).

Also, I strongly believe no one should have to pay bills in the first place: housing and shelter should be a human right, as well as food.

If McDonalds replaced its workers with self-automated factory machines, I wouldn't care. Some people would say "But that means thousands of people will be out of jobs!", but I see that as a good thing. I see it as liberation and freedom. It means less tedious unnecessary labor, and more time for people to do the things they truly desire in life.


----------



## aGenericUsername (Apr 7, 2013)

Fascism. It'd be nice to have pride in something for once.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Instead it should be viewed on a sort of continuum, with one extreme on each and and everything in between.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Noca said:


> It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Instead it should be viewed on a sort of continuum, with one extreme on each and and everything in between.


 And who's gonna notice if the needle gradually drifts to one extreme or another?


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

aGenericUsername said:


> Fascism. It'd be nice to have pride in something for once.


 Actually, fascism and socialism are much more similar to one another than libertarianism is to fascism. The slur that liberals have persistently used to try and smear libertarians (that we are right wingers in the same category as Nazis) is blatantly false. For one thing, we are obviously not antisemites. They may have a presence among us but there are obviously antisemetic liberals too.

Socialism and fascism are ideologically close enough that Hitler was initially able to deceive Stalin into believing they were allies. And the only way Stalin found out different was when Hitler revealed the truth.

I would argue that Hitler hated Stalin because they had too much in common. He felt there would only be room for one head honcho. Big personalities always collide and megalomaniacs tend to hate each other.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Actually, fascism and socialism are much more similar to one another than libertarianism is to fascism. The slur that liberals have persistently used to try and smear libertarians (that we are right wingers in the same category as Nazis) is blatantly false. For one thing, we are obviously not antisemites. They may have a presence among us but there are obviously antisemetic liberals too.
> 
> Socialism and fascism are ideologically close enough that Hitler was initially able to deceive Stalin into believing they were allies. And the only way Stalin found out different was when Hitler revealed the truth.
> 
> I would argue that Hitler hated Stalin because they had too much in common. He felt there would only be room for one head honcho. Big personalities always collide and megalomaniacs tend to hate each other.


Problems:
Stalin as a socialist? Debateable (and he _definitely _wasn't a Communist)

Stalin and Hitler joined together for practical, power reasons. The allies rejected Stalin, so he went with Hitler instead.

Fascism is nationalistic/imperialistic, Socialism is internationalist. Fascism is based on superiority ideas, Socialism on equality ideas. Fascism is totalitarian, Socialism is democratic.

(But I agree that the pejorative use of "fascist" against libertarians is silly)


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Capitalism with elements of socialism.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> Problems:
> Stalin as a socialist? Debateable (and he _definitely _wasn't a Communist)


 Socialists and communists don't want Stalin but they own him whether they like it or not. The socialist bootlickers seemed to like him well enough. I'm sure if they really had much of an ideological problem with him they'd have found a way to get rid of him despite the prudent measures he took to detect and dispose of them first.



> Stalin and Hitler joined together for practical, power reasons. The allies rejected Stalin, so he went with Hitler instead.


 I don't find that very compelling. I think they were two peas in a pod. The pod just turned out to be too small for both of them.



> Fascism is nationalistic/imperialistic, Socialism is internationalist. Fascism is based on superiority ideas, Socialism on equality ideas. Fascism is totalitarian, Socialism is democratic.


 Democracy is still authoritarian. It just substitutes a collective majority for a single dictator. The minority still has absolutely no power and no rights in a Democracy once any checks and balances are broken down or mitigated (and they always will be). That has largely been accomplished in the US. There is very little remaining to protect the minority (and individuals in particular) from the sadistic whims of the majority.

Democracy isn't the "good guy" it's been made out to be. You will never have a problem living in a democracy as long as you are in the majority and you stay there. As soon as you deviate, you will hit a brick wall.



> (But I agree that the pejorative use of "fascist" against libertarians is silly)


 Oh they don't exactly say it in so many words. They're more likely to conflate libertarianism with social conservatives (which there may indeed be some overlap but not much). Libertarians appreciate many traditional values but we don't necessarily feel that religion should be the guiding force behind everything. This is exactly the fork in the road between real libertarianism and conservatism. Beyond this point, if your freedom comes into conflict with their religion, a conservative will suddenly forget he was just talking about rights and freedom yesterday.

Probably one thing is that a racist or a fascist is more likely to end up in a political party that allows them the freedom to say what they want. Libertarians in general are less likely to be very loud. Or if they are, they're unlikely to get much attention most of the time. The guy who calls himself a libertarian and starts talking about how he hates Jews or blacks or gays is going to get noticed right away. And because we generally say that he has the right to be offensive, we get lumped in with him.

Anyway, some social conservatives do have some things in common with fascists. So being associated with them creates the guilt by association.


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

Anarcho-capitalism. A system where people abide by the principle of non aggression and the principles of property rights (i.e. one owns the effects of their actions)
Socialism is completely immoral and oppressive.
Capitalism in its current state is just socialism with a pretty frilly dress on. Not much better about it.

