Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Lazier Than Thou]

Capitalism. Be responsible for your own shit people! Hell, the government can't even balance their own budget, how are they going to take care of my health care?

Probably about the same way you will if things go bad. Go seriously into debt and lose everything, or be bullied around by big business (aka HMO and insurance plans) into getting crap service.

Enjoy!

The problem with that is that it's not true. I'm in a lower income family and my mother is very sick. She has Hemolytic Anemia which is a fairly rare blood disorder. Despite the fact that she cannot pay for medical care, she has received probably upwards $50,000 in health care, the vast majority of which has been written off by the people supplying the health care. Not only has she not had to pay for it(we make slightly more than is required for Medicare and cannot afford insurance), but the service has been excellent. She told me recently that all the people she has been in contact with have been friendly and experienced.

Evidently, people just like to really exaggerate the claims that poor people don't get health care.

I'm sorry to hear about the state of your family, but thank you for bringing to light the truth of most situations. Most of the time it's not the government that's helping those who need it, in fact it's the private institutions and individuals who do so with compassion. Government =/= compassion.

Thank you for your concern. She seems to be doing a lot better.

People give the current system a bad name. Yes, it does have its problems, but it has worked out well for my family.

 

[Odude]

As of right now: Capitalism. It's the best socioeconomic system as long as people are greedy and self-centered, which they are.

If people could change to somehow NOT be greedy and self-centered, socialism would be ideal. As a matter of fact, I think it's the ultimate form of government as of right now. Sadly, people will always be the evil things they are, so it wont work.

 

[c0rtha]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

yeah i agree,

i vote for anarchy, socialism and capitalism are equally as corrupt

anarchy is soo much simpler: your house is yours until someone takes it, then its theres

 

[c0rtha]

Here, let's run down all major economic theories:

Capitalism- Perfect in theory, flawed in practice
Socialism- Perfect in theory, flawed in practice
Communism- Perfect in theory, flawed in practice
Barter System(?)- Perfect in theory, flawed in practice

The only answer: Mixed Economy! Though no country will ever do it right. It's always fun to watch people debate what will never be perfected.

i think youve raised the perfect point

no matter what you do, no political system will work perfectly in practice

 

[fenrizz]

Someone may have already mentioned this, but I prefer Capitalism, because I like the idea that one day I can become rich, unlikely as that may be, as opposed to never having the opportunity to begin with.

Sorry, but are you saying that you cannot get rich in a socialist country?
Because that is just not true at all.

 

[c0rtha]

Anarchy.

I mean, it's going to happen eventually.
Probably after the bombs go off.

Might as well get a head start.

Sorry to disappoint you, but true anarchy, like true communism and possibly true democracy will never happen... If the world does fall into anarchy, you will get people that will go "Oh, I'm an anarchist and I have these ideas, follow me!", then there won't be anarchy anymore. If that does or doesn't happen, eventually leaders will start to arise... True communism (Marxism) would never work due to human greed, but I still think it would be the best out of anything... True democracy, every single person in the community would need to vote on every single thing... that would just get annoying...

Pretty much this, neither true communism, or true capitalism have ever existed, and I don't think that either ever will, both are just systems to govern people (or for the people to govern the people ). IMO it's time for a new political system...
I'm going to call it "Capcommunism", it will be awesome.

exactly,

many people think that the "communism" of the 20th century was real communism, real communism according to Karl Marx original ideals were the abolition of the government, and complete change of man's psychi from greed and want to kindness and care; ofcourse most administrative jobs would have to be abolished aswell as all countries, people became just people, no boss, no follower

the communism and socialism we know of is only the second stage of the plan, a government developed from a revolution designed to install the third and final stage as noted above, the first stage of course is the revolution.

my knowledge of true capitalism is very basic, anyone else care to explain that?

 

[BA Mcgee]

You make it sound like: how do you want to die: Sharks or Bears?

Bears. Sharks attacks don't normally kill at first you drown in horrible pain.

Bears are b.a.

Capitalism, because I like the lottery.

