Defending the Truth

I disagree. If socialism and communism worked, more people would be treated better and that is a good thing. People who do not deserve to be below someone else would not be below them, and that is a good thing.

You say that we should allow charity to help those in need, but charity leaves most people still in need, it leaves many people suffering.

You say that we shouldn't allow government to decide who gets what, but you would suggest that it is better to allow the random distribution of capitalism determine it? When we're deciding a system of economy, does it make sense to say, "We should just randomly allow some people to get whole bunches of money, while most people get very little money?" Or does it make more sense to say, "We should design an economy where everyone gets a fair and equal share of money?"

Remember that this would exactly be corrupt politicans deciding who gets what, it would be a system where money is distributed equally and fairly among the citizens. In the same fashion that capitalism decides who gets money in America, communism would be deciding who gets it in communism. The government only decides that in that they're the ones who decide whether the laws will be capitalist or communist.

A) It is a more moral system because the priority is with the people, not the dollar.

B) You are right, it isn't a charity, it is more like a collective.

C) You have more cheerful people with more freedom when your government provides more for you (see Scandinavia).

Where to begin???? First Jaxian for someone who surmises that socialism is a better system, I am amazed at how little you know of the philosophy of socialism.

To clear this point up for you, I surmise that that which is moral is that which is rationale. It is our mind that determines what is rationale. That is what our mind has to do with morality. Regardless of how you view morality, ultimately it is our mind that tells us what is right and what is wrong, based upon our definition of morality.


The mind is used more in capitalism than in socialism and history has proven this point. Thanks to capitalism, the United States and other Western Nations who embraced capitalism have been able to feed their people and others. China, North Korea, and the former USSR have never succeeded in doing so. Thanks to the mind, inventors have devised better equipment, better techniques and have produced more agriculture with less labor. As a result, less people have to work in Agriculture and have instead moved into manufacturing, which as result has provided more labor to produce more products at a lower cost for the consumer.


What do you not see about this example???? The basic tenet of socialism is; "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Do you not see that in this example the married has more need than the single person. The married person is providing for a wife, and quite possibly children. His need for a higher salary is greater than the need of the single individual who is only providing for himself. According to tenet of socialism, because the single individual has the ability to work more hours that individual would, while the married individual would work less because he does not have the ability. When it came to pay, the single individual would make less money because his need is less than that of his married co-worker. That is socialism at work.


Achievement in capitalism has little to do with achievement for oneself. It most instances within a corporation a CEO is working for his stock holders, the people who invested into the corporation so that it could achieve. Or in the case of a family owned business, the individuals are working for the advancement of the family. Once again desire and deserving have nothing at all to do with it. We all have desires and feel we deserve this or that, the simple fact is that we earn what we earn based on our ability. Being able, that is what matters.


Once again desire has nothing to do with ability. Capitalism offers the opportunity for people to achieve, it does not guarantee that they will. It is the equality of opportunity and not the equality of results that is forefront. You say that those who achieve are not the most moral of selfless, I beg to differ, those that achieve, through their achievement do more for others. By creating a success enterprise they provide jobs to those who have the skills to perform, in return for these peoples labor they provide salaries, that allow the people to purchase those items in which they need. They do not force people to work, but rather through mutual voluntary agreements allow people to work.

You question natural athletic ability, lets consider that since the NBA has only 30 teams and each team consists of 12 players there are only 360 players in the league. Would people be willing to pay to go and see any 360 people play??? No, they want to see those with the skill and ability to perform at their best play. That is why NBA teams are able to charge $50 for a seat, and why people are willing to pay that amount for the ticket. The same is true in any sport, or entertainment industry. The market drives the cost, and the ability of the performer drives the market.

The law under socialism would be far less equal. Those with more need would receive more compensation and more services than those with less need. Those with more ability would be required to do more with less to make up for those with less ability. What is equal about that system, especially considering that it would be driven by the law.