I am basically anti-state. The state ruins everything it touches. True f***ing story!
It is the politics of philosophy, which prioritises happiness and individual liberties above all else. It is the most moral political philosophy there is, bar none. I have absolutely no doubt about that; in fact it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of reason and logic.

_Feel free to query me on my views._ *I would love to explain further!* I am still trying to establish my exact thoughts but I am pretty certain I have found political nirvana after a year or two of searching, having been through the libertarian gateway.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Socialists and communists don't want Stalin but they own him whether they like it or not. The socialist bootlickers seemed to like him well enough. I'm sure if they really had much of an ideological problem with him they'd have found a way to get rid of him despite the prudent measures he took to detect and dispose of them first.


 So..... your reasons for thinking Stalin was a Socialist are? Still unclear to me.



WillYouStopDave said:


> Democracy is still authoritarian. It just substitutes a collective majority for a single dictator. The minority still has absolutely no power and no rights in a Democracy once any checks and balances are broken down or mitigated (and they always will be). That has largely been accomplished in the US. There is very little remaining to protect the minority (and individuals in particular) from the sadistic whims of the majority.
> 
> Democracy isn't the "good guy" it's been made out to be. You will never have a problem living in a democracy as long as you are in the majority and you stay there. As soon as you deviate, you will hit a brick wall.


 It's an interesting point. I personally would say that true democracy is more than just majority voting, and involves proper dialogue and discussion and concensus, but yeah, it's complicated. The democracy of the UK and USA isn't amazing in my view.


----------



## aGenericUsername (Apr 7, 2013)

Bedouin said:


> Anarcho-capitalism. A system where people abide by the principle of non aggression and the principles of property rights (i.e. one owns the effects of their actions)
> Socialism is completely immoral and oppressive.
> Capitalism in its current state is just socialism with a pretty frilly dress on. Not much better about it.
> 
> ...


Isn't that basically taking power away from government and giving it to the wealthy? All that will do is make wealth inequality even more extreme. Corporations would run wild and take away our rights. Capitalism has a hierarchy of it's own...


----------



## thelonelysound (Dec 10, 2013)

Ignopius said:


> So proper government regulations are put into place to keep the market more fair and protecting workers rights.


As an Econ major, I...sorry, I got distracted by my Karl Marx poster. He's so dreamy.

What you're describing is a "mixed economy," sort of like the one we currently have in the US.

Additional poll: have you ever heard someone use the words "fascist" and "socialist" interchangeably?


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow you personal growth.


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

aGenericUsername said:


> Isn't that basically taking power away from government and giving it to the wealthy? All that will do is make wealth inequality even more extreme. Corporations would run wild and take away our rights. Capitalism has a hierarchy of it's own...


Well a truly stateless society that actually works has one or two major prerequisites, which involve meeting those two criteria I mentioned. The principle of non aggression means a lot and would make a massive world of difference to society as a whole. More than is easy to imagine. The idea would be to end violence and the initiation of the use of force via the upbringing of children, the most important members of our society.

Violence towards and the mistreatment of children is the cause of all of the world's woes. There isn't, as far as we can verify, any divine source of society's evils, and we know that 'nature' (in the nature/nurture context) is influenced heavily by nurture itself (in that where some people are innately more aggressive, for example, that aggression is only bought out by the inadequate environment in which they reside).

With that in mind, harm principle advocates assert that a free and peaceful society starts from childhood. Those who rise to power are, on the whole, insecure and corrupt/corruptible people. Even if they mean good, they are entering an entirely (for lack of a more gentle word) wretched system, and their powers alone won't necessarily account for enough sway to change the system.

A video helping explain a reasonable position on the state:





How the power would ultimately be 'removed' from the government is still an unknown at this point, but the first step towards that is the creation of truly good and reasonable and mentally healthy people. We can all achieve this for our children and even ourselves. Such people would be able to see the issue for what it is and so the tyranny of the state would come to a natural close.

So in that sense the power doesn't have to be handed to 'the wealthy', and anyway, those who are truly wealthy (the 1% we often hear about) have their hands in the state's pockets and vice versa. They could not exist without each other I guess.

Wealth inequality is still an issue I'm wondering about, but the supposition is that by harbouring healthy, stable, and responsible people, wealth inequality wouldn't be as much of an issue. Perhaps there would be foundations in place for those who were desperately in need, in the form of private ventures (as this is the basis for a stateless society).

The Free Market would mean real process as competing corporations strive for what is the best in all respects possible, as to bolster the position of said company.

I think that the most pronounced aspect of this hierarchy you speak of, which exists in our current democratic capitalist model, is closely linked to the presence of the link between state and commerce.

My views on certain aspects of this philosophy are patchy only because I haven't 100% learnt all there is to know about this very complex system. I hope to do some reading in the new years and then I can get back to you and explain and do justice to it in its fullest .

