Capitalism is barely above feudalism. Look at history. Feudalism changed into Capitalism which changed into Democracy. Capitalism does not need Democracy to exist. Why would a Capitalist care about anything collective? Why would Wendy's care about anything other then hamburgers? Who do you expect to feed the poor and educate the children and other members of society that can not provide their labor for a living? Hm?

The answer, being few, has already been well demonstrated.

Anyways, Capitalism being a virtual feudal system, which existence you seem to be arguing for, I believe.

The numbers game of rich mostly staying rich, the poor poor, and wealth undeniably centering in the hands of a few results in a system where, for an increasing majority, one will be born in to where one dies. Feudalism basically, everyone in their place.
It seems so simple that for those such as MerlinX argue against it is madness.

Branson for instance-simpler beginings then he could provide his own son. Say his son is not as skilled as he, not has gifted. At the same time a man with the same gifts as Branson had, coming from the same background, pits himself against Branson's son. The wealth of the father gives an unnatural advantage to the son.
Statistically, logically, the gifted youngster will not fly as high as Branson has. Success, wealth, determined not by ability but by wealth already had. As wealth funnels evre more to the wealthy it wil only become harder for change. Virtual Fedalism. Enjoy.

Exactly my point Ronin. I am not even arguing for Socialism here, I am simply looking at some of the bright points of Socialism. Socialism is more of a point of view then anything, because if you are the dirt poor, it increases your chance of becoming a successful member of society. If you are rich, you sure as hell won't like it, and you will move to another country where you can get away with more crap, or just find your way around taxes, which is, of course, the fundamental flaw of the system to begin with, along with the inherint corruption in government and humanity in general. lol. Even so though, I mean, if I were to choose being born at the bottom of the U.S. in comparison to being born at the bottom of the barrel of Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Germany, and even France (God forbid, I hate the French) etc., I would have to pick the later countries as they offer a greater chance to jump through hoops...I mean, Switzerland has the best science per capita out of any country by far, and Japan can make a microwave out of a toaster oven, so the incentives are actually there for the average person to make a name for themselves, which is why there is less of a feel for a need for crime, as people have more hope to achieve in those types of systems....if the whole world adopted those types of standards, Socialism would be able to occur, but until that time, we have to wait for these other countries to play catch up until the poor everywhere become enlightened and the rich have no where left to run too.

That the only thing allowing us to continue our wasteful way of life is the world's poor? If they suddenly became wealthy (read: industrialized), we'd all be screwed because resource consumption would skyrocket, which means we each get less of the pie.

Look no further than China or India. They're industrializing and driving up demand for oil, which hurts the American middle class more than anyone.

If you want equality for all, you better be willing to sacrifice a massive drop in your standard of living. There is simply no way to support billions of people living on American middle class standards. It's nothing more than a hopelessly idealistic dream.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Which is why I am Buddhist to a great extent...happiness comes from within. Actually though, a lot of the world's problems come from overpopulation, destruction of forests, and extinction of species, and these are often found in third world countries. Not only that...but I think the future will be much more efficient. Ex. solar lighting is supposed to be DRAMATICALLY cheaper and more efficient in a mere 20 years, so we won't even have power lines, and by that time, we'll have cars that won't even need fuel. Forget fuel cells...you could just recharge it at a station or in your solar powered house for much cheaper. Desalinization and other things are coming up too...so it is possible for the world to enjoy our standard of living if technology is allowed to evolve. That's actually one of the problems with Capitalism today, it doesn't evolve fast enough and it consumes too much. For example, HVDs--ever heard of them? They are under development right now, and they can hold 1 terabyte of data on them. Even so, we haven't even seen Blu Ray or HDVDs on the scene yet, which can only hold a mere 16 gigs of data. Totoyota produced a common rail diesal electric hybrid a couple years ago that got 130 mpg. The tech is there, the investment simply is not...not because they couldn't make a profit, but because they couldn't make as big of a profit. Blu Ray disc format can sell tons of new DVD players in between, increase profits, and Toyota can just sit on their butts and wait for US automakers to catch up. I don't blame them for milking a product for all it's worth, as they have stock holders and such to worry about, just saying...

...are you so full of yourself. We don't live in your perfect world, never have and never will, but I'll bet you a dollar for donut that America's way is a much more equatable way than anything that has worked in the past. Can we improve? Absolutely, but not by socially engineering everyone to every equal level. It is the diversity of our abilities that make it possible for anyone to achieve themselves to whatever level they choose, and that will never happen in a communist or socialist environment. Never has, and never will.

If it hurts enough maybe it will force us to switch resources. We should not be dependent on our enemies for our fuel anyway. I see this as a good thing.

Er...unless we produce more or find new sources of energy. We've done it before.

Your brand of pessimism is exactly why the other nations will continue to trail behind us.

America's way might be more equitable then most of the past, but not in comparison to certain countries as far as providing oppurtunites. Who ever said that we should socially engineer everyone to an equal level? I'm not talking about creating some army of clones and cyborgs, lmao. All I'm saying is that, frankly, privatization is only good for so much, and more frankly, that the United States, despite our vast amount of wealth, does not provide as good as oppurtunities for the poor among us as Socialist countries. Their economy over all may or may not be equal to ours thanks to inherint flaws in humanity, but at the very least, they provide the minimal requirements for human life for all well enough, have low crime rates, and educate their people much better then anything the U.S. has to offer, despite our advantage in monetary resources. Actually, their educational systems do quite the opposite as far as making everyone equal; they split students up into group a. the morons who pour concrete, and group b. the people who have a chance of becoming doctors. However, even so, the moron school is still better then the average American school. It's not very hard to see that, tons of studies have been done. What od you mean that people can not achieve in Socialist countries? Japan and Switzerland are both more advanced then the United States in technological areas, and many countries in Europe are more advanced in technical art. Their housing isn't as cheap as ours, and their food is more expensive, but that is simply market economics in both countries as they don't have much space and import a great deal of their products. Overall, however, by standards of quality of life, both countries are ahead of the United States in most respects, especially Switzerland. They have the same standard of living and only use half as much energy as the U.S. Think about that. Throwing money at the problem and such isn't going to solve anything--look at Iraq--but when it comes right down to it, these countries both have very efficient domestic programs, which make the U.S. look like a joke, even though our economy is about twice the size of theirs, and even though we could virtually create the same programs with the tax money we have currently. It's not cause they are Socialist, it's cause they are efficient. End of story. Even so, people always ask to name a country where Socialism is successful--so there you go, I've named two.

...a contradiction of terms. Switzerland is not a socialist government, it is a federal republic, and Japan is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government. Your entire post is opinionated hyperbole. There are no limitations on what achievements Americans can have, I will agree there are some wonderful things from other countries especially Switzerland and Japan that America could adopt to enhance our greatness, but you sell America short as being some evil empire. Your myopic view of America is so dangerous, because it really allows the true evil in the world to continue to exist(Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria...plus many more). When you dictate choice, you will relinquish all personal control...yes you, Mr. Robot-o.

I suppose that depends on how you define minimal. I cant think of anywhere in America where the homeless do not have access to food, shelter, and education.

Vouchers would level that playing field IMO. How do foreign schools compare with American private schools?

In any event, our horrible educational system does not appear to have prevented us from dominating them economically and technologically. Even with their superior education they cant seem to keep up.

Huh? By what criteria?

Strange then that so many people are still flocking to the US. Do you have any statistics on how many US citizens are moving to Europe?

Actually, throwing money did work. We get Saddam out, and a democracy in.