In defense of capitalism

[Athlete{UK}]

i stick with the cow argument and let people who have absolute no control over governments or system tell it how they think it is.

The point is people should and thankfully in a number of ways still do have control over governments and systems.

This is in jeapody as we speak but it's the entire point of me harping on about government by the people for the people. Or to pigeonhole it; Democracy.

[Sacul15]

Ok, well looking back at my post I realize I did make some pretty big jumps. So sorry if I came of as hostile or insinuating. Let me try to clear up some of my statements, while responding to some of yours.

As my argument has gone throughout, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is consumerism. The points you make are perfectly valid up to a point but not for everyone. Lets take your example of Ford and Honda. Ford has a shitty car which is advertised very well everywhere. Honda has a slightly better car which isn't as well advertised but is still known to people. A third company has a superb car but cannot advertise it due to funds and connections.

Ford denies the third company every chance to advertise its car, buying up advertising space and slots wherever it can, using its wads of money to saturate the market with its inferior product. At this point pure capitalism falls down. Ford set themselves up in a position where they are able to sell the most cars not because they have the best product (as pure capitalism states it should be) but because they have enough power to bully competition. The competition between companies is not one for a better product but one to see who can shift and wangle their way up to the top whilst avoiding as much work as possible. The problem with this is only the big boys can play. Anyone without an entire corporation behind them to back them up is doomed to failure thus destroying the very basis that the companies are founded on.

If a company truly has a better product, and can manufacture it and sell it at a cheaper price than can its competitors, then I don't think any amount of advertising can defeat that. Will it instantly be a competitor at the same scale? No. Will it make the same amount of profit at first? No. But it can, and will, succeed eventually. Now, about bullying the competition. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean making prices so that the competition doesn't sell anything? Isn't it the right of companies to defeat their competition? If this trade-off between quality and price is worth it to the consumer, then so be it. Do you mean buying out companies? The owners of the company got into the business to make money, so they should sell if it's a better choice than waiting it out. What right does any have to say that they can't do that. Do you mean espionage, as you referred to earlier, and other forms of the initiation of force? Well that is when government steps in: to protect the intellectual and property rights of its people.

At no point did I say a company should be a charity. In fact throughout my argument i've been saying something else entirely. However first ask any pure capitalist and they will tell you that charity is a requirement for pure capitalism to work but that's a different point entirely to this.

I know that you never mentioned charity, but to me that is what many opponents of sweatshops think of it. Maybe "foreign aid" is a better word. People think that it is wrong of a business to pay $2.00 an hour (I made that up, I have no idea what the going rate of sweatshop labor is) when they can pay $3.00 an hour and still make a profit. The business doesn't have to offer anything! I guess that is what makes me most frustrated about this argument. The business owes those people nothing. Not a thing. If the government steps in and decrees that sweatshops are illegal, then those people would be worse off. If it decrees that a certain wage must be paid, then it has betrayed the freedoms of both the business and the employees by making them accept terms to a condition that otherwise wouldn't exist.

The people curse the man for not giving the homeless person his basic human rights and using him to further their own needs. A "Nice Government" votes that the wealthy man should give him what is fair. In a practical system both men walk away with their freedom and basic human rights. What's fair about that?

Again, what does the business owe him? Nothing. You say that both parties walk off with their freedom and basic human rights. How does the wealthy person walk off with his freedom? He was just forced to give up something he didn't want to. The only basic human rights I recognize are life, meaning the ability to earn and trade for that which sustains your life (not guaranteed food, health-care, kidney transplants, etc.), liberty, the ability to choose that which you value, property, the ability to purchase and own that which you value, and the pursuit of happiness, an accumulation of all three. These rights were violated when a mob (under the pretense of democracy) decided that it was fair to take from one individual and give to another without his consent.

Now the capitalist ideal states that another company can capitalise on this by offering improved wages thus gaining a workforce and denying a competitor of theirs. Perfect. BUT. As i've already said this is not the rule. The miners town had no alternative and as such was unable to choose and in a purely capitalist system are only able to accept what is given to them. This is the exact reason why socialism must exist along side capitalism to equal out the balance of power and supply the means to support the ideals of those who don't own a corporation.

Ok, so we have a mining town which has A. bad conditions/wages, B. no alternative to mining, and C. A general consensus that the company should improve wages. This is the perfect scenario of where a union would work. The townspeople get together and decide to strike until wages improve. There aren't enough people who accept the wages as they are to keep the mines working at a profit. The company can't just move since a mine is a huge investment. Therefore the company would have no choice but to submit to the will of the workers, or at least come to a compromise with them. Obviously, the company doesn't have absolute power, as they are kept in check by their workers (and of course, their customers).

I really have no idea what you're ranting on about kidnapping for when I have never suggested or advocated the use of force. Infact your entire statement seems to be refering to something else entirely and exists purely to back up my own statements.

I know that you haven't advocated force. I am just saying that the use of force to make someone do something is equally wrong as passing a law (even democratically) that makes him do something. I apologized if I made that seem personal.

I agree with many of your final statements. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely. But I don't think this is an issue of awarding people with power. The only power people should have is the power to make their lives as good as possible and pursue their own happiness, and to me capitalism, that is complete capitalism, with a government whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of people, is the only way this can be achieved.

[Stubby]

Capitialism needs no defence.

a hard worker makes more money then a lazy one.

the problem hits us when people start screwing with it by giving money to people who EARNED their current situation:

Some dude starts smoking crack, spends all his money on it, becomes homeless.

now i have to pay for this asshole's food. screw that crap.

Now i do believe we should be charitable to those who deserve it:

Like Vet's & their familys, and natural disaster victims.

[Athlete{UK}]

If a company truly has a better product, and can manufacture it and sell it at a cheaper price than can its competitors, then I don't think any amount of advertising can defeat that. Will it instantly be a competitor at the same scale? No. Will it make the same amount of profit at first? No. But it can, and will, succeed eventually. Now, about bullying the competition. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean making prices so that the competition doesn't sell anything? Isn't it the right of companies to defeat their competition? If this trade-off between quality and price is worth it to the consumer, then so be it. Do you mean buying out companies? The owners of the company got into the business to make money, so they should sell if it's a better choice than waiting it out. What right does any have to say that they can't do that. Do you mean espionage, as you referred to earlier, and other forms of the initiation of force? Well that is when government steps in: to protect the intellectual and property rights of its people.

That's a lot of speculation to defend something with. If a company is allowed to sell it's better cheaper product then yes it will do well although not as well as it's competitors. But this is where the bullying comes in.

It is the right of a company to defeat their oponent through a fair and open market. This falls apart however as i've mentioned several times throughout this discussion. A company can grasp a monopoly on something. Let's switch the example to broadcasting. One company owns just about every television station in a country. It's shows are of poor quality and they spend most of their time pumping adverts into homes instead of a good quality service. Now you say surely the people of a society can just stop watching the TV and deny the company in question its money. Well honestly people are always going to watch tv. It's addictive.

A new group wants to make a station which broadcastes good programs and is focused on entertainment. Unfortunatly for them they have to buy broadcasting rights, transmission equipment, they have to buy outlets for their station. all of these things are owned by the other company which simply does not allow this. Now in a purely capitalist society there is nothing that can be done here. In a mixed society though the government can put its foot down and end an unfair monopoloy.

Forcing a company to sell in these conditions is not fair because using their vast economic power the large company can simply reduce the opponent to nothing without givig them a fair chance and force them to sell bot because it's a good deal but because it's the only one left, again denying choice and freedom.

The reason I chose this example is because it's already happened. Small companies cannot create new TV stations because it is entirely monopolised by a handful of companies. Sure these companies have a different outlet for their tv shows in the internet but how often is the internet invented? It's an anomoly.

Do you mean espionage, as you referred to earlier, and other forms of the initiation of force? Well that is when government steps in: to protect the intellectual and property rights of its people.

It's slightly bizzare you point this out but yes this is when the government steps in. But in a purely capitalist society they can't step in. Infact several times you have stated the idea that the government needs to have less power. By your very own admission here both systems need to exist side by side.

I know that you never mentioned charity, but to me that is what many opponents of sweatshops think of it. Maybe "foreign aid" is a better word. People think that it is wrong of a business to pay $2.00 an hour (I made that up, I have no idea what the going rate of sweatshop labor is) when they can pay $3.00 an hour and still make a profit. The business doesn't have to offer anything! I guess that is what makes me most frustrated about this argument. The business owes those people nothing. Not a thing. If the government steps in and decrees that sweatshops are illegal, then those people would be worse off. If it decrees that a certain wage must be paid, then it has betrayed the freedoms of both the business and the employees by making them accept terms to a condition that otherwise wouldn't exist.

You constantly say the business owes nothing to these people yet by the very founding nature of capitalism they do owe something to these people. You simply can't argue for capitalism and then say that a company owes nothing to its work force.

Now I can't really say anything I haven't already said twice before now but I'll just reiterate.

The founding principle for capitalism is that all goods and services must be traded on a free open and fair market. The sweatshop workers in question are supplying a service to the business in question and are not recieving a fair trade for this in terms of services rendered and good recieved.

The problem lies in the companies ability to trap these workers and maintain a monopoly over them. The workers effectively have no choice in the matter because they have no power without a union that is meaningful the workers have two choices of be overly worked for poor pay or die of starvation simply because of circumstances. The very foundation of capitalism is the idea of choice but capitalism denies choice because it is so easily abused and corrupted. Socialism needs to exist to provide the choice where capitalism does not and vise versa.

On a personal note I actually find it appauling that you constantly defend sweatshops especially when you can't supply a good reason to do so.

Again, what does the business owe him? Nothing. You say that both parties walk off with their freedom and basic human rights. How does the wealthy person walk off with his freedom? He was just forced to give up something he didn't want to. The only basic human rights I recognize are life, meaning the ability to earn and trade for that which sustains your life (not guaranteed food, health-care, kidney transplants, etc.), liberty, the ability to choose that which you value, property, the ability to purchase and own that which you value, and the pursuit of happiness, an accumulation of all three. These rights were violated when a mob (under the pretense of democracy) decided that it was fair to take from one individual and give to another without his consent.