Still though, any more questions feel free to fire away. If you'd like to learn more you can do so here http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos

Btw, relating to your original idea about fascism being a cool idea as you earlier posted:
I can relate to you there, believe it or not. I also have always found the idea of fascism fascinating in some aspects. I respect the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, for example. Majorly because it's in the realm of fantasy and so it's not really doing anyone any harm. The issue with fascism (well, one of the many of course) is that it has caused so many deaths in the last century. tens to hundreds of millions, in fact. It stifles all that is great in people and brings out the worst - greed, corruption, power-lust, aggression, inflated pride. It stamps on civil liberties and in that sense it hinders the manifestation of true joy and positivity. The pride aspect is not as positive as it might seem, as it involves stratifying groups of people. I would personally say that it is the projection of insecurities, as it is in my case with the Galactic Empire (although it is also partly because of the sheer scale and awesomeness of their dominion lol, and Star Wars is exciting, anyway) and perhaps in your case. I'm not saying this because I am trying to make you feel bad, I am only saying it because I see a bit of myself in your pro-fascistic sentiments, and I believe that as a fellow human being you are entitled to support and help and understanding as is anyone else.


----------



## monotonous (Feb 1, 2013)

nubly said:


> Capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow you personal growth.


what you described is communism, pure capitalism is not practical in real world, just like communism. you either go socialism or mixed economy


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

monotonous said:


> what you described is communism, pure capitalism is not practical in real world, just like communism. you either go socialism or mixed economy


Your idea of pure capitalism is just inaccurate. Truly understand capitalism for what it is and not what states have made of it. The capitalist model we serve right now is pseudo at best; its collusion with the state and the dependence of big firms on authority and vice versa means capitalism is not being achieved. the presence of coercion and the violence and forceful systems of financial law mean our western society is actually more socialist and immoral than we think.

Socialism and communism are immoral as they rely on an authority to enforce the redistribution of goods, including those which people have rightfully earned for themselves through their own labour. It is subject to a high probability of corruption.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of capitalism and of anarchy at the same time. The other versions are simply phony. It doesn't take a genius to work this out.
Simply read the wiki page on anarcho-capitalism and you have all of the answers you could possibly need.

There is one aspect which I think anarcho-capitalists often neglect or forget about; and that is that a society must be founded on a moral framework and that means nurturing moral and reasonable and peaceful people. This is perfectly possible, it just requires that people understand how to go about doing this. We all want the best for our children born or unborn. So, to reiterate what I have said and paraphrase:
Prerequisites of a working anarcho-capitalist society
- abiding by harm principle
- abiding by concept of property rights
- bringing up stable children

Complex but entirely possible. I am not the best spokesperson for this school of thought as I still have a lot of reading to do but give it a look and see what you think. And remember to let down your guard and approach objectively and logically otherwise there is no point. Rejecting one's innate support for the statist system in which they have been bought up is difficult and can take a long time and a greater understanding of other people and one's self than the statist system leads you to believe.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

A hybrid of the two. Both have their flaws.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> Also, why is it that some people think that if the world embraced more socialist ideas, all the work in the world would suddenly halt?


 Because some people have common sense.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

monotonous said:


> what you described is communism, pure capitalism is not practical in real world, just like communism. you either go socialism or mixed economy


 Everyone knows socialism and communism are the same thing. It would be appreciated if you'd stop trying to lie about it.


----------



## Crimson Lotus (Jul 26, 2013)

The idea of "pure capitalism" is removed from reality, even if you consider it the ideal system, because if there's almost none/no regulation then monopolies start to form and they skew the market in favor of the most powerful (see the robber barons).

There's also the misguedided notion of unregulated capitalism producing endless and susstainend growth when the crash of 2008 clearily show that as wrong; greed isn't rational, it isn't measured, the powerful will seek short term profit above else even if that means bringing down the prospects of the whole economy quite simply because they won't feel the consequences. That hardly seems like an ideal system.

And finally, the "trickle down" economics have proven to quite simply be a fairy tale, otherwise the United States would have much higher standards of living that what it currently does.

"Socialism" as is often defined in modern times is just the natural progression of the role of the state and it's not contrary in any reasonable sense to capitalism. It's the recognition of the role of the state to guarantee some basic social and economic rights and services that guarante the basic welfare of the population and therefore the stability of society.

People are just often blinded by their personal bias and adamantly refuse to see that there are no economic panacea applicable to every country and situation and that an intermediate point between all out capitalism and strong state control of the economy is usually the best option.


----------



## dietcokeaddicted (Sep 22, 2012)

I could rationally argue about why I prefer capitalism, but I'll just say the psychological reason I like it: is because having money is the only thing I think I can be better at than most people.

I have had to suffer with worser looks, social skills and sports skills [I assume I wouldn't be so ****ed up if I were decent at sports in childhood] than normal people. Now, why should I pay extremely high taxes with the (future) product of my effort/intelligenge to support their tenured-overpaid-useless-government-bureocratic-jobs _[ironically, my whole family works in that area, but I don't intend to follow their path because I want to live in another country]_ or their welfare "needs" (usually, dumb life choices and overspending [I mean, it's stupid to imagine that americans earning USD 20k/yearly is "need". One could confortably live with that, he'd just need to stop buying crappy industrialized food, cable TV or other useless consumer products])?

