Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Agent Larkin]

Im a capital socialist. Yes I believe in both. If you wish a more detailed answer I will respond.

 

[nettkenneth]

well my point is when i am ahead and getting rich i support capitalism but when the IRS take my money again i support socialism

 

[Mcupobob]

I'd have to choose socialism if only to brutalize people who disagree with government decisions. Seriously it's like bring up a bill here in the states and it's all "whiney whiney whineeeeey."

Capitalism. You get what you pay for--or in this case, what you work for. It's only fair.

Socialism breeds laziness.

Aah, yes. Because lending he who've fallen down a hand, to help him get back on his feet to work again breeds laziness.

Why get back up on your feet to work when you can keep getting loans?

 

[Mysticgamer]

Barter System. Its a lot cooler.

How many chickens are worth a blueray player?

 

[Hedberger]

Oh, and do tell us how someone that inherited his dads company has earned all his money.

His dad earned the money, and chose to pass it on to his son. What's wrong with that?

Well, to me it's a sign of a truly overpaid job if a dad can make sure his son never has to work ever again. Actually, his son might never have to work ever again. You don't find it strange that some people can secure a lifelong luxury vacation not only for himself or even for his family but for his family for generations to come. All they have to do is hire the right people to take care of their money.

Europe is full of familys that has inherited estates and businesses from their fathers, some even go back as far as the middle ages and they continue to this day. All of those companies are lead by someone in the family and they do so because they want to, for fun and for hobby. If they don't it's becasue they have hired someone to do that.

There is nothing wrong with inheriting things but no one should ever be able to make that much money. It's also terrible from a buisness standpoint since they choose their successor based on something other than merit.

 

[jad4400]

I'm for whatever it is in the Starship Troopers novel, I think it was a democratic capitalistic meritocracy (Hell yea I think one should give service to the state to earn the right to hold public office and vote)

 

[The Enclave 86]

Why should no one be able to make that much money? How can anyone limit who much money a person can make, it just isn't right. If he has worked for it whats wrong with it been passed on to his son, yes he may not have to work again but that is the point of giving the money to his son; he worked so his family could live a good life.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm for whatever it is in the Starship Troopers novel, I think it was a democratic capitalistic meritocracy (Hell yea I think one should give service to the state to earn the right to hold public office and vote)

Starship troopers is a novel written by a lunatic who never served in a war. If he had, there is no way he would have dreamt up the nightmare he did. Personally, I thought it was satire at first - I've yet to meet a soldier who's faced actual combat and was that gung-ho.

 

[CouchCommando]

Social-democracy, which is basically the combination of the two and the most succesfull state form so far in my opinion.

Winner!

Got my vote on that one.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Both systems sound fine on paper, but as Yahtzee said "paper is a flimsy thing that turns transparent when you rub grease on it." ...And by 'grease' I mean humans.

 

[CouchCommando]

I'm for whatever it is in the Starship Troopers novel, I think it was a democratic capitalistic meritocracy (Hell yea I think one should give service to the state to earn the right to hold public office and vote)

Starship troopers is a novel written by a lunatic who never served in a war. If he had, there is no way he would have dreamt up the nightmare he did. Personally, I thought it was satire at first - I've yet to meet a soldier who's faced actual combat and was that gung-ho.

Wait I read starship troopers, it WAS a satirical look at fascism and the like. Wasn't it ? daaaamn.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

Capatalism

 

[veloper]

Anarchy's not chaos you know but rather a system where everyone would have complete and utter individual freedom, and all live happily side by side, being peaceful and free, urgh horrible.

No, that's Anarchy in a perfect world.
Anarchy is an inherently flawed system because people are inherently malicious and self-serving.

Which is exactly why none of the stated systems work. The systems aren't flawed, it's the people who are.

People were here FIRST, so it's the systems that are flawed.

Erm, but wouldn't that in and of itself prove that people are flawed because people created the systems? If people were not flawed then they would have created a perfect system or systems, no?

You've got him there, I doubt there'll be a response.

Well you two can share all the credit for socialism, fascism and the wrongs on the world for all I care, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Some people isn't the same as all people.

I'd have to say though, that if you don't want to be lumped in with the "some people" category, you're just as guilty then for not single handedly causing a revolution or leading a group to try to change the system. Apathy to a crime is generally thought to make you as bad as the criminal themselves.

P.S. If you're so perfect, then please lay out your system to educate the rest of us morons.