What does the business owe him? it owes him fair rewarded for services rendered and the opportunity for choice.

How does the wealthy person walk off with their freedome because they were forced to give up something they did not want to? Because he is free to go off and make any choices he wants to make. The problem isn't that he is denied choice but that some choices don't work because of the rights of others. The man working in the shed wasn't given a choice. he was forced to do something by a capitalisation on a situation and effectively denied choice by his employeers.

All you're arguing now is a reversed scenario to the one I suggested. The wealthy man should be given choice but the poor man shouldn't?

Ok, so we have a mining town which has A. bad conditions/wages, B. no alternative to mining, and C. A general consensus that the company should improve wages. This is the perfect scenario of where a union would work. The townspeople get together and decide to strike until wages improve. There aren't enough people who accept the wages as they are to keep the mines working at a profit. The company can't just move since a mine is a huge investment. Therefore the company would have no choice but to submit to the will of the workers, or at least come to a compromise with them. Obviously, the company doesn't have absolute power, as they are kept in check by their workers (and of course, their customers).

Again we're just retreading old ground. The townspeople strike and the deny the company a workforce the company is left with three options.

1: Wait it out and guess who has more money? It's like a classic siege situation. A castle has food and water for a month and an invading army has food and water for two. After waiting for one month the castle has to give in because it can't sustain itself.

The townsfolk have means to supply themselves for say a week whereas the corporation has enough to sustain itself much longer although admittedly at a loss. The townsfolk begin to starve and have to go back to work for whatever money they can. This is exactly what would happen in a third world country if they too up a strike against a sweatshop

2: Get a new work force. The workers go on strike because they wont work for such low pay so the company hires and immigrant work force who will. It's not exactly hard for them to do so in the current global climate.

3: The company agrees to the new wage terms and runs at a reduced profit. The company doesn't want that because it has two other options which gives them a greater net profit.

Again without meaningful power for a union it falls apart in the face of pure wealth and power.

I know that you haven't advocated force. I am just saying that the use of force to make someone do something is equally wrong as passing a law (even democratically) that makes him do something. I apologized if I made that seem personal.

well you did say "you are suggesting" but regardless I agree with this. But again it backs up my stance that the two should exist side by side. If only one system is allowed to exist then the power balance is skewed in the favour on one group and as such decisions can be made which can force others to do just about anything.

I agree with many of your final statements. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely. But I don't think this is an issue of awarding people with power. The only power people should have is the power to make their lives as good as possible and pursue their own happiness, and to me capitalism, that is complete capitalism, with a government whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of people, is the only way this can be achieved.

I agree but the problem is in the face of pure capitalism a government of any kind is pretty much a joke. It doesn't have any meaningful power to fight against a corporation that steps out of line. The people working for that corporation are pretty much at its mercy and the rights of the people are subject entirely to a corporation this relates back to the hypothetical sweatshop or mining town.

On the flipside if a government maintains all power or even the vast majority of it then the corporations or indeed any business is unable to persue it's own personal advancements. Its rights are destroyed because the government plunders and bullies it to their will. The corporation has no power to fight against this because the government maintains all power over it.

Both entities must exist in a symbiotic partnership side by side to keep each other in check. A socialist aspect must exist to protect the rights of the common people and capitalism must exist to protect the rights of free enterprise and the betterment of the individual.

How the power should be shared is a huge problem but one I feel we just have to deal with. like i said who ever said society was going to be easy?

[Sacul15]

It is the right of a company to defeat their oponent through a fair and open market. This falls apart however as i've mentioned several times throughout this discussion. A company can grasp a monopoly on something. Let's switch the example to broadcasting. One company owns just about every television station in a country. It's shows are of poor quality and they spend most of their time pumping adverts into homes instead of a good quality service. Now you say surely the people of a society can just stop watching the TV and deny the company in question its money. Well honestly people are always going to watch tv. It's addictive.

A new group wants to make a station which broadcastes good programs and is focused on entertainment. Unfortunatly for them they have to buy broadcasting rights, transmission equipment, they have to buy outlets for their station. all of these things are owned by the other company which simply does not allow this. Now in a purely capitalist society there is nothing that can be done here. In a mixed society though the government can put its foot down and end an unfair monopoloy.

Rarely does it happen when this sort of vertical monopoly exists, but let's take this example for a spin. I don't know much about the UK government, but I assume that they are supposed to represent the will of the British people, that is the majority of them. If a majority of people think that this business is running unfair business practices and don't think that should be allowed, wouldn't that many people boycotting the company do enough damage to make the company change their practices? And if the majority of people are too lazy to boycott the company, then what right does a Congress, or Parliament, or court system have to impose rulings that most people aren't for?

It's slightly bizzare you point this out but yes this is when the government steps in. But in a purely capitalist society they can't step in. Infact several times you have stated the idea that the government needs to have less power. By your very own admission here both systems need to exist side by side.

I think you have misunderstood what true capitalism and my ideal society are. Pure capitalism has no government involvement until and unless an individual or group of individuals (including a corporation) does something that violates the rights of others. Nobody has the right to a job or the right to healthcare or even a right to food. These are all services that either you must provide yourself or trade (meaning pay) for. When somebody takes these by force, or when a group of people who have no involvement in the trade (ex. Congress with minimum wage laws) order people to offer them at a lesser price then they would have normally, that is a violation of rights and should not be allowed. That is why we have the court system (this one is especially important), the police, and the military. A few more things could be argued as necessary, but generally that should be the extent of government. I'm not for a system completely devoid of government, just one where the governments actions are extremely limited.

The founding principle for capitalism is that all goods and services must be traded on a free open and fair market.

Yes, but who decides what is fair? Not a Congress or a court or the majority of all the people in a nation or the world. Only the two parties involved in the trade can decide that.

You constantly say the business owes nothing to these people yet by the very founding nature of capitalism they do owe something to these people. You simply can't argue for capitalism and then say that a company owes nothing to its work force.

What I meant by that is that a company is not obligated to go to a third-world country and open a factory so that people can have jobs. Yes of course companies are obligated to pay their workers. If they offer a certain wage and those workers accept, that is the wage they owe them, not any more. Now if they offer a higher wage than they pay, then that is a violation of the workers' rights and that is why we must have a government to protect them.

All you're arguing now is a reversed scenario to the one I suggested. The wealthy man should be given choice but the poor man shouldn't?

As it is the wealthy man's money, he should have the choice of how to spend it, not the poor person.

1: Wait it out and guess who has more money? It's like a classic siege situation. A castle has food and water for a month and an invading army has food and water for two. After waiting for one month the castle has to give in because it can't sustain itself.

The townsfolk have means to supply themselves for say a week whereas the corporation has enough to sustain itself much longer although admittedly at a loss. The townsfolk begin to starve and have to go back to work for whatever money they can. This is exactly what would happen in a third world country if they too up a strike against a sweatshop

2: Get a new work force. The workers go on strike because they wont work for such low pay so the company hires and immigrant work force who will. It's not exactly hard for them to do so in the current global climate.

3: The company agrees to the new wage terms and runs at a reduced profit. The company doesn't want that because it has two other options which gives them a greater net profit.

1. If the people are willing to go back to work, then obviously the conditions aren't as unbearable they claim they are. Like I said about the wealthy man/poor man scenario, those people have no right to the business's wealth and receive it only on the terms that the business sets.

2. If these new immigrant workers will take the same wage and not complain about it, then who could blame the company for hiring them? (Now, I think differently about illegal immigrants, since many of them do not pay taxes and therefore can go farther on the same wage, but that's for a different forum)

3. The company has the right to make decisions that will benefit it most (as do the workers). Once more, the beauty of capitalism is freedom and choice.

How the power should be shared is a huge problem but one I feel we just have to deal with. like i said who ever said society was going to be easy?

History has proven that is impossible. When a government (such as the USSR) tries to make everything equal, the nation collapses economically, when it tries to completely govern (such as Nazi Germany), it fails politically. Capitalism may not be perfect in the sense that everyone is just fine and dandy, but it's the closest thing we've got. If you believe as I do that pure socialism is evil, then how does one justify a little bit of evil? To me a little bit of socialism injected into capitalism is like a little bit of poison injected into a feast. It's probably not enough to kill you, but it might make you upset to your stomach.

[Dionysos]

It is the right of a company to defeat their oponent through a fair and open market. This falls apart however as i've mentioned several times throughout this discussion. A company can grasp a monopoly on something. Let's switch the example to broadcasting. One company owns just about every television station in a country. It's shows are of poor quality and they spend most of their time pumping adverts into homes instead of a good quality service. Now you say surely the people of a society can just stop watching the TV and deny the company in question its money. Well honestly people are always going to watch tv. It's addictive.

A new group wants to make a station which broadcastes good programs and is focused on entertainment. Unfortunatly for them they have to buy broadcasting rights, transmission equipment, they have to buy outlets for their station. all of these things are owned by the other company which simply does not allow this. Now in a purely capitalist society there is nothing that can be done here. In a mixed society though the government can put its foot down and end an unfair monopoloy.

Rarely does it happen when this sort of vertical monopoly exists, but let's take this example for a spin. I don't know much about the UK government, but I assume that they are supposed to represent the will of the British people, that is the majority of them. If a majority of people think that this business is running unfair business practices and don't think that should be allowed, wouldn't that many people boycotting the company do enough damage to make the company change their practices? And if the majority of people are too lazy to boycott the company, then what right does a Congress, or Parliament, or court system have to impose rulings that most people aren't for?

This kind of monopoly exists quite often. Especially in telecommunication, electricity etc.

Often the majority does not boycott an inferior product because one of the fundamental requirements of capitalism is NOT fulfilled: an informed consumer. Often, people do not know its inferior because of marketing, stupidity and not being able to compare the product to anything (maybe because other, better, products are bullied out of the market). Therefore they do not boycott it. Also, people often do take what they get, even if it sucks (television for instance), if thats the only option (something or nothing). That doesnt make it *right*.

Therefore, precisely because the consumer does not have all the information (about prices, quality, costs etc), the government must regulate to counter this flaw.

It's slightly bizzare you point this out but yes this is when the government steps in. But in a purely capitalist society they can't step in. Infact several times you have stated the idea that the government needs to have less power. By your very own admission here both systems need to exist side by side.