People don't deserve 40% of my future salary. I don't want to have my only quality capped so to help stupid people. Surely I've met a few nice people during my life, but it's not like society, as a whole, was nice to me, because it was not. Therefore, I don't want my money going to dumb people or gender studies majors who can't find jobs.

People didn't care about me. I don't care about people.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Everything I expected is happening in this thread. :lol


----------



## Zeeshan (Sep 4, 2011)

diamondheart89 said:


> Capitalism with elements of socialism.


Actually this is the society we live in now, Many people don't realize this.

wealth redistribution aka taxation is just a way of socialism. Here in Canada, if you work hard get yourself over 50K, expect to pay a quarter of your income in taxes. Make 100K? Expect to give 50 back

Meanwhile make 30K, you will probably get money from the government. Money for children, all sorts of refundable tax benefits, social service etc. etc. etc.

America is a bit better. I always wonder how well i would do in America, but its not significantly better. People should be rewarded for excelling in their fields,

poor people dont respect money. They are usually poor because as soon as they get some money they buy an Ipad, instead of paying down debts.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Zeeshan said:


> Actually this is the society we live in now, Many people don't realize this.
> 
> wealth redistribution aka taxation is just a way of socialism. Here in Canada, if you work hard get yourself over 50K, expect to pay a quarter of your income in taxes. Make 100K? Expect to give 50 back
> 
> ...


No system is perfect, but I believe this one has the best chances of producing relatively better lifestyles for the majority of people.


----------



## Zeeshan (Sep 4, 2011)

dietcokeaddicted said:


> People don't deserve 40% of my future salary. I don't want to have my only quality capped so to help stupid people. Surely I've met a few nice people during my life, but it's not like society, as a whole, was nice to me, because it was not. Therefore, I don't want my money going to dumb people or gender studies majors who can't find jobs.
> 
> People didn't care about me. I don't care about people.


So much this. I already share upto 40% of my income with people like that. I worked hard, got myself through school for what, so that somebody dumber can live off it

I am against welfare in all its forms. Against Social Services. Canada is the worst, i like America much more


----------



## Zeeshan (Sep 4, 2011)

diamondheart89 said:


> No system is perfect, but I believe this one has the best chances of producing relatively better lifestyles for the majority of people.


I want the best lifestyle for me, not majority of people. To be honest, i dont care about the majority of people. I used to be more idealist, but now i've realized is that people dont care about anyone but themselves and just want to be freeloaders.

I am all for free schooling and health care, but i am sick and tired of welfare to adults.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Zeeshan said:


> So much this. I already share upto 40% of my income with people like that. I worked hard, got myself through school for what, so that somebody dumber can live off it
> 
> I am against welfare in all its forms. Against Social Services. Canada is the worst, i like America much more


:lol

Oh, to be so naive. Reminds me of Ayn Rand, and we all know where she ended up. I don't particularly care about random people either, but I recognize that as a society you either have to provide a safety net or watch your society turn into a 3rd world hell hole.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Meh there well always be lazy people around to drag down the workers.


----------



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

To be honest nobody can really claim all of their success was based on their own individual achievement. Everyone benefits from the roads and bridges, public school system, healthcare in many states. If we give this up than the chances that you would become successful is minimal. 

Welfare not only provides a safety net on society but helps the most disadvantaged in society. Children....shouldn't the state help provide them with the absolute necessities if there parents can't provide? I think it would be harsh to say no.


----------



## Zeeshan (Sep 4, 2011)

^ so what your saying is that my money should help those who work less educate less and are less intelligence

Funny how none of their advantages transfer to me l


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Zeeshan said:


> ^ so what your saying is that my money should help those who work less educate less and are less intelligence
> 
> Funny how none of their advantages transfer to me l


Seeing as how other people's money likely did the same for you, yes. You weren't born self sufficient, you didn't build your own roads, you didn't educate yourself, you don't refuse to utilize ambulance/healthcare/government money or products made possible due to these things, so you have an obligation to society in the sense that you must pay it back by paying taxes which fund social programs. The fact that you exist caused other people massive amounts of money and work in the past and still does, so lets not pretend you have never relied on the hard earned money of others. Society cannot function if everyone has the mindset that they are only out for themselves.


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

Ignopius said:


> Welfare not only provides a safety net on society but helps the most disadvantaged in society. Children....shouldn't the state help provide them with the absolute necessities if there parents can't provide? I think it would be harsh to say no.


Ok ok let's put it this way:
I think we can all agree that people, on the whole, like to help the poor. They like to be able to feel like they have done something positive that isn't just for their own gain. Altruism. It's like somewhere engrained in there hand in hand with that evolutionary instinct of care we feel towards babies and other cute and helpless things. The same can even be observed within the animal kingdom, where creatures will nurture abandoned young, even regardless of species sometimes. Quite touching really.