This is grand. LOL You're really trying to spread the guilt all around, aren't you.

Here's a great idea for you: declare everyone guilty of everything and the define the world a prison. Then we can all get on with our lives.

 

[dashiz94]

Wow, it's like reading a post from the fifties. My position is a mix of the two. Certain aspects of government, like HEALTH CARE, should be handled in a socialist manner. Whereas economy should play out like capitalism, true it has faults, but it's the best form of government we have out there. Socialism in theory is not a bad system neither is capitalism, it's just that human nature exploits these systems for their own selfish gains.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Anarchy's not chaos you know but rather a system where everyone would have complete and utter individual freedom, and all live happily side by side, being peaceful and free, urgh horrible.

No, that's Anarchy in a perfect world.
Anarchy is an inherently flawed system because people are inherently malicious and self-serving.

Which is exactly why none of the stated systems work. The systems aren't flawed, it's the people who are.

People were here FIRST, so it's the systems that are flawed.

Erm, but wouldn't that in and of itself prove that people are flawed because people created the systems? If people were not flawed then they would have created a perfect system or systems, no?

You've got him there, I doubt there'll be a response.

Well you two can share all the credit for socialism, fascism and the wrongs on the world for all I care, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Some people isn't the same as all people.

I'd have to say though, that if you don't want to be lumped in with the "some people" category, you're just as guilty then for not single handedly causing a revolution or leading a group to try to change the system. Apathy to a crime is generally thought to make you as bad as the criminal themselves.

P.S. If you're so perfect, then please lay out your system to educate the rest of us morons.

This is grand. LOL You're really trying to spread the guilt all around, aren't you.

Here's a great idea for you: declare everyone guilty of everything and the define the world a prison. Then we can all get on with our lives.

:shrug: If the shoe fits. =) All I'm saying is that I at least have the guts to admit that I'm an imperfect human being that adds to the problems of this world. I exist under a flawed system and take advantage of it like the rest of this flawed humanity. Someday humanity may be ready for a "star trek" type utopia, but it's definitely not now, because even our mentalities are flawed. We're inherently greedy. It's what makes us such damn good survivors. :shrug: I'm not going to stick my head in the sand to the issue and say "I'm perfect, it's their fault."

Edit - Sorry for the long response time, I'm on vacation, and tend to care a lot less about internet forums when I'm enjoying myself with real life =D.

 

[Megacherv]

Whatever happened to Communism? Socialism is basically Communism-lite

 

[Gonad23]

A quick question for all the people that have said capitalism, some of you said that you agree with capitalism because it encourages people to go to work, invent etc... I see this as a problem rather than a solution.
Let me explain, the people in the factories making goods (the workers), get very little of what they should be entitled to, the money goes to the people who already have it, such as the corporate elite, share holders etc. If it wasn't for the workers making the good then we wouldn't have the luxuries we have today.
A system that works towards bettering the whole of mankind is a much greater system than one that suppresses the masses so a minority can have more money than they could possibly spend.
They con you into thinking you stand a chance to "live the dream" and become rich but realistically if you start at the bottom you aren't going to make it to the top.
By the way I am not a communist, I am an anarchist.

 

[cas]

A quick question for all the people that have said capitalism, some of you said that you agree with capitalism because it encourages people to go to work, invent etc... I see this as a problem rather than a solution.
Let me explain, the people in the factories making goods (the workers), get very little of what they should be entitled to, the money goes to the people who already have it, such as the corporate elite, share holders etc. If it wasn't for the workers making the good then we wouldn't have the luxuries we have today.
A system that works towards bettering the whole of mankind is a much greater system than one that suppresses the masses so a minority can have more money than they could possibly spend.
They con you into thinking you stand a chance to "live the dream" and become rich but realistically if you start at the bottom you aren't going to make it to the top.
By the way I am not a communist, I am an anarchist.

Ya but a system where people aren't rewarded for their innovations like the person who came up with the product the factory workers make has no incentive to make or improve the product. Without entrepreneurs we might not have any of the things we have today.


Both systems have pros and cons, it doesnt have to be one or the other. And if you think about it, theres no true capitalist nation since they all have at the least welfare systems

 

[Del-Toro]

Capitalism, because Marxist socialism has never worked anywhere ever, gives humans far too much credit, and simply isn't a very flexible system, ever wonder why capitalism has survived the millenia? Because it can adapt to changing conditions. Certainly the state should look after it's people, but in the end marx was wrong.