I think you have misunderstood what true capitalism and my ideal society are. Pure capitalism has no government involvement until and unless an individual or group of individuals (including a corporation) does something that violates the rights of others.

As you yourself wrote, who deciding these rights? Saying its between the people who trade is just another opinion, and a way of handling trade that can have very unfortunate (read unfair) consequences for people who are simply out of luck (for instance who have the option to either work in a mine for little pay/poor working conditions or starve).

Nobody has the right to a job or the right to healthcare or even a right to food. These are all services that either you must provide yourself or trade (meaning pay) for. When somebody takes these by force, or when a group of people who have no involvement in the trade (ex. Congress with minimum wage laws) order people to offer them at a lesser price then they would have normally, that is a violation of rights and should not be allowed. That is why we have the court system (this one is especially important), the police, and the military. A few more things could be argued as necessary, but generally that should be the extent of government. I'm not for a system completely devoid of government, just one where the governments actions are extremely limited.

This is a question about philosophy I guess, what you would like your society to be like. Whether youd like society to watch out for itself (in other words help those who are out of like, simply handing out money without it benefiting the society is of course counter-productive) or whether youd like it every-man-for-himself.

The founding principle for capitalism is that all goods and services must be traded on a free open and fair market.

Yes, but who decides what is fair? Not a Congress or a court or the majority of all the people in a nation or the world. Only the two parties involved in the trade can decide that.

Thats your opinion. What should decide whats fair is what benefits society the most. Again, thats an opinion, and not even an unselfish one, since something that benefits society usually means its something that is benefiting you as well (if you count yourself a part of that society).

You constantly say the business owes nothing to these people yet by the very founding nature of capitalism they do owe something to these people. You simply can't argue for capitalism and then say that a company owes nothing to its work force.

What I meant by that is that a company is not obligated to go to a third-world country and open a factory so that people can have jobs. Yes of course companies are obligated to pay their workers. If they offer a certain wage and those workers accept, that is the wage they owe them, not any more. Now if they offer a higher wage than they pay, then that is a violation of the workers' rights and that is why we must have a government to protect them.

Again, capitalism is really just an economic model in which the supplier is paying the wage necessary (i.e. the minimum wage he can get away with and still make a profit) to attract a workforce.

The concept of them owing the workers is something different, in the world of morals, and that can not be derived from the theory of capitalism. Again, that is the same problem as what is "fair and right". Imo, paying a very low wage when you could pay more and thus promote unnecessary suffering is simply being an asshole. If you couldnt pay more because every other corporation is paying as little (cutting costs) that of course is an evil circle which should be... ah! Regulated.

All you're arguing now is a reversed scenario to the one I suggested. The wealthy man should be given choice but the poor man shouldn't?

As it is the wealthy man's money, he should have the choice of how to spend it, not the poor person.

Yes. But even today thats not the case. Even the most capitalist friendly government regulates that, for instance you cannot spend your money on illegal drugs etc. Just because you have a knife doesnt mean you can use it however you wish (yes that IS the same principle).

...

1. If the people are willing to go back to work, then obviously the conditions aren't as unbearable they claim they are. Like I said about the wealthy man/poor man scenario, those people have no right to the business's wealth and receive it only on the terms that the business sets.

2. If these new immigrant workers will take the same wage and not complain about it, then who could blame the company for hiring them? (Now, I think differently about illegal immigrants, since many of them do not pay taxes and therefore can go farther on the same wage, but that's for a different forum)

3. The company has the right to make decisions that will benefit it most (as do the workers). Once more, the beauty of capitalism is freedom and choice.

1. Yes. Unbearable... well losing one arm against dying isnt "unbearable" following the same train of thought. It still sucks, its still quite unfair to put people in that situation. And yes, we, people, can chose whether wed like to be fair or not. Life is not simply unfair. Again, its a question about morals, something that doesnt simply follow from capitalism (the theory of supply and demand).

Actually, the idea of the "father" of that theory (adam smith mostly) liked it because it would actually improve conditions for most people(it did/can do). However, if the corporations can pretty much make their own rules (hey, its between the two partys trading right, unfortunately one party (the corp.) has more leverage...) that will lead to "most people" not get exploited, since the power in capitalism has a tendency to bunch up at the top.

2. They do complain? They simply have a choice between starving and working for "no money". If they have no guaranteed rights (minimum wage for instance) their complaining is worthless and without consequence, and they can get exploited.

3. Yeah, it is. But even if both have that right, it can still lead to an unfair situation.

How the power should be shared is a huge problem but one I feel we just have to deal with. like i said who ever said society was going to be easy?

History has proven that is impossible. When a government (such as the USSR) tries to make everything equal, the nation collapses economically, when it tries to completely govern (such as Nazi Germany), it fails politically. Capitalism may not be perfect in the sense that everyone is just fine and dandy, but it's the closest thing we've got. If you believe as I do that pure socialism is evil, then how does one justify a little bit of evil? To me a little bit of socialism injected into capitalism is like a little bit of poison injected into a feast. It's probably not enough to kill you, but it might make you upset to your stomach.

Wow, just wow. You cite two countries to prove that something is *proven* impossible. Both from rather recent history, and in a time when capitalism in its current form wasnt even present. Second, "making everything equal" does not equal (^^) regulating capitalism to counter its bad effects. And for the love of god, Nazi Germany didnt fail because it governed everything. They lost a world war, which they started out of the stupidity of electing a dictator. (whats that even to prove?)

How do you justify a little bit of evil? When it does not do evil. "Only a sith deals in absolutes", cheesy but true. Beer is fine in moderation, especially nice during a feast. Lots of things are poisons, but they arent harmful in moderation. Often poisons can even help/heal. Paracetamol (sp?) is a poison. Regulation, police force in general can be evil if its in the form of a police state, but you still need a little.



Sry for busting into this discussion, but I just felt the need to say that even if it doesnt "help".

[Athlete{UK}]

Rarely does it happen when this sort of vertical monopoly exists, but let's take this example for a spin. I don't know much about the UK government, but I assume that they are supposed to represent the will of the British people, that is the majority of them. If a majority of people think that this business is running unfair business practices and don't think that should be allowed, wouldn't that many people boycotting the company do enough damage to make the company change their practices? And if the majority of people are too lazy to boycott the company, then what right does a Congress, or Parliament, or court system have to impose rulings that most people aren't for?

We're going round in circles now. The people can boycott the product yes but ask yourself this. Is this likely to occur in every aspect of life? Sure they can boycot a clothes company or a computer game publisher providing they are informed (as an edit dionysos points out the requirement for an informed consumer very well)

But when you have a purely capitalist society how can a people boycot health care? Or food? Or education?

Yes the idea of free market is that there is an alternative and yes the kinds of monopolies I pointed out aren't the rule of thumb (although they are more common then you seem to point out) but the fact is they do, can and will exist.

It's a dangerous thing to make everything subject to a free market because a monopoly can exist to completly rule a portion of our life which is vital.

Again socialism must intervene in these instances to assure there is a balance.

I think you have misunderstood what true capitalism and my ideal society are. Pure capitalism has no government involvement until and unless an individual or group of individuals (including a corporation) does something that violates the rights of others. Nobody has the right to a job or the right to healthcare or even a right to food. These are all services that either you must provide yourself or trade (meaning pay) for. When somebody takes these by force, or when a group of people who have no involvement in the trade (ex. Congress with minimum wage laws) order people to offer them at a lesser price then they would have normally, that is a violation of rights and should not be allowed. That is why we have the court system (this one is especially important), the police, and the military. A few more things could be argued as necessary, but generally that should be the extent of government. I'm not for a system completely devoid of government, just one where the governments actions are extremely limited.

I understand what pure capitalism is perfectly well thanks. My argument of taking away so much power from the government is that you are taking away power from the people.

The whole system is skewed. The people with all the power exist at the top of the ladder with all the money and everything in this system by its very nature is designed to support and perpetuate them.

It creates a ruling caste something i've said over and over again is a terrible thing and actually goes against democracy. It's happened to an extent already. i dissagree with the current governments a lot of the time because it is moving more and more away from the people and into a more elite circle. This however is a different discussion all together.

The government must exist to protect the rights of the individual but how can it do this when it has no power in the face of an entity that boasts massive power? You have the court, the police and the military sure but under a purely capitalised system things such as the police and military are privatised that's the point. Everything is ruled by the free market. When this happens the police and military do not exist to protect the rights of the people but that of the company.

And people are entitle to equality in many things regardless of what they have in their bank account. Health should not be determined on money. A baby born into a poor family is entitled to the same treatment as a baby born into a rich one. Ok this is an opinion but it is an opinion I hold very strongly.

Things such as education. In a purely capitalist society where all education is privatised the result is that only the rich kids are entitled to a good education. Anyone lacking the sufficiet income to send their children to a rich school are left with the bottom of the pile.

The problem is this perpetuates itself. Denied a good education the lower classes see a decline in intelligence. It's a fact. Everyman is born equal but it is life and circumstances which creates inequality. as a result the lower classes are unable to improve their situation. unable to exploit the free market and gain wealth as a result very few are able to crawl out of the pit.

Now the argument for capitalism goes that an improvement overall filters down to the poorest. eventually the worst schools will get better. Well true but the best schools get better still and the gap still exists. Infact in a purely capitalist society the gap worsens.

A capitalist society creates a caste system. Working class, upper class, ruling class. With the working class at the bottom of the heap they get the worst services in everything. As a result they are less healthy, less wealthy and less intelligent. The upper classes look down upon them and create further resentment. The divide is deepened and for the most part people are kept within their castes. We've already seen it. The UK during the last century was victim of this and the balance was only addressed by a socialist movement. Sure the anomoly here and there can move between the classes but in essence the majority of people are locked into place on the ladder and are denied choice and freedom.

The socialist aspect has to exist to address this imbalance. A capitalist society is only fair to those at the top. To get to the top you have to get there first.

A free market exists for everyone providing they get there first.

Yes, but who decides what is fair? Not a Congress or a court or the majority of all the people in a nation or the world. Only the two parties involved in the trade can decide that.