Now, with this in mind, one has to at some point ask themselves the question: do we need the government to enforce this innate feature of humanity? Are Mr Shiny Faced Infantile David Cameron or Eagle Eye Obama really necessary components in making our brains work as they should? Do we need the government to teach us our moral values? I would certainly hope not, as theirs are absolutely abhorrent. Estimates of 25 million dead since WW2 as a direct result of US foreign policy (sure there are slight issues with this statement but come on, 25 million is not a small amount - and this is perpetrated by our 'almighty god saviours' the US federal state 'saviours of the world'.) Team America f yeah! Let's go kill some children!

Now I acknowledge that this might come across as incredibly tangential at best and I accept that but I promise there is a relationship between the welfare state and the state which builds tanks and guns and other phallic compensators. And it is quite simple really. Through a 'monopoly on force' that the state has, well, monopolised; they are able to enforce through (ultimately) the threat of violence and aggression their stealing of people's earned moneys, and put it in their socialist tax-omatic TX5000 Mark IV. A key operating principle of this machine is that no one actually gets to set the redistribution except the immoral owners (who are also comfortable with completely destabilising massive regions of the planet, Imperialist style, leaving massive bloodshed in their wake, and letting blood-sucking immoral banker types off the hook after they completely f*** everyone's life up) and the public aren't really allowed to see how this redistribution is set because if they were they'd realise how much of it is being squandered and how badly they're being conned as the wars of today are paid off by the grand children of tomorrow in the form of government initiated debts to other countries which are paid off in the form of taxes for generations to come. And all this, under the premise of this money being used to make smooth new roads, to run schools, and help support the dependent poor underclass.

The issue with this, beyond the obvious ones I've already pointed out, is threefold:
In a free society,


* *




where war is an unnecessary thing of the past, 
where the prison system, in which the vast majority of all rapes that occur in US society are perpetrated against males which leaves them even more scarred and deformed mentally than they were before as a result of the awful upbringing and use of force acted upon them by the almighty state, is a relic best forgotten and now finally unnecessary,
where people are free to make their own decisions about how they spend their money and live their lives,
where the natural advance of the human species isn't tampered with via brute force government initiatives which almost always work in favour of the elite to the detriment of everyone else on the planet, and the species is able to make its own way productively and peacefully,
and so much more of this hippy BS can become a *reality(!)*




all functions of the state which we deem necessary and not immoral can be replicated (an to a more efficient and impressive extent) by private firms without the need for violent coercion.
the school system is no longer the government-funded institution of indoctrination and can work competitively in order to get what is really best for children.
(now to answer your question proper: ) the poor and needy underclass, who are in the position they are in the first place (in a round about but conclusive way) because of the state itself, can be served (as they are invariably smaller in number by the time the state and the evils it puts upon the world are dissolved) via charities and via the good will of well-rounded and happy and wealthy people (no one gets taxed anymore - and over our lifetime more than 50% of our entire wealth goes to the state).

Think about it, do you want happiness and knowledge and freedom for yourself and your loved and all other people, or do you just want to get intertwined in this political game and chase tails round and around and around?

I could seriously go on and on and I might begin to make a bit more sense but I won't.


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

diamondheart89 said:


> Seeing as how other people's money likely did the same for you, yes. You weren't born self sufficient, you didn't build your own roads, you didn't educate yourself, you don't refuse to utilize ambulance/healthcare/government money or products made possible due to these things, so you have an obligation to society in the sense that you must pay it back by paying taxes which fund social programs. The fact that you exist caused other people massive amounts of money and work in the past and still does, so lets not pretend you have never relied on the hard earned money of others. Society cannot function if everyone has the mindset that they are only out for themselves.


_Did you agree to being born?_

When you consider this you might be able to see the issue behind this completely immoral argument you're presenting. 
No one actually agrees to being born into this system, so it is truly forced upon us right from the word go. In the same way that those families that we all think of as being so immoral for bringing up their children religiously are seen as negative, the state acts upon the most defenceless class of society - the poor sweet children, complete and utter forcefulness and coercion in order to further its own gains.

You are talking propaganda, I'm afraid. This black and white thinking regarding the old 'pursuit of happiness' i.e. personal gains. Looking out for yourself is fine. Individuals all have to do it for humanity to survive. We all want that.

1 - The state, in its yucky way of inserting itself into our brains via the family and our upbringing and then our entry into the world from the womb of childhood, creates a bunch of sociopathic and selfish people. They rise to elite tiers of society, quite often. Their grossness rubs off onto others as they seek to emulate their overlords and so you get a nice unhealthy spattering of these sorts all over the world and everywhere in society.