There is no better system out there. Capitalism is blind when it comes to race, sex, or birth rite. Capitalism awards those with ability. Although some will be awarded better with capitalism, everyone would be treated the same. Capitalism functions off of voluntary agreements between mutual beneficial parties. If people wish to do better under the system they need to learn how to work in the system. I started working at age 16 for $3.50 per hour. By the time I was 20, before joining the Army, I was making $8.50 an hour. I was rewarded for my work with better pay. I worked hard and as I did, my salary increased. After leaving the Army, I was making $13.00 an hour in 2003, I left that job for one that paid $15.00 an hour and compensated me for travelling. Because I had the ability to perform my job, once again I was rewarded. It is now 2005 and I am making $23.00 an hour, with night differential I am making $26.00 an hour. In two years I have increased my salary by 100%. How, because I work hard, take pride in my job, and perform it the best level possible. I am rewarded for my ability not my need. I make the same amount of money as someone with a 4 year degree, yet I myself do not have one. Why??? Because I am good at what I do.


Once again you are looking at equality of results. If everyone receives the same, then there would be no reward for someone to do a better job, or create a better system, or design a better machine. The world would become stagnant. How is that providing everyone with a better life? It was capitalism that created the microwave, tell me is our life not better off because of it???? Once again, socialism and communism would not make everyone equal. Because need and ability are not equal. Those with more need would receive more, and those with more ability would work more. There is no equality in that whatsoever.



The weak, the dumb and the helpless require our kindness, however, what they deserve is only that which others are willing to give them. Our society and yes, capitalism in particular has created jobs in which these people can perform and as a result are rewarded for their ability. They are able to earn through their ability and they are not forced to rely upon the charity of others. In a perfect world these people would be taken care of by others,but the world is not perfect. One fact remains true however, the more people earn, the more they are willing to donate to charity. It was true in the 80's and it is true today. All one needs to look at for proof, is the reaction of Americans following the tragedy of the tsunami. The American people through charitable contributions including money, time and items donated more than some governments.

I imply that value is determined by ability. I never said capitalism = morality. I said that rationality = morality. That which contributes to our benefit is moral, that which hurts our benefit is immoral.

I am under the assumption that with hard work, one can succeed in the system. I will never be a Bill Gates, or a Henry Ford, however, by working hard I have bettered my lot in life. I have struggled, and saved pennies, but today, because of hard work I am better off.

I am suggesting exactly that, our skills determine our value in a capitalistic society. That is why Michael Jordan could make $25 million for one year of playing basketball, and it is why I can make $26 an hour for being a lab technician. My skills do not allow to earn what Michael Jordan earned as a basketball player, nor do his skills allow him to earn what I do as a laboratory technician.

Once again desire and wants. They account for nothing. If people want to make their lives better the formula is simple. Find that which you are good at, gain and develop the skills necessary to perform at your highest level, and then place yourself market. Your skills will be rewarded, your desires will not.

The CEO is the one who gets the contracts for the company. Yes the developers are the ones that develop the ideas, and come up with the creations that work, and for that reason they are able to get paid a salary that reflects their work. However, it is the CEOs that have built the company or directed its growth to perform for its stockholders that have allowed the laborers and designers to earn what they do.

Prior success of a company or corporation plays a role in the reward they will receive for their efforts. If a company/corporation has been successful in the past and has built a reputation for quality they are rewarded by return business and new business seeking them out.

Some people have the ability and the traits necessary to be CEOs, that includes being able to make the hard decisions and have the fortitude to take risks with the capital invested in the company. Just as some have the ability to create whether it be a bit of programming or a new creation that works better than others.

Time and time again you keep using the word deserve. That is the problem, desire and deserving have nothing to do with it. It comes down to ability. If you have the ability to lead, develop, plan, and create a profit you are rewarded. If your only ability is to do the job you are told, then you earn exactly what you are worth.


Once again this whole statement shows how little you understand about the philosophy of Karl Marx. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
Marx believed that history was a cycle of struggles and revolutions. From the struggle of slavery to feudalism, and then from feudalism to capitalism and finally from capitalism to communism. Marx proposed that the working class rise up against the bourgeoisie. The entire system is based upon the idea of class struggle and revolution.