You are still skipping around the point and repackaging the same rhetoric you're plonked throughout.

And what about when the two parties involved are unequel? When one party is a huge corporation with masses of power and the other is a worker from a third world country who is trapped into the deal and has no other option but to accept what is put on the table. They have nothing to barter with and effectively have no choice and no freedom.

So yet again I have to restate what i've already said. The government needs to exist in a meaningful form to protect the working man from being trapped like this. When there is no choice in one system a choice in another needs to exist to allow choice to exist at all.

What I meant by that is that a company is not obligated to go to a third-world country and open a factory so that people can have jobs. Yes of course companies are obligated to pay their workers. If they offer a certain wage and those workers accept, that is the wage they owe them, not any more. Now if they offer a higher wage than they pay, then that is a violation of the workers' rights and that is why we must have a government to protect them.

Of course the company isn't obligated to go to another country and supply them with a good wage out of the kindness of their heart. But if the company does go to another country, does buy up their land and does trap the workers into a working situation in which they have no power of their own then they do owe the workers a fair wage and they do owe them choice and freedom.

I'm not going to argue this point further because i'm just reiterating myself now.

As it is the wealthy man's money, he should have the choice of how to spend it, not the poor person.

And it's the poor mans life not the wealthy mans.

1. If the people are willing to go back to work, then obviously the conditions aren't as unbearable they claim they are. Like I said about the wealthy man/poor man scenario, those people have no right to the business's wealth and receive it only on the terms that the business sets.

The conditions can't be that bad? Compared to what starving to death? The point is the miners have no coice. They are denied this and capitalism has actually failed. Again i'm just reiterating things i've said several times before and you're not supplying any kind of argument against it.

Let's recap. The miners are trapped because they have no power without a meaningful union. Conditions whilst working at the mine are better when not but they are far from the best they could be. They have no power to change this and are effectively trapped.

2. If these new immigrant workers will take the same wage and not complain about it, then who could blame the company for hiring them? (Now, I think differently about illegal immigrants, since many of them do not pay taxes and therefore can go farther on the same wage, but that's for a different forum)

Again it boils down to the whole idea of choice or lack there of Why do you think the immigrants are immigrants? See above.

3. The company has the right to make decisions that will benefit it most (as do the workers). Once more, the beauty of capitalism is freedom and choice.

The company has the right to make decisions that will benefit the most. As do the workers but they are denied this due to circumstances and a lack of actual meaningful power. The beauty of capitalism is freedom and choice for the ones with the money.

History has proven that is impossible. When a government (such as the USSR) tries to make everything equal, the nation collapses economically, when it tries to completely govern (such as Nazi Germany), it fails politically. Capitalism may not be perfect in the sense that everyone is just fine and dandy, but it's the closest thing we've got. If you believe as I do that pure socialism is evil, then how does one justify a little bit of evil? To me a little bit of socialism injected into capitalism is like a little bit of poison injected into a feast. It's probably not enough to kill you, but it might make you upset to your stomach.

Communism. You make the assumption that it collapsed because it treat everyone as equal and everyone isn't equal.

Closer to the truth is that communism became corrupt. The only people who were communist in the USSR were the normal people. The ruling caste were actually far more capitalist and as such were able to create a ruling caste for themselves. Communism collapsed because it was just capitalism with all the power for the people removed exactly what i'm arguing against..

The ideal was they everyone is equal but in practise the ruling body made it so that this wasn't so. Not because people are just born unequal but because the government made it that way.

Nazi Germany actually did incredibly well politcally. That's kind of the reason they were able to mobilise an utterly decimated country into a world super power in such a short time.

The reason it failed was because it pissed everyone else off in the process and was dedicated to destruction and not the development of its own nation. Hardly unexpected when absolout power is provided to one group as i've mentioned before. In case you didn;t notice it took a huge allied effort to bring them down.

These are also two examples alone. It's like saying that it's proven a coin will always lands heads up because it did so once.

I find it very difficult to designate anything as evil in such a black and white way but if you feel you must say that then consider my entire set of arguments. It shows a profound lack of understanding to designate something as simply evil.

Socialism is evil from the point of view of a corporation because it supplies absolout power to those it would subject. Capitalism is evil to the point of view of the worker because it would supply absolout power to those with the money and deny any power to the worker effectively making them a tool and denying equality.

It's a matter of perspective. It's like trying to tell someone what's on the back of a piece of paper from the opposite side.

Both systems must exist to keep each other in check.

[Sacul15]

My goodness these are getting long. I'll try to keep my arguments to the areas that haven't been discussed yet, rather than keep trying to convince you of something you won't be convinced of.

Often the majority does not boycott an inferior product because one of the fundamental requirements of capitalism is NOT fulfilled: an informed consumer. Often, people do not know its inferior because of marketing, stupidity and not being able to compare the product to anything (maybe because other, better, products are bullied out of the market). Therefore they do not boycott it. Also, people often do take what they get, even if it sucks (television for instance), if thats the only option (something or nothing). That doesnt make it *right*.

Therefore, precisely because the consumer does not have all the information (about prices, quality, costs etc), the government must regulate to counter this flaw.

A consumer can do research on any product. The information is out there. Why should a business be punished because its consumers are stupid or lazy?

What should decide whats fair is what benefits society the most. Again, thats an opinion, and not even an unselfish one, since something that benefits society usually means its something that is benefiting you as well (if you count yourself a part of that society).

I challenge you to find one piece of regulation that benefited all of society (meaning everyone involved). Generally regulation helps one party at the expense of another.

Imo, paying a very low wage when you could pay more and thus promote unnecessary suffering is simply being an asshole.

I agree. If I were in charge of a company and I could help out a lot of people with relatively little cost to myself, I would have no problem with that. But it's not the government's responsibility to keep people from being assholes. If they value profit more than they do the well being of another person, I think it is their every right to hold on to the money which is rightfully theirs.

Yes. But even today thats not the case. Even the most capitalist friendly government regulates that, for instance you cannot spend your money on illegal drugs etc. Just because you have a knife doesnt mean you can use it however you wish (yes that IS the same principle).

Well like I said before, anything that doesn't violate another person's inalienable rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). If you use a knife to kill someone, you violate that person's right to life. If you use your money to buy a slave, you violate that person's right to liberty. Illegal drugs (hard drugs, mind you. soft drugs rarely lead to violence, so they should be legal imo) is one issue I'm undecided on. On the one hand, they cause people to lose control and allow them to commit acts they wouldn't under normal circumstances, but on the other hand some people use heroin and never do anything else illegal.

1. Yes. Unbearable... well losing one arm against dying isnt "unbearable" following the same train of thought. It still sucks, its still quite unfair to put people in that situation. And yes, we, people, can chose whether wed like to be fair or not. Life is not simply unfair. Again, its a question about morals, something that doesnt simply follow from capitalism (the theory of supply and demand).

Actually, the idea of the "father" of that theory (adam smith mostly) liked it because it would actually improve conditions for most people(it did/can do). However, if the corporations can pretty much make their own rules (hey, its between the two partys trading right, unfortunately one party (the corp.) has more leverage...) that will lead to "most people" not get exploited, since the power in capitalism has a tendency to bunch up at the top.

2. They do complain? They simply have a choice between starving and working for "no money". If they have no guaranteed rights (minimum wage for instance) their complaining is worthless and without consequence, and they can get exploited.

3. Yeah, it is. But even if both have that right, it can still lead to an unfair situation.

1. I love how everyone considers offering someone a better option (even if it's not that much better) as exploitation. Would you rather he not exploit him and not give him the better alternative? Just another case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too, in my opinion.

And yes, we, people, individuals can choose whether we want to be fair or not. But I don't think it's right for another person or group to force people to be "fair".

2. Firstly, they are immigrants. They chose to work there, meaning this was their best option. They should be thanking the business for giving them this opportunity, not condemning them for not offering a better one. Secondly, no one has a "right" to a certain wage. Somebody else produces that wage. How can someone have a right to something that belongs to someone else? It's like having a right to an awesome computer or a right to a million dollars.

3. No, it can't. Employment is a trade. You trade your time and effort for your employers pay. You both consensually agree to that trade, same as any other. If you traded your car for a new computer (and we're not physically forced into the trade), could you then claim that the trade was not fair?

Wow, just wow. You cite two countries to prove that something is *proven* impossible. Both from rather recent history, and in a time when capitalism in its current form wasnt even present. Second, "making everything equal" does not equal (^^) regulating capitalism to counter its bad effects. And for the love of god, Nazi Germany didnt fail because it governed everything. They lost a world war, which they started out of the stupidity of electing a dictator. (whats that even to prove?)

How do you justify a little bit of evil? When it does not do evil. "Only a sith deals in absolutes", cheesy but true. Beer is fine in moderation, especially nice during a feast. Lots of things are poisons, but they arent harmful in moderation. Often poisons can even help/heal. Paracetamol (sp?) is a poison. Regulation, police force in general can be evil if its in the form of a police state, but you still need a little.

I cited history to prove that it fails, and gave two examples from history. I can give more. Compare Eastern Europe under communism to Eastern Europe now. Compare Hong Kong to China, thirty years ago. Compare the US in the 20's with relatively little government interference to the 30's with the Great Depression, as a result of the Fed's manipulation of the money supply, and Hoover's tax increases. The list goes on.

Nazism failed because they lost a world war as a result of committing the entire nation to a set course of action, including the strict regulation of many corporations (read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Speaking of which, while checking the spelling of his name, I came upon this article.)

Alright, the poison metaphor was a bad one, but I think the message is still true. True socialism destroys the incentive to work and to produce and to make our lives better. A little socialism weakens the incentive.

On a side note:

Only a sith deals in absolutes

Isn't that an absolute?

Ok please don't insult my intelligence. I understand what pure capitalism is perfectly well thanks. My argument of taking away so much power from the government is that you are taking away power from the people.

The whole system is skewed. The people with all the power exist at the top of the ladder with all the money and everything in this system by its very nature is designed to support and perpetuate them.

It creates a ruling caste something i've said over and over again is a terrible thing and actually goes against democracy. It's happened to an extent already. i dissagree with the current governments a lot of the time because it is moving more and more away from the people and into a more elite circle. This however is a different discussion all together.