2 - Many of us, who are bought up at least a little more humble and decent through sheer luck of the draw and fairly decent(ish) families with (somewhat) acceptable moral stances grow up within the massive middle/working class. We are taught in school and by the media and by our peers and most importantly by our parents that wealth is this kind of shared thing. That we _have_ to give it up because it makes us better people and it helps the government make shiny new tanks uh sorry I mean roads and schools. That the government will do better things with our money than we could even _dream_ of doing (I know, funny joke right).

3 - We are now fully initiated proxy carriers of the statist virus. We will convey its methods unto all. We will complain about the sociopaths (which is fair enough) and how accumulation of one's own wealth is bad, and this will dampen the effect taxing has on our collective psyche. It's ok that the government is stealing 50% of my dosh and will steal 40% of my entire worth when I die because god forbid I end up like one of those evil money-stealing sociopaths!

No no no...
The pursuit of wealth and success is a natural tenet of the human on the most atomic level. It does not guarantee or even imply greed and selfishness. Take Bill Gates as an example. Also, looking after yourself = looking after your family and loved ones, and they often intertwine. Like they say, the first step to loving others is loving one's self.

Altruism, humbleness, generosity, and self-sufficiency/care for one's self and one's own family and loved ones... these can coexist.

In a stateless, free-market/harm principle/property rights based-reality we will be happy and secure and prosperous enough to be able to help others and truly eliminate poverty and greed (they're the same thing).

Btw, I know in these last two posts I might come across as condescending and smarmy. It is just that I am desperate to help as many people as I possibly can to break free from the illusion we live within; to help you to save yourselves.

I respect and love you all as human beings, so don't think I am trying to do this for self gain (except that it helps me consolidate my own understanding of the complex system of anarcho-capitalism of course) or because I wish to ridicule you.

TL;DR - you've been misled everyone x


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Bedouin said:


> _Did you agree to being born?_
> 
> TL;DR - you've been misled everyone x


wall of text. burns my eyes. tl;dr

also bored of this topic


----------



## Bedouin (Aug 3, 2013)

diamondheart89 said:


> wall of text. burns my eyes. tl;dr
> 
> also bored of this topic


*shrug* your loss. Never meant that more.

Watch some videos about it if that's easier.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

Mind, no one ever said it's easy to take the real red pill and my post was a truly a long-*** one.


----------



## bobby. (Mar 29, 2011)

Socialism scares the living sh*t out of me. If taken to an extreme, it would be my worst nightmare. I value my economic freedom, and will not sacrifice it for anything. It gives hope to poor men who dream of achieving success.


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

The thread title is out of date with the times. There is no "socialism" in America and none on the rise in the rest of the world. The adjusted argument, at least in America, where there has never been any formal Euro-Asian "socialism" presence in our system I would argue is a blind totality of old-guard anti-social capitalist purism versus an as yet defined new and clear "smart" pro-social capitalism where both iterations remain fundamentally capitalist. It is only the old-guard of anti-social capitalist purism continuing to raise the capitalism versus socialism argument as if it must be one absolute exclusive totality versus the other. No country in the world, except perhaps communist hold-outs North Korea and Cuba which have no chance of imperial expansion ling to a totality opposite capitalism. Most countries in the world have moved well on from the history of the rise and fall of socialist/Marxist totalities and practice a "pro-social" capitalism which means that they take measures to "upkeep" their own societies through taxation and reinvestment in education and stimulus--except of course the behemoth called the USA. Here the old-guard, still grounded in 20th Century mutually excluding competing totalities, has created its own partisan media and has become driven by "anti socialism" to the point where they are arguably just plain "anti-social". Rush Limbaugh? Rupert Murdoch? The "coo-coo caucus" called the "tea party"?

This is a national crisis in America because there is a hard element of concentrated wealth deliberately misinforming the population and creating false arguments and false equivalencies to apparently keep their selfish grip on the lion's share of wealth. No one has ever tried to "redistribute" that wealth here--they just keep using that as a wear over and over to get rank and file common folk to get riled against government as if they are being fleeced to give lazy bums a free ride. In actuality it is they who are being fleeced by ideologue and market totalitarians who monopolize everything and heartlessly expect to live having it all and never ever worrying about anything to upset that while others who have lost in the wealthy's gambles have had their livelihoods ripped from underneath them. There has always been a redistribution of wealth and that has gone from middle class and poor upwards into rich pockets--rich who will even industrialize war to profiteer and let others suffer and die.

Does capitalism have to be a heartless absolute purism where winner take all and losers just get starved into working until they drop from old age? Perhaps some think that. But other nations are now "leading" and showing the foolishness of such hardheartedness. Economics must be simple. And capitalism is simple--it doesn't take a buy-in from highly informed adults to work. But it can't afford to operate blindly now that the world is populated and the Earth seems to be showing us our end. And America needs to start behaving like the debtor nation she is and get rid of the criminals infesting the government on the right who say things like "we don't know what we're gonna get for signing the debt ceiling yet, but we're not gonna get nothing". To me such a threat from a leading Congress-person sworn to oath of office is treachery and is the behavior of a "domestic enemy" who is threatening all of us. They signed the OKs for the spending, then it's their job to shut the hell up and pay the bills and cease inciting each other to commit conspiracy to hold the US dollar ransom for a chunk of the safety net they haven't even figured out yet.