Our country was created because of a revolutionary war, but that has nothing to do with the use of capitalism in our society. Capitalism in our society came about based on the idea of freedom.


Once again, ability equals value. People are rewarded based upon their ability. In capitalism people enter into voluntary agreements, that is what determines who makes what and how much.

Greed is not a value of capitalism. Greed is a vice. Success is a value of capitalism. Do not confuse the two. Once again you ignore the theory of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand". Yes, people develop products, services and ideas to make money for themselves, however, as a result of these development many times they make the lives of others better. They are not devoted to making other lives better, but to making their own better, but by making their own lives better, they make everyone elses.


Once again you are confusing greed with success. It is the success people who are succeeding. Why?? Because many a times they are willing to forego their family, the friends and their hobbies to perform better at work. They are the ones that put in the long hours, who go to school to get their degrees and pulf self-grandizement till after they have succeed. Their is nothing greedy about a self-driven individual.

Really, since when is 1% the majority. Thats right 1% of today's wealthy inherited their wealth. Last time I checked anything under 50% was a minority, and seeing how this is 49% under that 50% it would seem that it is a vast minority.

That's true that he went to Harvard, but he also dropped out of Harvard. So your myth of him being educated against making mistakes is laughable at best. He was working out of his garage, and barely scraping by when he finally succeeded. Was he lucky, yes, but he also had the ability to foresee the future and develop something that others would soon rely upon.

Capitalism does not guarantee success, nor should any system. Once again you are looking for that ideal utopia. Well it is true that many have tried businesses and failed, there are also those that succeed. Because one fails does not make the system but rather makes the system better. For ultimately it is the consumer that determines who succeeds and who fails.

Ford crushed his competition because one he developed the idea of the car and was the first to produce it. And two, after others began developing cars, Ford developed the idea of the assembly line. As a result, unlike his competitors who could make a single car in a day, Ford was able to make 10. He increased the supply which increased the demand, which increased his profits. He was able to make more cars in a day, at less cost than his competitors. That is why Ford succeeded.

Bill Gates succeeded because he was able to see the future. He saw that people would want a computer for their homes, at the time, a computer took up a whole room. He created a system that allowed a computer to be smaller and operate bigger.

Rockefeller, despite the many myths that are surrounded by him, took railroads and steel businesses that were failing and turned them into successes. Often times, he had to circumvent corrupt politicians, who had demanded bribes for his businesses. He was able to produce when others who tried had failed. That is why he succeeded.

Gates created the first program that made Microsoft a success, without his creation their would be no Microsoct. Ford devised the assembly line, without him the laborers would still be laboring long days to produce one car. Rockefeller took business that failed and made them successes, without him the former workers would be without jobs.

Have laborers contributed, of course they have. But without the men of mind who created the systems, companies, techniques and machinery, they would not have the jobs.

Because without the reward for developing new creations, services and machinery, there is no reward for success. If someone cannot be compensated for their ideas, their inventions, their dreams there will be no new ideas, inventions or dreams.

Ability is rewarded under capitalism, under socialism and communism need is rewarded. Without the men of minds to create their will be no rewards, only the needy.

Again you are looking for equality of results. That is impossible. Not everyone is equal. Why should Michael Vick or Michael Jordan get paid the same as everyone else, when their skills are clearly above that of others???

That is no different than socialism or communism. Under their system someone, ulitmately must determine who has what ability and who has what need. Instead of the businessmen being greedy it will be the politicians who would be, and this is a far worse event. Businessmen cannot compel others through force to use their products. Politicians can compel others through force. For proof all one needs to do is review the history of the USSR. While the people had to wait in line for cars, and food, the members of the Politburo lived in luxury. The same people who ultimately were determining who had the most need, lived the best.

Really, then why is the United States the most giving nation. Our people contribute more to charity and those in need then all others. Time and again, when disaster strikes it is the United States, and its people that are the first to give to those who need the most. Because of capitalism, people have the ability to live freer and earn more, as a result we give more.

That is not socialism. Remember the basic tenet. Ability is punished and need is rewarded. No rationale man will work hard for others if he is not rewarded. Create a system that rewards ability while taking care of need and I will sign on. But any system based upon the idea of equality of results demands the redistribution of wealth, and as such I cannot agree with that term.


