You can't have capitalism without socialism.

Socialism was tried during the pilgrim days at Plymouth Plantation, it was a total FAIL.

 

As far as I know there are no purely socialist countries. With that said there is no flawless system of government thus all systems of government are "inherently flawed".

Opinion, just like you. And I never said "all forums" of government but I can see how the assumption could be made as I did not use limiting terms. But most governments are only as good as its leaders, including capitalism and socialism.

The quality of life and overall happiness is higher in some European countries that by American standards are often ironically labeled as socialist when in reality the countries are an amalgam of socialist and capitalist ideals.

Indeed as it is an amalgam of socialist and capitalist ideals.

 

Bernie Sanders have very good ideas for this country.

 

Sure, but some systems are more flawed than others.

that simply isn't true. There are different incentives built into systems. A system which incentivices dishonesty and corruption is not as gooda s one which doesn't, for example. To say they are all equally viable is just nonsense.

not a single country in europe is socialist though, so that is irrelevant.

All the scandinavian countries have capitalist economies. What successful socialists countries were you referring to?

 

And who gets to decide for all which is what and by what authority?

An object less in the subjectivity of sense. All governmental systems have corruption as they are managed by fallible humans. Some more than others but again who gets to decide for all which is what and by what authority?

Nor is a single country in Europe purely capitalist, so the above is moot.

Asked, answered, and apparently rejected, why continue to beat a dead horse?

 

Who gets to decide anything? how do we know it's wrong to murder? How do I know new zealand exists since I haven't been there? how do I know reality exists? or truth? This will inevitably lead to a pointless relativist and nihilist discussion unless you simply accept the notion that some systems can be superior to others, and if you do, I will ask, what are you criteria? naem your criteria, and we can have a reasonable discussion. If you don't, this is pointless.

see above.

Purity doesn't matter. Either a country is capitalist or it isn't. Europe is capitalist.

You didn't answer, because you haven't named a socialist country yet.

 

Obamacare is not socialism and we do not live in socialistic society. A socialism society is where everyone works and everyone benefits equally for the common good of their society. No one gets rich as wealth is equally divided among its individuals in its society. Just because we have a welfare system does not mean we are socialist. The reason why we pay welfare benefits is to keep these people from a revolution or attacking those that have more. It is so you can walk out your front door every day without fear that you may get attacked by someone who is hungry.

I am so sick of people stating we are socialists when they have no clue what a socialist society is.

 

See, rather than try to combine the two, offer something completely different that would still fall under that central portion of the economic spectrum. I would say that the State should control the economy, but not in the sense that the state owns the business, but in the sense that businesses simply work for the State, if you understand that. This would make the problem of unequal distribution of wealth easy to resolve because the State can just go in and fix a problem, and makes the idea of left wing economies and the lack of work ethic disappear because everything is still motivated by the collection of wealth to the individual. This, however, is only compatible with an authoritative, fascist government.

 

And that's why it's not an alternative.

 

The individual thus the assessment is subjective.

It harms another yet what constitutes harm is relative to the individual thus subjective.

I trust that the info that New Zealand exists is good and will default to that view untill conflicting evidence is presented at which time I will assess its validity.

Reality is measured by our fallible senses thus we have at best an approximate of reality that may or may not be inline with an actual reality.

Truth is the expression of an honest statement or belief and is not synonymous with fact.

Just as pointless as universalism. We live in a relativist world where sadly too many think in universal absolutes then argue said absolutes in web forums. Even I absolutely argue that life is relative to the individual thus the irony of realitivism having a universal aspect.

Pot meet kettle as the same questions should be answered by you. I base my views upon my limited research of governmental systems. I see pros and cons in all systems of government and I realize that from person to person assessment of said pros and cons will vary thus is subjective. So perhaps now you can answer your own questions in the above quote?

You have source citation to back the above claim or it that just your opinion?

I did answer, just not to your satisfaction.

 

You have it the other way around. Socialism requires capitalism because socialists need to tax profits. Since socialists are incapable of producing anything, they require a host to leech off of. This parasitical relationship is crucial for socialism to thrive, otherwise you end up with a lot of bodies and no money to buy body bags.

 

point is, that in order to have any meaningful discussion on anything, we need to just assume that some things are true. For example, we need to assume that reality is real. We can't prove everything, and one shouldn't have to get into pointless philosophical arguments just to prove a point about economics. Either you accept the notion that some systems can be superior or you don't. if you don't, there's nothing to discuss because we can't discuss the superiority of certain systems if you deny the very notion of superiority.

no it isn't. The truth is the truth, synonymous with fact, not with sincerity. One can honestly believe something which isn't true.