----------



## cellophanegirl (Sep 21, 2009)

I tend to lean towards socialism/mixed economy. I think we definitely need more public institutions and regulations on business in our current society. 

The one thing I have a strong opinion about is that lobbyists need to stop poking their dicks into Washington. I think it's disgusting that the few wealthiest people in the US get to have such a huge say in laws that effect the entire population. Accepting corporate money in election campaigns should be outlawed. 

I also think that our healthcare system is laughable, and it's insane to me that people are complaining so much about "Obamacare," which gives the bare-bones minimum protections to people, and makes no move away from a corporate system. 

Guess this post was very US specific.


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

cellophanegirl said:


> I tend to lean towards socialism/mixed economy. I think we definitely need more public institutions and regulations on business in our current society.
> 
> The one thing I have a strong opinion about is that lobbyists need to stop poking their dicks into Washington. I think it's disgusting that the few wealthiest people in the US get to have such a huge say in laws that effect the entire population. Accepting corporate money in election campaigns should be outlawed.
> 
> ...


How do I "like" a post? (I haven't figured that out yet, but consider yours liked). "ObamaCare" was designed by republicans. By trying to take credit for it instead of just saying "I didn't invent it, you did" he opened himself to the right-wing hysterics who call it "socialism" and "government take-over". Republicans designed it in the 90's--not because they were concerned for people but because they knew it cost the government more to do nothing and by creating this, it would reduce taxes on them. Pathetic that they have used it in these later days just to vilify the democrat president. They are outing themselves as anti-social idiots.


----------



## extremly (Oct 25, 2012)

To the people arguing and also to the main topic of this thread. 

CAPITALISM for the win. I lived in a socialist country is a giant piece of sht, because at the end of the day, governments don't have unlimited resources and if they are to be in charge of equalizing the whole country, they have to be granted higher powers (meaning they become corrupt and misuse the money). As for some of the comments, I agree with using tax money to help society and all of us in general, but the government barely ever does a good job managing any money, usually disproportional amounts of money are thrown at a problem (take into account the number of homeless in the US and the funding to help the problem compared to the funding that breast cancer research receives for example). Is all about which groups campaign the hardest and which groups they want the votes from.


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2011)

I think there are good and bad aspects about both systems, so I would ideally like a combination of the two. Kind of like what we have now in the U.S., except with less bureaucracy.


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

extremly said:


> To the people arguing and also to the main topic of this thread.
> 
> CAPITALISM for the win. I lived in a socialist country is a giant piece of sht, because at the end of the day, governments don't have unlimited resources and if they are to be in charge of equalizing the whole country, they have to be granted higher powers (meaning they become corrupt and misuse the money). As for some of the comments, I agree with using tax money to help society and all of us in general, but the government barely ever does a good job managing any money, usually disproportional amounts of money are thrown at a problem (take into account the number of homeless in the US and the funding to help the problem compared to the funding that breast cancer research receives for example). Is all about which groups campaign the hardest and which groups they want the votes from.


It's a foolish argument IN America. There is no capitalist totality versus a socialist totality. In the 20 Century American capitalism began facing that market totalities aren't responsive to the needs of such a vast and largely settled country. Techniques borrowed from socialism actually made capitalism sustainable and gave many people greater chance to enjoy capitalism's benefits. No one in America has ever seriously gotten a foothold on bring a true socialism to the US. Why this is so hard for people to accept is beyond me--except that market purists who have reaped the greatest benefits are actually either stupid or criminal. They put money into lies so that lower middle class people will vote for capitalists purists--people who pander only to the very wealthy and snicker at the suckers they get to vote for those who will disenfranchise them at first opportunity. Thi is a false argument of "either versus or" when for vover 70 years we have had both and would not have pure capitalism with some socialism to pay for upkeep of the civilization that makes capitalism even possible. Oh to be free of this seemingly endless false equivalency.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Terranaut said:


> "ObamaCare" was designed by republicans. By trying to take credit for it instead of just saying "I didn't invent it, you did" he opened himself to the right-wing hysterics who call it "socialism" and "government take-over".


 Except these people are all the same. The only difference is the name and these arguments are charades to keep us believing we have people representing us. There was obviously no one opposing Obamacare. And obviously when the supposedly conservative chief justice upheld it when he had the chance to get rid of it, that should have been sufficient to demonstrate who was who.



> They are outing themselves as anti-social idiots.


 No. They are outing themselves as liberals. Liberals don't care about people either. All they care about is power and control. And that is something both of these "parties" have in common.

People don't go into politics to help people. They're attracted to the money and the power. All of them.

It's organized crime gone official.