I had no intention of insulting your intelligence or knowledge of capitalism, so I apologize if you took it that way. I meant you didn't understand my idea of pure capitalism.

The people at the top, unless they got there by theft or fraud (and I will be first to admit that there are many who did, which is why we need an effective justice system), earned their spot there by contributing to society the most. Think of some rich people off the top of your head. Bill Gates- major contributor to the computer revolution. Donald Trump- owner of hotel/real estate company that provides valuable products to consumers around the world. Oprah-media genius who provides a service to millions. Now think of a working-class person. Puts together a pair of shoes that benefits exactly one person. Helps build a house that benefits exactly one family. Now, I'm not condemning poor people. Their jobs are incredibly important and we would be nothing without them. But those who have become rich have contributed far more to society, and therefore should have more opportunities and choices (and power) available to them (through the form of money).

The government must exist to protect the rights of the individual but how can it do this when it has no power in the face of an entity that boasts massive power? You have the court, the police and the military sure but under a purely capitalised system things such as the police and military are privatised that's the point. Everything is ruled by the free market. When this happens the police and military do not exist to protect the rights of the people but that of the company.

I do not advocate the privatization of police, military, or the court system. Of course, I believe corporations should have the right to hire private security, but if they violate the rights of citizens they are under jurisdiction of the government courts. This would of course mean taxes, unless the government owned some businesses to keep it evened out.

And people are entitle to equality in many things regardless of what they have in their bank account. Health should not be determined on money. A baby born into a poor family is entitled to the same treatment as a baby born into a rich one. Ok this is an opinion but it is an opinion I hold very strongly.

I strongly disagree with you. Yes, that sounds cruel but hear me out. Healthcare does not grow naturally. Human beings, as animals, are not guaranteed long life simply because they exist. That is a fact. Healthcare was invented and it is produced. In order to provide that child with healthcare you must deprive it's creator of it first. Now it seems to me that you value human life very highly. I do as well and I think most people do also. Under capitalism, we have every right to help those children in need. And, as long as I am healthy and my family is healthy, I would strongly consider donating to a charity to help those in need. What is not acceptable, in my opinion, is forcing the producers of healthcare (namely doctors and pharmacists, as well as the inventors of new technologies) to provide it without compensation, or by compensating them with the money of people who do not wish to provide it.

Things such as education. In a purely capitalist society where all education is privatised the result is that only the rich kids are entitled to a good education. Anyone lacking the sufficiet income to send their children to a rich school are left with the bottom of the pile.

Simply not true. It may seem that way now because there are very few private schools in any one area. However, if there was no public education system, many more private schools would have the opportunity to enter the market, thus lowering prices. As for the extremely poor, like healthcare, if you value education highly, and wish for them to have it regardless of wealth, then you have the decision to help make that possible. But, I think that under a free-market schooling would become quite inexpensive and cases like this would be rare.

In fact in a purely capitalist society the gap worsens.

For this, I refer you to this article.

Actually, I'll end my rant by linking this website. I've said before that I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand. This is the Ayn Rand Institute, which supports her ideas through political and social commentary. Love it or loathe it, they make some pretty good arguments.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_capitalism_opeds

[whiffen]

What a vast ocean of text. It took me 30 minutes to scroll down to the post reply button.

Lol pretty interesting though.

[Athlete{UK}]

A consumer can do research on any product. The information is out there. Why should a business be punished because its consumers are stupid or lazy?

Because the corporation with its power is able to hide and conceal the facts. Perhaps not bury them entirely but subdue them enough that without indepth investigation the general population is kept in the dark about such things.

The people need the power of the a meaningful government to bring these facts to the surface.

Also the fact that capitalism requires an informed consumer to work kind of negates it if you're saying "well tough shit if the consumer is too stupid" Also too stupid is too easy a term to apply. Try not informed or powerful enough which once again comes back to everything i've been saying.

I challenge you to find one piece of regulation that benefited all of society (meaning everyone involved). Generally regulation helps one party at the expense of another.

As i've said there is no instant solve it all anwser to society. Issuing this challange is pretty much entirely moot. You're suggesting here that capitalism is that one piece of regulation that will benefit all society. As i've i've stated in every post i've made it isn't.

I agree. If I were in charge of a company and I could help out a lot of people with relatively little cost to myself, I would have no problem with that. But it's not the government's responsibility to keep people from being assholes. If they value profit more than they do the well being of another person, I think it is their every right to hold on to the money which is rightfully theirs.

But you're still skirting around every challange presented to capitalism. Great the company should dictate what the hell it wants. It's not the governments responsibility to keep them from being twats but it's their responsibility to protect the people it's being a twat to.

The company has every right to hold onto money which is rightfully theirs but in an unfair trade where one party is utterly trapped and helpless the money isn't rightfully theirs. The trade would denote it is owed to the second party because they've worked for it and they've earned it. The corporation is simply denying this and forcing them to accept less.

Well like I said before, anything that doesn't violate another person's inalienable rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). If you use a knife to kill someone, you violate that person's right to life. If you use your money to buy a slave, you violate that person's right to liberty. Illegal drugs (hard drugs, mind you. soft drugs rarely lead to violence, so they should be legal imo) is one issue I'm undecided on. On the one hand, they cause people to lose control and allow them to commit acts they wouldn't under normal circumstances, but on the other hand some people use heroin and never do anything else illegal.

And when the capitalism infringes on the rights of others as i've been stating throughout? The government needs to step in and they can't do that without meaningful power.

1. I love how everyone considers offering someone a better option (even if it's not that much better) as exploitation. Would you rather he not exploit him and not give him the better alternative? Just another case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too, in my opinion.

And yes, we, people, individuals can choose whether we want to be fair or not. But I don't think it's right for another person or group to force people to be "fair".

It actually amazes me how you are able, willingly or unwillingly I am not sure, to completely ignor that point of this example and focus on something else entirely.

Offering something better isn't a bad thing no. But offering them something better which is still very bad and then using that to trap a person with no chance or choice for further improvement is very bad.

An armed gunman burst into your home and points a gun at you. You are offered a choice.Get both legs blown off or suck his dick and only lose one leg. So what? You're suposed to say thank you?

Yes it is the same principle.

2. Firstly, they are immigrants. They chose to work there, meaning this was their best option. They should be thanking the business for giving them this opportunity, not condemning them for not offering a better one. Secondly, no one has a "right" to a certain wage. Somebody else produces that wage. How can someone have a right to something that belongs to someone else? It's like having a right to an awesome computer or a right to a million dollars.

Again you seem to skirt around the arguments people have already supplied against this. So let me reiterate....again.

First, the immigrants are trapped into the trade like the miners because they have no other choice. They should be thanking the corporation for capitalising on their misery, using them as cheap labour and supplying nothing in the way of opportunity for improvement? Right.

You start harping on about having the right to something for nothing. "It's like demanding the right to an awesome computer or a million dollars" No your example once again utterly fails. It's like demanding an awesome computer or a million dollars after you've done an awesome computer or a million dollars worth of work but have been denied this.

3. No, it can't. Employment is a trade. You trade your time and effort for your employers pay. You both consensually agree to that trade, same as any other. If you traded your car for a new computer (and we're not physically forced into the trade), could you then claim that the trade was not fair?

So what? your argument boils down to "as long as it isn't physical force anything is totally alright." Let me riterate again...again. The corporation can employ economical force and social force to dictate whatever the hell it wants. It's no different then physical force. In physical force you break a leg, economic force you break a bank account social force you break a home.

Alright, the poison metaphor was a bad one, but I think the message is still true. True socialism destroys the incentive to work and to produce and to make our lives better. A little socialism weakens the incentive.

And pure capitalism destroys the incentive for equality and the incentive to make the lives of everyone better. Just the people at the top.

I had no intention of insulting your intelligence or knowledge of capitalism, so I apologize if you took it that way. I meant you didn't understand my idea of pure capitalism.

The people at the top, unless they got there by theft or fraud (and I will be first to admit that there are many who did, which is why we need an effective justice system), earned their spot there by contributing to society the most. Think of some rich people off the top of your head. Bill Gates- major contributor to the computer revolution. Donald Trump- owner of hotel/real estate company that provides valuable products to consumers around the world. Oprah-media genius who provides a service to millions. Now think of a working-class person. Puts together a pair of shoes that benefits exactly one person. Helps build a house that benefits exactly one family. Now, I'm not condemning poor people. Their jobs are incredibly important and we would be nothing without them. But those who have become rich have contributed far more to society, and therefore should have more opportunities and choices (and power) available to them (through the form of money).

Ok ignoring restating my thoughts on an effective justice system just not working in a capitalist society due to the power possesed by the corporation I think i've pretty much covered that now.

The problem is that these workers at the bottom of the pile have very little opportunity to do something the benefits all of society. The capitalist system is set up in such a way that the people at the top stay there, the people at the bottom stay there. The system itself means that the caste you are born into is where you stay. I doubt Bill Gates would have changed the world if he had been born into a miners family with little opportunity to better himself.

I do not advocate the privatization of police, military, or the court system. Of course, I believe corporations should have the right to hire private security, but if they violate the rights of citizens they are under jurisdiction of the government courts. This would of course mean taxes, unless the government owned some businesses to keep it evened out.

Then the police and military must be governed by a socialist system if they are not to be privatised. So here by your own admission capitalism needs socialism to work. QED.

I strongly disagree with you. Yes, that sounds cruel but hear me out. Healthcare does not grow naturally. Human beings, as animals, are not guaranteed long life simply because they exist. That is a fact. Healthcare was invented and it is produced. In order to provide that child with healthcare you must deprive it's creator of it first. Now it seems to me that you value human life very highly. I do as well and I think most people do also. Under capitalism, we have every right to help those children in need. And, as long as I am healthy and my family is healthy, I would strongly consider donating to a charity to help those in need. What is not acceptable, in my opinion, is forcing the producers of healthcare (namely doctors and pharmacists, as well as the inventors of new technologies) to provide it without compensation, or by compensating them with the money of people who do not wish to provide it.

It all sounds very noble on paper but essentialy the survival of something is depended on the kindness of a human heart. Something I think we both know is very shakey at best.

