Do You Prefer Capitalism or Socialism?

I reject the very idea of calling people who need help "parasites".

 

Me too. That is crank's idea. The people I call parasites are the ones who could run, but prefer to be carried, and are legally entitled to force others to carry them.

 

Which is?

 

Once again, FOR EXAMPLE?

 

A good example is when Biden ripped to shreds a top rated pipeline to spite Trump. And virtually opened the border which he sneaks in using surrogates he is sending them back. Why are Governors saying Biden sends to them to him?

 

True.

That's also true. The problem is that capitalism does solve some problems that some other systems that have been tried do not solve. At this point it is hard to tell if the problems that capitalism can't solve but didn't cause are bigger than the ones it can't solve because it caused them.

 

Anyone who feels entitled to the fruits of the labour of others, without themselves first labouring for those fruits, is a 'parasite'. The collective cannot carry them any more than an individual can. A collective can only carry those who've first laboured for their share of the land/resources.

More importantly, no collective can ever work if members are reluctant to carry those who can no longer run.

 

No, our social safety net is only ONE of the areas where capitalism has no answers, yet we need solutions.

 

You mean Welfare recipients who don't use Welfare for its intended purpose (to build a pathway out of poverty)?

 

The biggest one is the problem of reconciling the equal individual liberty rights of all to use what nature provided for all with the individual property rights of those who produce fixed improvements to land by their labor.

 

Like slave owners, you mean?

 

No, I mean people who own others' rights to liberty through land titles, patents and copyrights, bank licenses, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, etc.

 

Absolutely.

Capitalism has proven to be a big winner when there is a problem to be solved and a reward for solving it. We have CRAZY good TVs, for example. And, I can get an totally unbelievable array of stuff delivered to me tomorrow by typing a few keystrokes. No other system could possibly do that.

I'm a big fan of capitalism.

But, history proves that capitalism absolutely requires regulation and that there are problems that we have to solve, but capitalism can not solve.

 

A social safety net is first and foremost a SOCIAL obligation. If it wasn't, no one would survive in desperately poor nations.

And on the contrary, a social safety net is actually enhanced by capitalism. When people are disencentivised (via Welfare) to seek their own safety and security, they will stop seeking it .. which has terrible repercussions for those who come after them. When we're incentivised to secure our future, everyone wins. IOW, the social safety net remains strong and intact.

 

FOR EXAMPLE?

 

It can and does. The labor of a modern worker, collective or otherwise, is orders of magnitude more productive than the labor of his ancestor of a few hundred years ago. Yet his ancestor survived to reproduce. What on earth is happening to all the additional wealth the modern worker produces?

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

Nonsense. An advanced democracy is a collective that can support a vast cohort of rich, greedy, privileged parasites at a level of luxury, ease, and security that kings of yore would have envied.

Those who can run can easily support those who cannot -- but not if they are also forced to carry those who could run but prefer to be carried, and are legally entitled to force others to carry them.

 

This is where things get TOTALLY ridiculous.

Nobody in the USA is interested in moving to a socialist system.

We are capitalists. So is Europe. So is Australia. So is Japan. So is Mexico. Etc.

 

I'll just mention roads.

 

Yes, and?

The Welfare State is a product of Capitalism.

 

Check. Anything else?

 

Wrong. The geoist system pioneered by Hong Kong since the 1840s and adopted by China around 1980 is clearly able to do it, too.

It's clearly better than everything that went before -- mercantilism, feudalism, primitive despotism, village communism, etc. -- as well as socialism. But it is inferior to geoism.

Right. But geoism can.

 

When it yields superior results, it should by all means be used. This whole ""dont care if it can sometimes yield superior results is nonsense. I said no such thing. I implied no such thing. No matter, you will give another nonsensical reply, and this point will once again be lost unless I go scan back to this extraordinarily long diatribe to find what was originally said and the repeat in a pedantic manner until which point nobody is bothering to follow the conversation and the fcat that I just proved you wrong AGAIN will be entirely lost....which is basically a metaphor for every conversation you have with every poster on this board. You do not do much in the arena of ideas but in your imaginary war of attrition I am sure that you fancy yourself winning when people finally and inevitably tire of your nonsense and move on before you write another half page reply that nobody wants to bother reading.

LOL. You rant. You repeat the same platitudes across many conversations. You call people eveil. You obfuscate (see above). Do you "prove" otjer peoples beliefs to be wrong?......Not so much (not at all).

So you are not using the actual definition of monopoly, you instead use some off his rocker authors false usage of the term and then act like everyone is supposed to speak that same silly language.

So you dont like patents and copyrights either? Yeesh. You have an off the wall economic ideology indeed. Thankfully, people spouting your same ideology are infinitessimally small and limited to the lunatic fringe or we would all be in trouble.

If you are going to follow unconventional uses of the word monopoly, you can make it mean virtually anything. At this point you are speaking a different language and not understandning even the most basic tenets of what I said to you, and thus your response is out in la la land due to your lack of understanding.

Nobody said one thing about prices and quantity. I was referring to incentive to be productive by the individual, and not a supply and demand curve. If you had made even the most minimal effort to actually listen you would know this. But you do not. You do not listen. You only wait for your next chance to rant. That is what you do.

...in your twisted misinformed definition of monopoly.

Yes...EVIL AROUND EVERY CORNER.....WE GET IT......ad the beat goes on and on and on and on and on. You would be a smashing success if not for those damned capitalists holding you back from greatness Boo Hoo.

....Boo Hoo

More evil. IT IS EVERYWHERE!

More evil!!!!

We cant be having any damned success around here! This is an outrage!

So let me get this straight. You are concerned about BREVITY? That is downright hilarious! One can rest assured that you simply did not want to address it because if one thing os for certain, you have zero concern for brevity. If one wants to research this claim they only need to look at the last 10 pages in this thread and look at the absurd length of every one of your posts.

Yes I know.......your lack of success is due to the government not wiping your butt. Anyone that says otherwise is EVIL.

Drainage of wetlands? Sounds like a good use of government. Yes, such situations exist. That doesnt mean we need to abolish the most efficient and successful economic system in the history of the world.

Your definition of proof is not all that credible as proved in the totality of our conversation.

Oh yes. Your brilliance again, and your keen eye for evil. We get it.

You do have an off the wall ideology. On THAT, we AGREE!

 

You are ranting excessively about evil again?....LOL. How does this not getting exhausting for you? Yada yada... WE GET IT!

 

Capitalism. Free market enterprise. I want the ability to work hard and make smart choices to end up better than you.

 

Sincerely, I suspect you do not understand his true position. It is not anywhere near the mainstream of the left.