Pure capitalism does not work, nor exist. People like to look at the USA as a pure capitalist economy, yet it isn't. Try and operate surgery on someone without a license. You will likely get sued. Drinking water? Controlled by gov't. Fire + police departments? Also government.
A lot of these things, like drinking water, must be controlled by the gov't, or else problems will arise. And certainly, all but the most extreme libertarians would argue that we need regulation that prevents companies from outright lying about their products. Yet this would go opposed to capitalism.
However, you definitely need the incentive for people to work hard. Capitalism solves this problem by offering financial incentive. So pure socialism or communism doesn't work either.
Thus, the only question is how much of socialism versus capitalism should be present? Clearly, you need a bit of both, but should society be geared more towards socialism, or capitalism? I don't think that there is an easy answer to this question.

FirmusPiett
Btw

Greybolta capitalist government would have the government participating in private affairs and manipulating the economy. It's better for capitalism to have to operate around the government than to be integral.

That is called corporatism and it is what they have now; virtually everywhere. Furthermore, the conclusion to the second sentence is again corporatism. Finally, a socialist government that allows for a private sector ('mixed economy') also results in inevitable corporatism. Corporatism is also known as fascism.

Objection: If what I described is corporatism, it is not fascism. Fascism is a radical-right authoritarian ideal; under it, corporations would not have the ability to exist unless they were permitted by the governing body.

There is no contest for anybody who meets these two conditions:
1 - Is consistent in their understanding and application of the philosophy of politics.
2 - Does not condone or accept the initiation of violence.

I meet the two above conditions (yay) so I am obviously in favour of capitalism.

Capitalism, aka free trade, voluntarism etc. is simply the result of the absence of coercion in human interactions. It is when two people decide that they would like something of value from each other which they can exchange for something they don't want themselves.

Government is a collective of people who exert, through a monopoly on force (i.e. guns and armies), and reserve the right to use force against the people under them. The violence of the individual is called crime while the violence of the state is known as 'law and order'.

Capitalism aligns with the bedrock principle of non-violence, while the state goes against it completely.

Btw

Greybolta capitalist government would have the government participating in private affairs and manipulating the economy. It's better for capitalism to have to operate around the government than to be integral.

That is called corporatism and it is what they have now; virtually everywhere. Furthermore, the conclusion to the second sentence is again corporatism. Finally, a socialist government that allows for a private sector ('mixed economy') also results in inevitable corporatism. Corporatism is also known as fascism.

Capitalism by far.
As stated many times in this thread, Communism doesn't work unless the government is totalitarian.
Same with Socialism.
Also, mixing in Socialism is never a good idea.
Take Germany for example.
They use capitalism for their economy, since thats what works. However, they have socialist laws, such as each family is only allowed to have a certain amount of televisions, laptops, etc. They don't even think a family should have one for each member. As a result, they are very totalitarian. They hate homeschoolers because then they can't be indoctrinated from an early age, much like laws in the USA become more and more restrictive against homeschoolers each year. They won't allow anything speaking against the government, there is massive censorship of news, etc, and the government is essentially an aristocracy, just like the USA is becoming.

tela's simple breakdown of economic and governmental beliefs:
Communism: Doesn't work. Take Russia and China: over 100 million deaths.
Dictatorships: Hitler. enough said.
Aristocracy: British Empire (with input from king), was one of the most brutal and sadistic empires of all time, but this history is not taught. simply google 'british atrocities' and you will be disgusted by how censored everything is these days.
Socialism: sounds amazing, but as there will always be people who work, and people who laze, it will never work except when freedom is taken from the people.
Capitalism: used to work until the USA elected socialists who ruined it over the last 50+ years.
back in the early 1900's, the the largest oil company in the world was forced to split by the US government. Two of the companies, Exxon, and Mobil, have rejoined to create a monopoly in many areas of the country again.
Comcast is a monopoly.
Verizon is a monopoly.
AT&T is a monopoly.
the list goes on and on.
But these monopolies have bought the votes of most of our government, and thus nothing will ever happen to them.

Tl;dr
Capitalism rocks, Socialism leads to concentration camps, same with Communism.

Socialism. Too much freedom in a market eliminates freedom altogether, due to large conglomerates and monopolies so dominating a market that no other business can be started. Example: Most capitalistic countries, especially America with the birth of the corporation.

Alright, just joining the thread so I'm replying to the original poster.

This question is dependent on whether we should factor in independent economic decisions, is it not?