Life is not a comodoty to be traded and everyone is entitle to it. If you deny healthcare to someone who needs it you deprive them of life. Sure in a capitalist society charity filters down but there will still be many who don't get this. And the quality of treatment is less then that of a richer person which still in essence deprives them of life.

It again boils down to the lack of choice in this society. The doctors wont provide healthcare if they are not offered anything in the way of compensation. This is called ransom because the person effected has no choice but to pay up because the alternative is death or a reduced life.

Simply not true. It may seem that way now because there are very few private schools in any one area. However, if there was no public education system, many more private schools would have the opportunity to enter the market, thus lowering prices. As for the extremely poor, like healthcare, if you value education highly, and wish for them to have it regardless of wealth, then you have the decision to help make that possible. But, I think that under a free-market schooling would become quite inexpensive and cases like this would be rare.

That's only one direction the market could move and quite frankly one that you rarely see in the corporate world. The other is the system I outlined A core expensive elite group emerges with the best of the best availible to it. The rest is cheaper but of reduced quality.

Let's take the example of cars. Is every car in the world resonably priced and affordable to everyone? No. You have cars that are functional that everyone can afford at the bottom of the pile. They get you from A to B and nothing more. But at the top of the pile you have your Lotus, your Jag and so on which is in every possible way a much better car but only the very rich can afford it. Now I have no problem with that. A car is not a necessity and is quite frivoulous really. I have no problems with that kind of market existing there. People who have done well for themselves are entitle to buy themselve luxury but not to buy themselves basic nescesity at the expense of others.

Education isn't a frivoulous thing. It's a vitally important thing. At the bottom of the pile the common people my gain a functional education. To draw a comparison with getting from A to B let's say adding 1 to 2. As such their education is functional only for the lower class of jobs. As such the lower classes by the very system are kept in place and not allowed any chance to move up the chain whilst the richest are given the best education and are kept at the top of the chain. The very system perpetuates the gap. Keep the poor stupid keep the rich smart.

Everybody is entitle to the same education regardless of where they come from and who their family is. The capitalist society creates a regimented caste system and effectively destroys equality.

For this, I refer you to this article.

Actually, I'll end my rant by linking this website. I've said before that I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand. This is the Ayn Rand Institute, which supports her ideas through political and social commentary. Love it or loathe it, they make some pretty good arguments.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_capitalism_opeds

Well if you want to completely cop out of a discussion then.

http://marxists.org/

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works ... t/ch02.htm

Love it or loath it it makes some very good points as well which just leads us back to square one.

[Sacul15]

Because the corporation with its power is able to hide and conceal the facts. Perhaps not bury them entirely but subdue them enough that without indepth investigation the general population is kept in the dark about such things.

The people need the power of the a meaningful government to bring these facts to the surface.

Also the fact that capitalism requires an informed consumer to work kind of negates it if you're saying "well tough shit if the consumer is too stupid" Also too stupid is too easy a term to apply. Try not informed or powerful enough which once again comes back to everything i've been saying.

If the government can bring this information to light, why can't a private individual? If you recognize the need for people to be informed about products, then you should start a report like the Comsumer's Digest and help solve that problem. Also, "stupid" was not my choice of words, it was Dionysos's.

As i've said there is no instant solve it all anwser to society. Issuing this challange is pretty much entirely moot. You're suggesting here that capitalism is that one piece of regulation that will benefit all society. As i've i've stated in every post i've made it isn't.

You're exactly right. There is no answer to solve all the problems of society, which is why government shouldn't try. By the way, capitalism is not a form of regulation.

But you're still skirting around every challange presented to capitalism. Great the company should dictate what the hell it wants. It's not the governments responsibility to keep them from being twats but it's their responsibility to protect the people it's being a twat to.

The company has every right to hold onto money which is rightfully theirs but in an unfair trade where one party is utterly trapped and helpless the money isn't rightfully theirs. The trade would denote it is owed to the second party because they've worked for it and they've earned it. The corporation is simply denying this and forcing them to accept less.

The employees haven't earned a higher wage. That's what you don't get. They've earned whatever wage they agreed to at the beginning. The corporation is not forcing any wage upon anyone. The fact that they might starve if they don't accept is not the fault of the company and therefore they should not have to accept any responsibility for removing that threat.

And when the capitalism infringes on the rights of others as i've been stating throughout? The government needs to step in and they can't do that without meaningful power.

I don't follow you. By offering a low wage, what right does the company infringe?

An armed gunman burst into your home and points a gun at you. You are offered a choice.Get both legs blown off or suck his dick and only lose one leg. So what? You're suposed to say thank you?

Yes it is the same principle.

It's not the same principle. The gunman thrust this situation upon you. The corporation did not thrust poverty upon its employees. A more appropriate analogy would be if you were about to fall off a cliff. A man comes up and says he'll save your life, but you have to suck him off. The person decides what's worse. Yes, both situations suck, just like with the sweatshop scenario. But if capitalism and competition is allowed, another guy might show up and offer help for a hand job. And maybe another will show up and offer help for directions to the freeway. Compared to this last one, the blow job guy sounds pretty cruel, but he is still offering a trade. If the person thinks it's fair, he takes it. If not, he doesn't.

You start harping on about having the right to something for nothing. "It's like demanding the right to an awesome computer or a million dollars" No your example once again utterly fails. It's like demanding an awesome computer or a million dollars after you've done an awesome computer or a million dollars worth of work but have been denied this.

You haven't done that much work. You've done the amount of work equal to your wage. If you thought that amount of work was equal to a million dollars, then you could have offered that to your employer. If he agreed that your work was worth that much (remember worth is a relative value, there is no set value for anything. The only value something has is what any individual is willing to pay for it) then he would agree to pay you that much. If not, he would not accept the deal.

And pure capitalism destroys the incentive for equality and the incentive to make the lives of everyone better. Just the people at the top.

Why is economic equality necessary? If someone is rich, that doesn't mean you can't be as well. Laws that regulate the rich do not alleviate poverty. They achieve equality by making everyone equally miserable, not equally wealthy. And capitalism certainly makes everyone better off. Look at any product: computers, cars, medicine. Sure the inventors of all these things got incredibly rich, but because they got incredibly rich we now have all these products that make our lives longer and happier.

The problem is that these workers at the bottom of the pile have very little opportunity to do something the benefits all of society. The capitalist system is set up in such a way that the people at the top stay there, the people at the bottom stay there. The system itself means that the caste you are born into is where you stay. I doubt Bill Gates would have changed the world if he had been born into a miners family with little opportunity to better himself.

That is simply not true. My parents both grew up relatively poor. Their parents instilled in them the values of education and hard work, and now they are both successful teachers, as a result of their hard work. I don't know the extent of government aid they received, if they received any, but it was their motive that made them successful, not a government holding their hands. Most of the time, poor people stay poor because they don't value education and hard work and perseverance as much as those who succeed do, not because "the corporations are keeping them down".

Then the police and military must be governed by a socialist system if they are not to be privatised. So here by your own admission capitalism needs socialism to work. QED.

Socialism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" A good is defined as "something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want". I don't believe justice to be an economic want, just like I don't believe freedom to be an economic want. Therefore, I don't believe the administration of justice is socialist. If you believe otherwise, then yes, by your definition of socialism, society does need some of it.

Life is not a comodoty to be traded and everyone is entitle to it. If you deny healthcare to someone who needs it you deprive them of life. Sure in a capitalist society charity filters down but there will still be many who don't get this. And the quality of treatment is less then that of a richer person which still in essence deprives them of life.

Life is given to all of us at birth and it is ours, so we are guaranteed life. But medicine, life support machines, doctors, hospitals, and insurance aren't given to us at birth, so we are not guaranteed those. Like I said, those are produced through the efforts of others and are therefore their property. If they were forced to help everyone, they would go out of business and nobody would want to be in the healthcare business and we would all be worse off.

That's only one direction the market could move and quite frankly one that you rarely see in the corporate world. The other is the system I outlined A core expensive elite group emerges with the best of the best availible to it. The rest is cheaper but of reduced quality.

Let's take the example of cars. Is every car in the world resonably priced and affordable to everyone? No. You have cars that are functional that everyone can afford at the bottom of the pile. They get you from A to B and nothing more. But at the top of the pile you have your Lotus, your Jag and so on which is in every possible way a much better car but only the very rich can afford it. Now I have no problem with that. A car is not a necessity and is quite frivoulous really. I have no problems with that kind of market existing there. People who have done well for themselves are entitle to buy themselve luxury but not to buy themselves basic nescesity at the expense of others.

Education isn't a frivoulous thing. It's a vitally important thing. At the bottom of the pile the common people my gain a functional education. To draw a comparison with getting from A to B let's say adding 1 to 2. As such their education is functional only for the lower class of jobs. As such the lower classes by the very system are kept in place and not allowed any chance to move up the chain whilst the richest are given the best education and are kept at the top of the chain. The very system perpetuates the gap. Keep the poor stupid keep the rich smart.

Everybody is entitle to the same education regardless of where they come from and who their family is. The capitalist society creates a regimented caste system and effectively destroys equality.

Everyone is entitled to the same crappy education now. I can't presume to know what the situation is in the UK, but here our education system sucks. All the focus is on the kids who want to fuck around and not learn anything, while the smarter kids are left alone, under the assumption that they'll learn regardless. Under capitalism, the worst education option will be similar to this, and probably a bit better. The kids who have the will and intelligence to be great students and have parents who equally value education will be able to afford, maybe not the best option available, but at least one that is suitable. And besides, schools will probably give out scholarships like private colleges do now for those kids whose parents simply can't afford a good education for their kids.

Well if you want to completely cop out of a discussion then.

As you can see, I didn't post that website to cop out of an argument. I'm still as annoying as ever. I posted that website for the pro-capitalists or the semi-capitalists such as yourself to get some extra ammunition, not to avoid debates with people who are against it.

[Athlete{UK}]

If the government can bring this information to light, why can't a private individual? If you recognize the need for people to be informed about products, then you should start a report like the Comsumer's Digest and help solve that problem. Also, "stupid" was not my choice of words, it was Dionysos's.