First off how totally wrong you are, a truly free market would regulate itself and not place outrageous regulations upon business owners.

If someone sold food that made people sick, they would soon go out of business because people would stop buying their products. The same true with a business that polluted. Consumers would drive the market, reqarding those business that best served thier needs, with the products, services and prices that they wanted. You seem to think that the people are stupid and that why you want a system to work for you. See like most who want socialism, you view the people, those of us who work everyday as the problem and that is why you need a government solution. Aimsley Haines was right, liberals just don't like the people.

Now you are confusing greed with profits which one is it??? Is it greed or is it profits. Business not government employs the people. Government cannot produce enough jobs, whereas business is restricted only by the imagination and inventiveness of its people.

There you go again with deserving. You only deserve that which you can earn. Take desire out and work on ability. Thats your problem, like so many others you think that you deserve something you haven't earned. Desire results in the restirbution of wealth, which results in the stagnation of a country. Doubt my word, the history of the USSR only proves it. China has learned the lesson as well.

I suggest before you try to propose a better system you first need to learn how the current systems truly work.

dmk

I disagree. By that definition, a man might be acting morally if he believes in committing mass-murder, for it is our mind's definition of morality that you favor. As for what is rational, well it may be that two different courses of action are rational, but only one is moral.

I say that doing what is in the best interest of the people is moral, while acting at the expense of the people is immoral, regardless of what an individual considers to be "moral" or "immoral". It may be up to our minds to figure out which action really is in the best interest of the people, but logic can solve that.

History has not proven that the mind is used more in capitalism. Simply because socialist nations have failed in the past does not mean that the minds of individuals are not used just as much in socialism, and it certainly does not say that of communism.

The problems of those governments were that they had no incentive to produce things (not no incentive to use their minds). And because of this, they did not work on techniques to increase production. Of course this does not mean that they did not use their minds. It means that they did not use their minds to increase production. Like I said, there is no incentive to produce.

That problem, that there is no incentive to produce, is a huge one. But it is a problem which might be solvable. As I have said, if we take the good principles of capitalism (the incentive to produce) and the good principles of communism (equal pay rates and guaranteed work), we might be able to create a government which balances the two.

You are mistaken. A married person does not need more. Both spouses are capable of working, and both likely live in the same residence, therefore splitting the cost of living there, and therefore making them need less. If you are talking about children, that might be a different story, but certainly marriage does not create any additional need.

And to address your example specifically, I find it completely absurd to think that a person with a family has the need to spend more time with that family at the cost of someone without a family. Both have the need for time off to enjoy their lives, and both should get equal amounts of it.

Beyond that, I do not like the statement that socialism is about "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" whether Marx said it or not. First, I don't think we have a system which elevates the person with the greatest ability in the first place. But more importantly, the statement exceeds the boundaries of what I consider to be good government. We don't want to be creating imaginary "needs" that benefit one person over another. I would be amazed if Marx intended single people to work more hours than married people.

Do you really think the CEO is working for his stockholders? Do you think that if the CEO was making less money than a lower worker, he'd continue to be a CEO? No chance; he's not in it to make money for stockholders, he's in it to make money for himself.

And as I asked in the statement you quoted, does "being able" really make you the most deserving of the money? If a bunch of money falls from the sky, are the tallest and fastest people who grab it all up really the most deserving of it? Having ability to succeed in capitalism doesn't make you more deserving of money than the next person.

You are right that people who succeed help others. But they do not help others more than the person who works on the bottom, doing the hard labor or the detailed design. In many cases, it even takes far more ability to do those lower-level things than it does to create a successful business; it's just a different type of ability.

And even people who do have the ability to succeed in capitalism sometimes do not because there is a huge factor of luck in there.

And certainly those who do succeed are not people who really want to make someone else's life better, they're people who want to make a whole bunch of money for themselves. Well, maybe they want to make someone else's life better, but not necessarily; capitalism doesn't prefer moral people.