A socialist state can exist with a private capitalist sector; the government doesn't have to recognize it.

I'm for a socialist government; a capitalist government would have the government participating in private affairs and manipulating the economy. It's better for capitalism to have to operate around the government than to be integral.

I'd say something between socialism and capitalism. A mixed economy where services like schools, hospitals and such can be owned by the state and are free, while the rest are owned by companies. More equality without destroying economy completely. I think that's the way to go even if it means higher taxes. Definitely not communism, though. And if i were to choose between 100% capitalism and 100% socialism, i'd choose capitalism for sure.

Scandinavia FTW!!! Wooh!

GeekyPaul

Zach2039Equality in America means that the individual has the equal opportunity to make something of themselves. No one should feel entitled to anyone else's hard earned money.

I've got an idea for how to "fix" capitalism. It's going to sound really bad on paper, but pay attention and judge after careful consideration.

The problem with the "equality" aspect of capitalism is that it's just not realistic; most people have a different amount of opportunity depending on the environment they grew up in. Basically, I'm proposing a system where children are taken from their parents at birth and raised more or less equally, with the costs paid for by "tax dollars".

Click to reveal

Money would be collected based off a a graduated income tax, multiplied proportionally to the number of children the payer had. It's unfair not to charge people more if they have, for example, seven children compare to someone with zero children.

That way, nobody would struggle through childhood in a poor family, or start off life with a large sum of money. Everyone would have acess to the same educational opportunities, limited not by their upbringing, but by their intelligence and will to learn. Everyone would face face the same challenges and either overcome them in their own way by sheer power of will, or fail (and possibly be assisted). It's great... as long as you ignore the fact that children are taken from their parents at birth. Well, maybe visiting could be arranged. I'm not that cruel!

This would not work, parents would never agree to let their children away like that. Forcing such a thing could easily start a civil war over human rights, also the country demanding it would most likely lose all respect in the democratic society.

A country proposing this idea automatically says "From now on, it's dictatorship".


If the world war fair then humans would not exist, we are the most unfairly developed creature on this planet.

About equality, i'd say Finland is the first country to reach even close to it. Children get free education, free health care, you get food in school every day for free.

Thats the closest to equality we can get before messing things up, and in Finland people pay huge taxes, almost 50% of their earnings go to taxes which support the fair system.

none,slugnati will rule all

I thought about offering my thoughts... then I realized that I am on a Minecraft community site which has nothing to do with this topic at all and realized that most of the people who are answering this will be biased and not have any real knowledge of the subject at all and pretend that what they google'd the minute before posting must have been right xD

Eh, capitalism. Not perfect, but what else is there? Communism has failed many times and in the societies it persists in there's usually a very low life quality. I mean, look at North Korea or China. I dislike the idea of monarchies because I don't see how one person is magically the leader and is better than everyone else because they have "royal blood". Fascism is an outright bad idea as well, or how its been used anyways. Socialisms work well and countries using them seem to have the highest living standards... While I think capitalisms are good I wonder how a Social Democracy would be. I'd think anywhere in the middle of the spectrum would be best. My favorite would still have to be capitalism though.

Honestly I think a good blend of capitalism and socialism is perfect. Scandinavia has it just right.

GeekyPaul

Zach2039Equality in America means that the individual has the equal opportunity to make something of themselves. No one should feel entitled to anyone else's hard earned money.

I've got an idea for how to "fix" capitalism. It's going to sound really bad on paper, but pay attention and judge after careful consideration.

The problem with the "equality" aspect of capitalism is that it's just not realistic; most people have a different amount of opportunity depending on the environment they grew up in. Basically, I'm proposing a system where children are taken from their parents at birth and raised more or less equally, with the costs paid for by "tax dollars".

Click to reveal

Money would be collected based off a a graduated income tax, multiplied proportionally to the number of children the payer had. It's unfair not to charge people more if they have, for example, seven children compare to someone with zero children.

That way, nobody would struggle through childhood in a poor family, or start off life with a large sum of money. Everyone would have acess to the same educational opportunities, limited not by their upbringing, but by their intelligence and will to learn. Everyone would face face the same challenges and either overcome them in their own way by sheer power of will, or fail (and possibly be assisted). It's great... as long as you ignore the fact that children are taken from their parents at birth. Well, maybe visiting could be arranged. I'm not that cruel!

Hell would freeze over before that would happen, and for good reason. xD

I can see what you're saying but the first time you tried to collect my daughter I'd collect your head! I wouldn't trust the state to try and raise children in bulk.
Because in the typical capitalist society it'd go to the lowest bidder.