Lack of power without a meaningful government the power does not exist to stand against a corporate entity. The individual in a capitalist society does not have the same amount of power as a meaningful government to uncover these truths.

You're exactly right. There is no answer to solve all the problems of society, which is why government shouldn't try. By the way, capitalism is not a form of regulation.

Then why should capitalism be presented as an answer on its own then? And I thing Government should try and better the world in the capacity that it is a gestalt entity of the will and drive of an entire population.

Also one of the main points of capitalism is that it regulates the distribution of services and goods so yeah. It is a form of regulation

The employees haven't earned a higher wage. That's what you don't get. They've earned whatever wage they agreed to at the beginning. The corporation is not forcing any wage upon anyone. The fact that they might starve if they don't accept is not the fault of the company and therefore they should not have to accept any responsibility for removing that threat.

What you don't get or rather when you seem to willingly ignor is that the employees have no choice in the wage in the first place so they are denied what is rightfully theirs. You constantly say "you don't get it" or "you don't understand" yet offer nothing to back this up or counter my point beyond "yeah but the money isn't theirs" Why isn't it when they have done a more then fair amount of work and have been trapped in a situation where they are denied to power to better things?

I don't follow you. By offering a low wage, what right does the company infringe?

Do I really have to copy and past the three seperate examples I've already made?

It's not the same principle. The gunman thrust this situation upon you. The corporation did not thrust poverty upon its employees. A more appropriate analogy would be if you were about to fall off a cliff. A man comes up and says he'll save your life, but you have to suck him off. The person decides what's worse. Yes, both situations suck, just like with the sweatshop scenario. But if capitalism and competition is allowed, another guy might show up and offer help for a hand job. And maybe another will show up and offer help for directions to the freeway. Compared to this last one, the blow job guy sounds pretty cruel, but he is still offering a trade. If the person thinks it's fair, he takes it. If not, he doesn't.

Ok fair enough that is a better anaology but it's still the same principle.

It's not a fair trade. The tade is completely one sided. You have absoloutly no choice in the matter and are forced into a contract. Again we're back to force. Sure another guy can come along and offer a better offer but what if blow job mountain rescue guy cut all the ropes and support for other climbers? Just like a mining corporation can buy up all the land for a given area and deny that choice? You're stuck in the situation. Die or suck him off. No different then the gun to the legs. Not all force is physical

You haven't done that much work. You've done the amount of work equal to your wage. If you thought that amount of work was equal to a million dollars, then you could have offered that to your employer. If he agreed that your work was worth that much (remember worth is a relative value, there is no set value for anything. The only value something has is what any individual is willing to pay for it) then he would agree to pay you that much. If not, he would not accept the deal.

Again see examples 1 through 3. We're going round in circles.

Why is economic equality necessary? If someone is rich, that doesn't mean you can't be as well. Laws that regulate the rich do not alleviate poverty. They achieve equality by making everyone equally miserable, not equally wealthy. And capitalism certainly makes everyone better off. Look at any product: computers, cars, medicine. Sure the inventors of all these things got incredibly rich, but because they got incredibly rich we now have all these products that make our lives longer and happier.

Thankfully at no point have I argued that capitalism shouldn't exist but requires its socialist counter part to regulate it and vise versa. These are good points and are certainly things that capitalism can do for us. I just doesn't work for everything.

Laws that regulate the corporations perhaps don't aliviate poverty but they prevent it from worsening. (not saying all such laws do so I fully admit many are damaging)

That is simply not true. My parents both grew up relatively poor. Their parents instilled in them the values of education and hard work, and now they are both successful teachers, as a result of their hard work. I don't know the extent of government aid they received, if they received any, but it was their motive that made them successful, not a government holding their hands. Most of the time, poor people stay poor because they don't value education and hard work and perseverance as much as those who succeed do, not because "the corporations are keeping them down".

And did your parents grow up in a purely capitalist society? No. They didn't "The people who don't appreciate hard work" or indeed "poor people" aren't part of a purely capitalist society. I wont deny there aren't such people but when you create a class divide or indeed worsent an existing one then everyone can be painting with the same brush? Are you saying every working class person doesn't appreciate hard work and perserverance? Then does everyone who udnerstands these things because rich?

And please. " Most of the time, poor people stay poor because they don't value education and hard work and perseverance as much as those who succeed do" A matter of perspective but a highly skewed and utterly wrong one. Most people? This is the kind of mentality that perpetuates a class gap. I come from a working class family and a working class area and I can tell you very damn well that "most poor people" appreciate hard work very well. Infact from their point of view "most rich people" don't appreciate the idea of a hard days work. Who is right? it's situations like this which the term "walk a mile in their shoes" was invented for.

Socialism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" A good is defined as "something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want". I don't believe justice to be an economic want, just like I don't believe freedom to be an economic want. Therefore, I don't believe the administration of justice is socialist. If you believe otherwise, then yes, by your definition of socialism, society does need some of it.

I'm speaking more literally in police and military. Justice is a concept such as health. But for both you have industries surrounding it. In health you have health care, doctors, hospitals and medicin. In justice you have justice care, police, military etc. You already argued that health care shouldn't be socialised and is entitled as a commodity to privatise itself. So in your system what's the difference with justice care? Offing your services to stand up for justice is a tadeable service. You can't have one or the other so which is it?

Life is given to all of us at birth and it is ours, so we are guaranteed life. But medicine, life support machines, doctors, hospitals, and insurance aren't given to us at birth, so we are not guaranteed those. Like I said, those are produced through the efforts of others and are therefore their property. If they were forced to help everyone, they would go out of business and nobody would want to be in the healthcare business and we would all be worse off.

It worked for the NHS. A system I feel has fallen on hard times recently because of privatisation. And life is given to us at birth just like freedom so who has to right to take that away? By holding back the same opportunity for life from selective groups of people you effectively hold lives at ransom. I see no difference between this and the bloke on the cliff offering to safe you for a blow job.

Everyone is entitled to the same crappy education now. I can't presume to know what the situation is in the UK, but here our education system sucks. All the focus is on the kids who want to fuck around and not learn anything, while the smarter kids are left alone, under the assumption that they'll learn regardless. Under capitalism, the worst education option will be similar to this, and probably a bit better. The kids who have the will and intelligence to be great students and have parents who equally value education will be able to afford, maybe not the best option available, but at least one that is suitable. And besides, schools will probably give out scholarships like private colleges do now for those kids whose parents simply can't afford a good education for their kids.

A problem which can just as easily be argued is caused by problems within a system not with a system itself.

You say that the worst schools will be like the American ones now which you paint as being terrible so what insentive is there for that? You supply only "probablies" as a better. The point still remains that a gap will occur and worsen.

As I said before it can be easily argued that the problem exists in the way the system is run not with the system itself. Capitalism isn't a magic fix just as communism wasn't.

As you can see, I didn't post that website to cop out of an argument. I'm still as annoying as ever. I posted that website for the pro-capitalists or the semi-capitalists such as yourself to get some extra ammunition, not to avoid debates with people who are against it.

Then why did you present it as a counter to a debate? Perhaps it simply was a misreading on my part which is fair enough so I will happily retract any statement of a cop out but still. The marxist doctorine presents a great many good points on many of these issues from a socialist point of view.

I think part of the reason that I argue this so much is because I refuse to deal in absoloutes. Nothiong is purely good or bad, Evil and Good, black or white. The point is you argue that socialism is an entirely wrong thing and capitalism is the only right thing yet I find that impossible to believe when so many people can believe in socialism so much and supply equally powerful arguments in its defense as anyone can for capitalism.

[Sacul15]

Lack of power without a meaningful government the power does not exist to stand against a corporate entity. The individual in a capitalist society does not have the same amount of power as a meaningful government to uncover these truths.

I disagree. A consumer can buy a car, and then perform speed and durability tests, or perform benchmarks on a computer, or give a rating of a book, and then publish his data and opinions. What is it exactly that a government can do that an individual can't?

Then why should capitalism be presented as an answer on its own then? And I thing Government should try and better the world in the capacity that it is a gestalt entity of the will and drive of an entire population.

Also one of the main points of capitalism is that it regulates the distribution of services and goods so yeah. It is a form of regulation

The key phrase here is "will and drive of an entire population." Protecting a nation from a foreign invader is in the will of the entire population, as is protecting citizens from criminals, and that is why government has, in my opinion, the right to act. In the area of the production and distribution of goods and service (the realm of the capitalism/socialism argument), no government can possibly act without harming at least one party, and therefore it is not in the interests of the entire population. No person, or majority of people, or 99.99% of people have the right to steal from another party, no matter how "noble" the cause.

In the abstract sense, then yes capitalism is a system of regulation. But in the political and economic sense, it is the absence of all intervention, including government regulation.

Why isn't it when they have done a more then fair amount of work and have been trapped in a situation where they are denied to power to better things?

Once more, you are trying to dictate what is fair and what isn't, or at least you are advocating that a vote be taken to decide what is fair or unfair (democracy). But fairness is an extremely subjective term, and therefore should be decided only by the people who are involved in any particular trade. Imagine if the government told you that you must pay $100 for a game, when the game manufacturer only wants to sell it for $50. Everyone would be outraged about this, but for some reason they aren't when the same injustice is applied to employment.

I don't follow you. By offering a low wage, what right does the company infringe?

Do I really have to copy and past the three seperate examples I've already made?

I meant what inalienable right (The ones defined by Locke and Jefferson: Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness) does the company infringe? I will anticipate you saying life, but feel free to argue any other. The right to life does not mean people must keep you alive. If this were so, everyone would be committing a moral and legal crime when anyone died. The right to life is a right to action. You have the right to do anything in your power to keep yourself alive, so long as you don't violate the rights of others, including growing your own food and medicine or trading for them. No business or other individual can be held responsible if you fail to do this. If you accept a wage that cannot sustain your life, it is your fault, not the fault of the company who hired you.