You say that the people on the bottom are not forced to work but do so instead based on mutual contracts. But that isn't quite true: everyone needs money. If the only jobs that are available are tatamount to slavery with virtually zero pay, then people will take those jobs because without them they will die. But that doesn't make those jobs fair or equal, it just means that the people with the power are only providing a poor selection of jobs. In capitalism, the working class is paid as little as possible in order to maximize corporate profits.

But does natural athletic ability make you deserving to be richer than most people's wildest dreams? Do people whose genetics make them unable to be good enough to compete in these athletic competitions deserve to be poor in comparison? Do people who are incredibly skilled at less popular games deserve to be worse off?

Sports players are payed a lot of money because a lot of people will pay to watch them play and that is all. It isn't because they're deserving. It isn't because they're better people than someone else. It's just because some sport that they are good at has become popular.

This is not what Marx intended as far as I am aware. Marx intended for a system where people are paid equally and accomodations are made for people with special needs, such as the handicapped. Those accomodations might be similar to the ones we provide to handicapped people in our nation today.

If by chance I am wrong about Marx's intent, then I do not agree. Certainly someone with more ability should not be forced to work more to compensate for someone with less ability. That would not be fair to the person with more ability. So if that's what Marx meant, then I would disagree and write it off as one of the bad parts of Communism. But I don't think that's what Marx intended at all.

As far as I am aware, Communism is also blind to these things. But if Communism is not blind to these things, then change it to be so. It is not difficult. I do not want you to understand the problems with Communism. I want you to understand the problems with capitalism and how Communism fixes those problems.

You're right; I do make that about that much money, and I have a four-year degree, but after a few years, I'll be making far more money than that. But you say, "$26.00 an hour" like it's a lot of money. It isn't. It's nothing compared to the amount of wealth our nation produces. As I had said: if the wealth of our nation were split equally, you would be making nine times what you are now. But the upper class in this nation is simply unimaginably wealthy.

And I wouldn't doubt it if you work hard, just as hard as the unimaginably wealthy. Do any of those CEOs really have a greater ability to serve in the military than you do? So why do you not deserve an equal share of the wealth of the nation? I really think that you do.

This is absolutely right, and it is the most important thing to understand in this discussion. This is the reason we can't switch over to an equal system right now. If there is no reward for producing more, then people will not produce more, and that will not provide people with a better life.

But the fact that we are not equal is still a downfall of capitalism. And if we could switch over to an equal system and still produce the same amount, then we definitely should. Now, we've already established that pure communism won't work; pure communism isn't the answer. But that doesn't mean we should leave this problem of capitalism unaddressed.

Not every possible system of government has been thought of. Too many people spot this flaw in Communism and think that Capitalism is the only answer. It isn't; this just means that Communism isn't the correct answer.

So what is the correct answer? Well I don't know, but this is where we need to start thinking about things. What if we created a different incentive to produce more than money? What if we created a system where everyone in a business is paid the same amount based on the success of that business compared to other businesses in the market (like if everyone at Microsoft were paid the same amount, but if Microsoft sells the most, everyone at that company gets paid more)? What if we used fame, power, media attention, property, or something else as incentive to create a successful corporation?

There are infinite possibilities to consider. But if we don't recognize this problem in capitalism, then we cannot fix it, and we cannot recognize a good solution when it is found. So long as we pretend that the rich deserve to be more wealthy than the next person, we are ignoring a problem that we might be able to solve.

I could not agree less. We should all work together for an equal duration to produce goods for this nation, regardless of ability, and those goods should be divided up equally among the people who worked on them.

It is good to know that people are willing to give sometimes, but the problem I'm talking about doesn't involve the middle class giving to the lower class, it involves the upper class having a disproprtionate amount of money for doing the same amount of work.

But if one person works very hard, but produces only a little bit because of his ability, then another person works very little and produces a whole lot because of his ability, I consider the person who worked very hard to be a far better person than the person who worked very little, despite the end production result. We shouldn't be giving more to the person whose natural ability allows him to produce more.

And perhaps the more important point is that the people at the top really aren't producing more things or better things than the people at the bottom. They're just the people who capitalism happens to favor.