You didn't ask that. You asked who decides, not how it is decided. Those are different. If you are going to insist that there are only subjective views on this, it's pointless to discuss.

Since I suspect you are only going to tell me any source is just subjective anyways, and that everyone has their own truth, why even bother. no, I don't have a source, I have my own reasoning. i don't need to point to others to prove such an obvious thing. The laws of capitalism applies in europe, therefore it's capitalist.

it was an invalid answer. You might as well have answered "potato".

 

How do you reconcile the above with the below?

If truth is as you claim synonymous with fact then what need would there be for assumption?

I reject your binary assessment as it does not allow for any other possibility. My argument is that any system of government is only as good as its leaders thus some capitalist systems will be better or worse than other capitalist systems and said assessment is relative to the individual thus subjective. I can argue absolutes but my view does not typify that of all humanity thus the subjectivity.

Then it is fortunate that I do not argue the above as my argument is that said assessment is relative to the individual thus subjective.

If the above is true then how is it that those who disagree can have anything but a pointless discussion? Every time you and I disagree is evidence to me of the subjectivity of individual assessment.

At last common ground.

 

the best system includes the best of all systems and doesn't limit themselves to any one system

 

The only socialism needed is that which is voluntary. That leaves the Federal government out. Social programs are OK on the State level as you can move if you dont like them.

 

Not the way its done today. The lawyers n congress have managed to get around the constitution and tax you for working. You should only be taxed on profit not on compensation for working. Thats slavery

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly we are way over the 1% being socialist.

 

Capitalism cannot exist without government intervention.

 

To questions such as: do morals, truth, reality or even I exist? My position is: I don't know and I can't prove anything, but I will just assume they all exist because that is convinient. There are some things which you simply must accept to be true. Your whole understanding of reality is made up of tiny pieces of truths that support and justify eachother, like the bricks of a big tower, but at the very base of the tower you find such fundamental truths that aren't supported by anything, but are just assumed to be true. The existance of truth, reality and yourself are such fundamental bricks. when we are discussing economics, we are not talking about the base of the tower. We are several stories up the tower. What I'm saying is that, for us to discuss economics, we should worry about the truth-bricks that are near the level we are on, not worry about the ones near the base of the tower, because otherwise we'd enver get any sensible discussions done. Do you understand the metaphor?

That is not a valid reason for rejection. What if there aren't any other possibilities?

You are missing the point. We are comparing the systems, not the leaders.

One could just say that everything is subjective and then call it a day. or, we could assume what humanity as a whole on average would consider to be "good" results, and judge capitalism and socialism accordingly.

 

It is not the underprivileged that are fed up with not enough free stuff, it is the college educated and young professionals. They are a product of a very poor education system that have no clue about the Socialist failures that Sanders wants to emulate.

 

To me the above is an argument of logic, but I argue that logic is only as good as its premise. If the premise is not solid then neither is that which is based upon it. I am betting that we are not operating from the same premise thus the disagreement.

Moot point as there is as I previously discussed.

And what are those systems without its leaders? Who built those systems if not leaders? Government is an inanimate entity without its leaders. Do you see ideologies such as capitalist and socialist as one dimensional ideals? I do not, I see them in many shades of grey.

Indeed we could, and your point is? Is the right view based on "what humanity as a whole on average would consider to be "good" results"? I would say no as right and wrong should not be based upon popular opinion.

 

Yeah,, capitalism eliminated poverty.

I'm arguing for a mixed economy that is primarily capitalist.

You don't have to make anyone "get ahead". How about helping them get the opportunity to get ahead? Without help, many people get stuck on the wrong side of the income gap.

 

We're in agreement on that much. Not that that is what you're arguing for, haha, but in that that is what is best.

So to get down to what is the most best, just how much socialism do you think is appropriate? Because I really don't think what Sanders is advocating is capitalism heavy.

 

you don't have to work. why not quit, get an ebt card, and have some steak and lobster, for a change.

 

What is already delegated by the People in our federal Constitution.

We should not be running massive deficits; our federal Congress has recourse to an official Mint. The only problem seems to be, their own lack of Faith in Capitalism.

 

Stop it! You don't know what you are talking about. If I ask you, which of these two racing cars is better, and you tell me it depends on the drivers.. Do you see how you are missing the point??

There can be shades of grey on a one dimensional spectrum! what are you even talking about?..

Fine, nut unless you assume there is some objective "good" we can refer to, you have just made any discussion about wheter something is good or not sompletely pointless. If no absolute good exist, if the collective view doesn't matter, if everything is just subjective.. This is pointless.