It's not a fair trade. The tade is completely one sided. You have absoloutly no choice in the matter and are forced into a contract. Again we're back to force. Sure another guy can come along and offer a better offer but what if blow job mountain rescue guy cut all the ropes and support for other climbers? Just like a mining corporation can buy up all the land for a given area and deny that choice? You're stuck in the situation. Die or suck him off. No different then the gun to the legs. Not all force is physical

I still fail to see any force or lack of choice. Yes, any sensible person would choose to save his own life, but that does not mean he cannot choose not to. But for the sake of argument I'll take your side. To combat this "force" your options are:one, allow any type of force, physical or not. If you allow physical force, the man saves the falling man and cuts his leg off (I changed the metaphor, because forced fellatio can get a little uncomfortable for both parties). Obviously, this is not better than what we had. So the alternative, no force allowed whatsoever. The man doesn't think it's worth his time, since he's not getting his dick sucked, so he lets the man die. A third option, you force the man to save the other's life, under the threat of prison, which allows the threat of physical force, and in your words we're back to square one. Now obviously this is a very hypothetical situation, and in the real world if the man could save his life without putting his own at great risk, he should be obligated to, but the case between this and the company's relation to its employees is not the same since this a very immediate threat and there is certainty of death if the man doesn't act but there isn't if the company doesn't act. Kind of went on a tangent there, I apologize.

And did your parents grow up in a purely capitalist society? No. They didn't "The people who don't appreciate hard work" or indeed "poor people" aren't part of a purely capitalist society. I wont deny there aren't such people but when you create a class divide or indeed worsent an existing one then everyone can be painting with the same brush? Are you saying every working class person doesn't appreciate hard work and perserverance? Then does everyone who udnerstands these things because rich?

And please. " Most of the time, poor people stay poor because they don't value education and hard work and perseverance as much as those who succeed do" A matter of perspective but a highly skewed and utterly wrong one. Most people? This is the kind of mentality that perpetuates a class gap. I come from a working class family and a working class area and I can tell you very damn well that "most poor people" appreciate hard work very well. Infact from their point of view "most rich people" don't appreciate the idea of a hard days work. Who is right? it's situations like this which the term "walk a mile in their shoes" was invented for.

Alright, this statement of mine seems rather ignorant and childish so I apologize for it. But the basic premise is the same. Most of the time, perpetuating poverty is the fault of the people themselves, not because of evil corporations. Besides, if your theory is true, that the way corporations are acting now society will end up as the ultra-rich elite and the ultra-poor working class. Any sensible company owner knows that this would be catastrophic. All successful corporations have employees from all over the economic spectrum. You have CEOs and what not from the rich class, managers and administrators from the middle class, and people doing grunt work from the lower class. If all that is left is upper and lower class, the company would fail. Someone from the lower class who is "kept stupid" by the ruling upper-class can't do the work of a manager, and someone from the upper class wouldn't accept that low of a pay. Thus the corporation would collapse.

And that's not to mention the fact that your theory has been proven quite false by history. In the 1800s, the period when America was closest to pure capitalism, and quite possible the closest anyone in the world has ever come, there was a huge growth in the middle class. It was only in the early 20th century, when regulation started becoming more frequent that the gap between upper and lower class widened, and incidentally, but probably not coincidentally, the Great Depression happened.

Capitalism isn't a magic fix just as communism wasn't.

Capitalism doesn't promise to fix anything (though it does, and far better than all other systems), it's only promise is the guaranteed protection of the rights of individuals and groups of individuals. Will it fix poverty? Not immediately, and quite possible never, but it will get far closer than socialism or a mixture of the two will. Will it solve crime? I think that eventually it will, and it certainly will do a better job than a society that allows the seizure of another person's wealth.

I think part of the reason that I argue this so much is because I refuse to deal in absoloutes. Nothiong is purely good or bad, Evil and Good, black or white. The point is you argue that socialism is an entirely wrong thing and capitalism is the only right thing yet I find that impossible to believe when so many people can believe in socialism so much and supply equally powerful arguments in its defense as anyone can for capitalism.

Very few things are absolutes, but some are. Human life is good. Justice is good. Freedom is good. Killing is evil (except when it is in the name of justice). Stealing is evil. I still think that socialism is evil, because it allows stealing under the name of "equality" but in perspective many things could be worse.

Oh yeah, boobs are good. I think everyone would agree that boobs are absolutely good.

[MrTwoVideoCards]

I comment merely because I haven't seen posts as long as these in a Very, very long time, it's good to see Loper's having a very intense and detailed conversation.

[Athlete{UK}]

Once more, you are trying to dictate what is fair and what isn't, or at least you are advocating that a vote be taken to decide what is fair or unfair (democracy). But fairness is an extremely subjective term, and therefore should be decided only by the people who are involved in any particular trade. Imagine if the government told you that you must pay $100 for a game, when the game manufacturer only wants to sell it for $50. Everyone would be outraged about this, but for some reason they aren't when the same injustice is applied to employment.

You've been dictating what is fair and what isn't throughout this entire dicussion. It's partly the point of the discussion tbh. Fairness can and should be decided by the group in the trade but when one group has all the power and the other doesn't then fairness wont prevail. The government needs to exist to supply support for the "lesser" party in a trade. Not supply more power as a purely socialist movement would but to address an imabalance as a mixture would

I meant what inalienable right (The ones defined by Locke and Jefferson: Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness) does the company infringe? I will anticipate you saying life, but feel free to argue any other. The right to life does not mean people must keep you alive. If this were so, everyone would be committing a moral and legal crime when anyone died. The right to life is a right to action. You have the right to do anything in your power to keep yourself alive, so long as you don't violate the rights of others, including growing your own food and medicine or trading for them. No business or other individual can be held responsible if you fail to do this. If you accept a wage that cannot sustain your life, it is your fault, not the fault of the company who hired you.

I genuinly can't supply any more to this and you are still unable to supply anything in the way of rebuttal. The examples speak for themselves.

I still fail to see any force or lack of choice. Yes, any sensible person would choose to save his own life, but that does not mean he cannot choose not to. But for the sake of argument I'll take your side. To combat this "force" your options are:one, allow any type of force, physical or not. If you allow physical force, the man saves the falling man and cuts his leg off (I changed the metaphor, because forced fellatio can get a little uncomfortable for both parties). Obviously, this is not better than what we had. So the alternative, no force allowed whatsoever. The man doesn't think it's worth his time, since he's not getting his dick sucked, so he lets the man die. A third option, you force the man to save the other's life, under the threat of prison, which allows the threat of physical force, and in your words we're back to square one. Now obviously this is a very hypothetical situation, and in the real world if the man could save his life without putting his own at great risk, he should be obligated to, but the case between this and the company's relation to its employees is not the same since this a very immediate threat and there is certainty of death if the man doesn't act but there isn't if the company doesn't act. Kind of went on a tangent there, I apologize.[/quote]

So dying there and then and dying in a week when you can't afford food or water aren't the same thing? Right. Yes I should supply more to back the view up but if you'll reread examples 1 through 3 it's all there.

Alright, this statement of mine seems rather ignorant and childish so I apologize for it. But the basic premise is the same. Most of the time, perpetuating poverty is the fault of the people themselves, not because of evil corporations. Besides, if your theory is true, that the way corporations are acting now society will end up as the ultra-rich elite and the ultra-poor working class. Any sensible company owner knows that this would be catastrophic. All successful corporations have employees from all over the economic spectrum. You have CEOs and what not from the rich class, managers and administrators from the middle class, and people doing grunt work from the lower class. If all that is left is upper and lower class, the company would fail. Someone from the lower class who is "kept stupid" by the ruling upper-class can't do the work of a manager, and someone from the upper class wouldn't accept that low of a pay. Thus the corporation would collapse.

And that's not to mention the fact that your theory has been proven quite false by history. In the 1800s, the period when America was closest to pure capitalism, and quite possible the closest anyone in the world has ever come, there was a huge growth in the middle class. It was only in the early 20th century, when regulation started becoming more frequent that the gap between upper and lower class widened, and incidentally, but probably not coincidentally, the Great Depression happened.

Your theory has been proven false by history. From the 60's to the 80's in the UK (and several other key points in history but the 80s being the easiest for people to recall) The UK was the closest it has ever been to pure capitalism. As a result the menial workers were subject to the corporation who began to abuse them and their rights. when trying to unionise they were denied this power by the government who was far more friendly to the corporations (yes in capitalisim the corporation and government don't exist side by side but in this instance they removed power from the worker but didn't award any more power to the corporation. Essentially they acted as a proxie for a capitalist ideal.)

Without this power the workers when attempting to unionised were pushed back and utterly decimated. As a result they all lost their jobs poverty became the rule of thumb for all the working classes. A class divide deepened and worsened and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Things only changed for the better when a socialist movement supplied power back to those at the bottom to redress the balance.

Capitalism doesn't promise to fix anything (though it does, and far better than all other systems), it's only promise is the guaranteed protection of the rights of individuals and groups of individuals. Will it fix poverty? Not immediately, and quite possible never, but it will get far closer than socialism or a mixture of the two will. Will it solve crime? I think that eventually it will, and it certainly will do a better job than a society that allows the seizure of another person's wealth.

and who said these things were absolouts? You;ve failed to prove that it is far better then any other system. I've giving many examples where it does not protect the rights of the individuals and you've been unable to provide any meaningful counter to this.

It will do better then socialism or a mixture? Well thanks for the dead cert there. Will it solve crime when it allows for the siezure of ones rights in a soziety when power is stacked on one side? Again i refer you to the examples.

Very few things are absolutes, but some are. Human life is good. Justice is good. Freedom is good. Killing is evil (except when it is in the name of justice). Stealing is evil. I still think that socialism is evil, because it allows stealing under the name of "equality" but in perspective many things could be worse.

Oh yeah, boobs are good. I think everyone would agree that boobs are absolutely good.

I agree with all those things. (but not for killing in the name of justice)

I think capitalism is "evil" because it allows for the power in a society to be wieled by one group of people and denies power to the others just as pure socialism does. As such allows for abuse including theft.

Gays probably dissagree with you.

Now you probably noticed I skipped a whole chunk of your rebuttal. The reason being you are still unable to provide any meaningful rebuttals beyond "you're wrong." I am actually now going in circles just reiterating myself every time you present something.

I'm going away for a while so I wont be here to continue this debate but regardless I think my point of view stands up for itself perfectly well and I really can't add anything further to it. I'll leave it to stand as it is.