That's true, and that's what capitalism does well. But are you really less deserving than Bill Gates? I don't think you are. Capitalism should not be giving him unimaginable amounts of wealth while giving you far less.

Yet which one of your jobs actually provides more benefit to the people? I argue that they both provide equal amounts of benefit, for they are both things that people need, and they both require the same amount of work. So why should one pay more than the other? Capitalism does benefit one skill over another, but it doesn't have any reason for doing so other than that the market flows that way.

The fact that people's must do things contrary to their desires means that we are not considering the welfare of the people, which is bad.

And though it is good to produce more, it is not good to pay some people unimaginable amounts of money for being good at one thing, while paying someone else very, very little money for being good at something else.

You're absolutely right. So why should one be paid unimaginable amounts of money, while the other is paid next to nothing?

And what if you have the ability to create ingenious and creative applications that make billions of dollars, and you are aware of the need for these applications, but you do not have the ability to lead? What if you are a technological genius? What if you are a scientific genius? What if you are a planning genius? These people are paid next to nothing, but their worth is unimaginable. One person needs to decide what the company will work on, but that person isn't necessarily the smartest or most valuable person in the company no matter how much some capitalists might like to believe it.

The system is not based on class struggle and revolution. The system is based on preventing class struggle and revolution by keeping everyone happy and part of the same class. Marx noticed the problem of class struggle, the very problem I'm talking about, and sought to fix that problem, to prevent conflict and struggle. The system is not based on conflict and struggle; just the opposite.

Reading both the writings of Locke and our founders, it should be clear that capitalism in our nation originated based on the idea that you cannot count on a person's generosity, but you can always count on his greed. So instead of creating a system that relies on people's generosity, they created a system that uses people's greed to produce more.

A system based on freedom would not have property, contracts, or money, and our founders would not have been so foolish as to choose a system because it is free instead of choosing it because it works.

I do not ignore that "invisible hand" suggested by Adam Vice, but that does not change the fact that capitalism requires greed. The entire system of capitalism is based on the fact that people will try to make money for themselves. So they decided to allow people to make that money in a fashion that is productive and beneficial to everyone. Prior to capitalism, greedy people used different, less productive methods of making money, such as war, force, or slavery.

No they aren't. Most of the people working long hours and foregoing their families are people making just as much or a bit more than you and I. It absolutely isn't the superwealthy.

But one thing is true: the people who are doing those things aren't doing so because they want to benefit the business in the vast majority of the cases. They're doing so because they want to keep their job or they want to make more money for themselves.

I did not say that the majority of the ultra-wealthy inherited their wealth. I said that they were born wealthy. That is, they were born into a wealthy family.

It wouldn't have been Harvard that educated him against business mistakes, it was likely his experience contracting a small group of programmers out to various places as well as his dad's legal experience. The fact that he was attending Harvard indicated his financial status.

It may be true that a system should not guarantee the success of businesses. But that is completely different from society guaranteeing a good life for people who work there. Though our economic system needs to encourage development and growth like capitalism does, it should do it's best to treat people fairly for the amount of work they do.

But Ford was able to produce 10 by treating his employees like dirt and working them to the ground. Well, I still don't want to say that Ford wasn't a talented person though, he certainly was. But the originators of other car companies that became successful today were not.

Well, no, he didn't quite do that at all. Microsoft designed Windows, not computers themselves. He was successful because he created an operating system that is easy for both users and programmers. But because the position of CEO pays the most money, he no longer designs software and writes the code. He hires other people to do it. And this caused Microsoft to begin releasing a lot of products with bugs and security holes, and they have been criticized horribly for that. Arguably, the computer world would have been far better off if Gates continued to do the programming and design work instead of going for the money.

Forgive me for not being very knowledgable about Rockefeller. I thought he was in the oil business while Carnegie was in the steel and railroad business. I seem to remember that Rockefeller used questionable methods of preventing his competitors from establishing a foothold in the market.