 

[nipsen]

Are you for the money grubbing capitalists or the system thats trying to make everyone equal but is just as corrupt as the other. Let the debate begin!

..Deeeeerp!

 

[Annoying Turd]

Democracy, Free Market, Human Rights, Freedom...

Communism is a lie!

 

[Manji187]

People...anarchy does not equal chaos. It's derived from the Greek language (an-archia) meaning "without a ruler" which now has come to mean without government. It's something we haven't really tried because leaders always convince us we need them. But you see...a shepherd isn't a shepherd if he doesn't have sheep. A company will not survive without customers/ clients etc..

So ask yourself this... who needs who more in the end?

 

[ben---neb]

Capitalism cause look how communism turned out in China and Russia and look what socialism is doing to the UK.

Governments always tend towards socialism as it gives them more power. We need to limit this with capitalism.

 

[Hedberger]

Are you for the money grubbing capitalists or the system thats trying to make everyone equal but is just as corrupt as the other. Let the debate begin!

No,

A Socialist system is not a Socialist system if it is corrupt. Damn it.

Socialism is better, human nature meerly supports capitalism instinctively, thereby making it appear to be superior. Socialism is a brilliant idealogy, with a flawed flock.

Exactly. The funny thing about communism is that it's never been tried with freedom of speech, free press and democracy, and all the countries it's been tried in so far have been countries notorious for ruling with an iron hand.

 

[Hedberger]

Capitalism cause look how communism turned out in China and Russia and look what socialism is doing to the UK.

Governments always tend towards socialism as it gives them more power. We need to limit this with capitalism.

Yes we need to hand all that power to private CEOs that we can't check what they are doing with it. It's not like we have any right to know what they do with the power that we grant them. If they are good enough to inherit a company from their dads surely that must be all the test we need to hand over all our power to them.

/massive sarcasm


In case someone actually took all that tripe seriously.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Capitalism cause look how communism turned out in China and Russia and look what socialism is doing to the UK.

Governments always tend towards socialism as it gives them more power. We need to limit this with capitalism.

Yes we need to hand all that power to private CEOs that we can't check what they are doing with it. It's not like we have any right to know what they do with the power that we grant them. If they are good enough to inherit a company from their dads surely that must be all the test we need to hand over all our power to them.

/massive sarcasm


In case someone actually took all that tripe seriously.

Damn you, I was so getting ready to /rant! How dare you mess with my limited intelligence this early in the morning >_< *grumble*

 

[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.

BTW, i'm still nailed to the wall through my eyesockets, you never let me go you bastage.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I don't see why it has to be either one. Both have good ideas. They say that nationalizing health care is a socialist move, but it's good to have health people, even if they can't afford to be.

The problem with nationalized, universal healthcare (at least for me) is that it'll accelerate the growth of a serious problem already present in industrialized nations. namely "Speciel Weakness" (sometimes called "Special Weakness"). The growing rates of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, weak immune systems, allergies, birth defects, and innumerable other diseases is no coincidence, and it doesn't just link to our food and exercise habits. As our healthcare has advanced, so has our ability to survive. While this may sound good on the surface (and it generally is), over time, people that would NEVER survive in the wild now live as long, or longer, than people who are naturally healthy, and generally pass on their genes accordingly. This means that each generation is progressivly weaker than the last.

Universal healthcare, by extending healthcare to millions more people, would be like throwing an enourmous amount of wood on a fire in an attempt to put it out (temporarily covering up the problem, instead of solving it, but making it worse in the end).

The only way I would vote for national healthcare is if it included a "Eugenics" (Selective breeding of humans) clause, meaning that people that can genetically pass on their diseases to the next generation would not be allowed to (or be discouraged from) breeding. This would make the system serve as an investment in the future, instead of as hort-sighted action for the "here and now." As time went on, and artificial selection took the place of natural selection, fewer and fewer people would get sick and, eventually, the "healthcare crisis," as we know it, would be over for good.

You sound a little like Hitler here, but I see no fault in your logic.

 

[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.