And the people who support Obamacare are not doing it for altruistic reasons (because altruism is nonsense). They're doing it because they think they're going to personally get something out of it. Don't give me that "Republicans are antisocial" garbage. Every person who breathes on this planet thinks about his or herself first. If it's antisocial to look out for your own needs, it's sure as hell antisocial to force other people to buy into a protection racket so the money will be there when you need it. That's what these people are all about.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

extremly said:


> To the people arguing and also to the main topic of this thread.
> 
> CAPITALISM for the win. I lived in a socialist country is a giant piece of sht, because at the end of the day, governments don't have unlimited resources and if they are to be in charge of equalizing the whole country, they have to be granted higher powers (meaning they become corrupt and misuse the money). As for some of the comments, I agree with using tax money to help society and all of us in general, but the government barely ever does a good job managing any money, usually disproportional amounts of money are thrown at a problem (take into account the number of homeless in the US and the funding to help the problem compared to the funding that breast cancer research receives for example). Is all about which groups campaign the hardest and which groups they want the votes from.


Don't tell me - the socialist country is Cuba.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

extremly said:


> To the people arguing and also to the main topic of this thread.
> 
> CAPITALISM for the win. I lived in a socialist country is a giant piece of sht, because at the end of the day, governments don't have unlimited resources and if they are to be in charge of equalizing the whole country, they have to be granted higher powers (meaning they become corrupt and misuse the money). As for some of the comments, I agree with using tax money to help society and all of us in general, but the government barely ever does a good job managing any money, usually disproportional amounts of money are thrown at a problem (take into account the number of homeless in the US and the funding to help the problem compared to the funding that breast cancer research receives for example). Is all about which groups campaign the hardest and which groups they want the votes from.


Good post. I wish the socialists would just move to Cuba if they want socialism so much.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

nubly said:


> Good post. I wish the socialists would just move to Cuba if they want socialism so much.


 Or anywhere where there's more socialism. The most telling aspect of socialism is that if someone wants to tell you what socialism can do for you and you tell them you don't want to hear it, that will not be the end of it. That is socialism. You can't say no. They won't let you. Ever. And when they get enough authority, they WILL force you.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)




----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Donnie in the Dark said:


>


So this pie chart is divided into rich, middle and rest of society, which would mean lower income. Going by this chart, Sweden has a significantly larger percentage of lower income than the US. Why would anyone want that?


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

nubly said:


> So this pie chart is divided into rich, middle and rest of society, which would mean lower income. Going by this chart, Sweden has a significantly larger percentage of lower income than the US. Why would anyone want that?


 It isn't how much wealth there is, it's only how it is apportioned.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> It isn't how much wealth there is, it's only how it is apportioned.


Right. But if nearly half if the money is going to the low income population then there must be a hell of a lot of low income folk or they must have an incredibly healthy reserve, which sounds unlikely.

Forbes- America Has Less Poverty Than Sweden

And this website.


----------



## Freyja (Jan 15, 2014)

nubly said:


> So this pie chart is divided into rich, middle and rest of society, which would mean lower income. Going by this chart, Sweden has a significantly larger percentage of lower income than the US. Why would anyone want that?


You misunderstood the chart: it says the top 20% wealthiest in the US possess 84% of the wealth, the middle 20% possess 4% of the wealth and the bottom 60% share the meager remaining 16%; whereas in Sweden the top 20% "only" have 36% of the wealth, the middle 20% have 18% and the bottom 60% share 46%.

How you can misconstrue that into "there are more poor in Sweden" is mind-boggling.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Freyja said:


> You misunderstood the chart: it says the top 20% wealthiest in the US possess 84% of the wealth, the middle 20% possess 4% of the wealth and the bottom 60% share the meager remaining 16%; whereas in Sweden the top 20% "only" have 36% of the wealth, the middle 20% have 18% and the bottom 60% share 46%.


 Oh dear! I'd better get myself to Sweden so there won't be as many rich people! How unfair IS IT that I have to sit here sniffing my fingers all day while rich people exist?

And you know what else? I bet you somewhere, somebody is happier than I am. This won't be allowed! I MUST be exactly the same! I MUST! Why can't we be robots? Why? WHY? Why can't we come off an assembly line?


----------



## Pierre1 (Apr 25, 2013)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Oh dear! I'd better get myself to Sweden so there won't be as many rich people! How unfair IS IT that I have to sit here sniffing my fingers all day while rich people exist?
> 
> And you know what else? I bet you somewhere, somebody is happier than I am. This won't be allowed! I MUST be exactly the same! I MUST! Why can't we be robots? Why? WHY? Why can't we come off an assembly line?


The rich is getting richer and poor are getting poorer does that help?  LOL


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Freyja said:


> You misunderstood the chart: it says the top 20% wealthiest in the US possess 84% of the wealth, the middle 20% possess 4% of the wealth and the bottom 60% share the meager remaining 16%; whereas in Sweden the top 20% "only" have 36% of the wealth, the middle 20% have 18% and the bottom 60% share 46%.
> 
> How you can misconstrue that into "there are more poor in Sweden" is mind-boggling.


Guy, it's all in the post above yours.


----------