Well, the individual examples have sort of put me off track. The point is not that these men did not contribute. The point is that they did not contribute more than the next person. Without the good ideas and hard work of individuals on a lower level, none of those corporations would have survived. As much as one might say that the people under a CEO depend on him for their job, one might also say that the CEO depends on the people under him for his own job. You can list good ideas that the CEOs have had, but there are as many good ideas by each individual person working under that CEO.

If the CEO lost a worker, he would get a new one. And if the CEO were fired, the company could get a new one. If one business fails, another will be able to rise. If one basketball player is fired, the league will get a new one. If one actor is fired, the movie will find a new one.

It might be true that the actions of the CEO are the most visible, but that does not make them the most important, it does not make them the smartest, and it does not make them the most valuable employees, and it does not make them worth unimaginable amounts of money.

It is the people who produce the most that are rewarded under capitalism. And that's what a good economic system needs. So let's take the consider the good parts of capitalism and the good parts of communism. It might yet be possible to create a system which both rewards people based on how much they produce yet also features a more equal distribution of wealth.

Why should one man be paid more than another when they are both working just as hard? Why should natural ability to perform a certain task be that which determines how much you receive? Why should the weak stand aside for the strong? Why should we create a society which favors some people over others? Shouldn't we treat others as we treat ourselves regardless of their natural abilities?

Because we are the wealthiest nation.

I don't support socialism or communism. Capitalism is superior to those systems. But that doesn't mean capitalism is perfect. Capitalism has flaws, and if we can fix those flaws, we should. But we must start by understanding what those flaws are.

Complete absurdity. How would it regulate itself? How would it prevent monopolies? How would it protect the environment? How would it prevent businesses from unknowingly using ingredients dangerous to people's health in food or other products? How would it assure that employees are treated fairly? How would it assure that customers are treated fairly?

This would only be true if it could be proven that the product caused the illness, which hasn't even been done with cigarettes, let alone a business that coats its products with certain chemical agents.

History has shown that this is not true. People almost never even realize that a business pollutes.


I don't think people are stupid; I think they are ignorant of what businesses do, often they don't mind businesses treating some people unfarily, and they are helpless to stop a monopoly.

If I thought that the person who works every day were the problem, I'd have said that person were the problem. I didn't say that at all; I didn't point out any person as the problem. I said that the problem is inherent in capitalism. If I wanted a system that worked for me, I'd have said that I want a system that works for me. I said nothing of the sort.

To make the claims you've made in this quote seem incredibly irrational. If you are going to make the claim that I want a system that works for me, that I view working people as the problem, or that I don't like the people, then back that up. But what I actually said is that people who work hard every day deserve more than what they've had now. What I've actually said is that a good economic system needs production. And what I've actually said is that everyone will be better off in a system that treats people equally for equal work done.

So instead of claiming that I believe things that I do not and reassuring yourself with some unjustified quote about liberals being evil, I recommend sticking to the things I've actually said and that you might be able to back up.

I should also say that both capitalism and communism are "government solutions". Anarchy is the only non-government solution.

Well, people are greedy to get the profits. I don't see why that is confusing.

It is possible to create government jobs that allow for the imagination and inventiveness of the people. It would be a simple system to create, where anyone is allowed to set up a business, but the government regulates how profits are allocated across workers. Heck, we already do that quite a bit in our current system.

What you can earn depends on the economic system you're using, doesn't it? In one system, the person who works the hardest earns the most. In capitalism, the person with athletic ability, good looks, or leadership skills and luck earns the most. I prefer the system where the person who works the hardest earns the most.

So why don't you inform me about where I'm wrong? You've done a good job of repeating what I wrote about capitalism working because it encourages people to produce, but you'd have to point out something I don't know before you are able to claim that I don't know how our system truly works.

The point of debate we've been having is over whether the ultra-wealthy really deserve more than people who work just as hard as them. That isn't a debate over "how the current systems truly work", it's a debate over whether or not there is a downside to our current system.

So as you have offered me advice, let me offer some to you. Think highly of capitalism. But do not make the mistake of thinking it perfect. Recognize the problems in capitalism so that you will not be too close-minded to think of a better system or to accept a better system if it presents itself.