Zach2039Equality in America means that the individual has the equal opportunity to make something of themselves. No one should feel entitled to anyone else's hard earned money.

I've got an idea for how to "fix" capitalism. It's going to sound really bad on paper, but pay attention and judge after careful consideration.

The problem with the "equality" aspect of capitalism is that it's just not realistic; most people have a different amount of opportunity depending on the environment they grew up in. Basically, I'm proposing a system where children are taken from their parents at birth and raised more or less equally, with the costs paid for by "tax dollars". That way, nobody would struggle through childhood in a poor family, or start off life with a large sum of money. Everyone would have acess to the same educational opportunities, limited not by their upbringing, but by their intelligence and will to learn. Everyone would face face the same challenges and either overcome them in their own way by sheer power of will, or fail (and possibly be assisted). It's great... as long as you ignore the fact that children are taken from their parents at birth. Well, maybe visiting could be arranged. I'm not that cruel!

All forms of government and economy for all countries, nations, states, etc. fail eventually. No system is perfect. Therefore I'll go with the one that allows me personally more opportunities than the others: capitalism.

Not only is communism not possible (it has never worked once) it's doesn't "sound nice" on paper, fry cooks in no way deserve as much money as doctors and scientists.

Liberals may think otherwise, but liberals need to settle down and understand not everybody is equally deserving of money, or anything for that matter. Not everybody is equal in general.

I'm pretty sure "Communism" is just the term that Westerners use for Socialism. Aside that, Capitalism ftw (Hong Kong and Macau )

Communism is a great idea theoretically. However, this requires having some very powerful people (or a dictator) in charge. They will become corrupt sooner or later.

Dictatorship would be great for a lot of countries but only if corruption didn't exist.

The downside of having a government like the one we have in the UK is that nothing ever gets done.

Definitely would go with Capitalism, as all others haven't proven themselves worthy of actually working properly.

Monarchy barely worked, especially in Europe.

Jex_InfiniteThis is going to be locked soon, probably due to my presence.

I think communism will never truly exist.
It's a very nice theory, but will it ever happen? No.

Socialism is really awful. It's basically just a lie in practice, and in theory.

Capitalism is just for economic gain, and nothing really else, which I think is pretty stupid.


The best systems are those of fascism and monarchy.
-You need a leader
-Conservatism is essential for efficient growth, or accomplishing something

iyectecommunism would be good if everyone was equal

capitalism would be good if idiots weren't attracted to power

socialism would be good if people always thought of others

but unfortunately almost all humans tick none of these boxes

WE TRIED

Fascism and monarchy would be good if people didn't try to break the perfectly fine system.

Notice how communists, socialists and capitalists all manage to ruin themselves, but fascists and monarchists are not ruined by themselves, but by others, who think they have a better idea.

Monarchy worked for thousands of years.
Fascism was sort of the modernization of this system.
What is the issue here?
The people are the issue.

That is why Nazi Germany killed many people who seemed threatening to the authoritarian state. It is easier to remove someone from the picture than it is to have them voice their opposing views.

This is going to be locked soon, probably due to my presence.

I think communism will never truly exist.
It's a very nice theory, but will it ever happen? No.

Socialism is really awful. It's basically just a lie in practice, and in theory.

Capitalism is just for economic gain, and nothing really else, which I think is pretty stupid.


The best systems are those of fascism and monarchy.
-You need a leader
-Conservatism is essential for efficient growth, or accomplishing something

iyectecommunism would be good if everyone was equal

capitalism would be good if idiots weren't attracted to power

socialism would be good if people always thought of others

but unfortunately almost all humans tick none of these boxes

WE TRIED

Fascism and monarchy would be good if people didn't try to break the perfectly fine system.

Notice how communists, socialists and capitalists all manage to ruin themselves, but fascists and monarchists are not ruined by themselves, but by others, who think they have a better idea.

Monarchy worked for thousands of years.
Fascism was sort of the modernization of this system.
What is the issue here?
The people are the issue.

Oh boy, I went was capitalism. .-.

I would have chosen socialism in the case where people were overall reckless, and important matters like imports could only be handled by the gov. But otherwise, capitalism. .3.

Personally I think anarchism would work in a Utopian world. Alas I'm to lazy to overthrow the government. Socialism and Communism are brilliant ideas by themselves but just never seem to work in practice. I hate the idea of Capitalism but it appears to be the most stable so whatever.

Do you know why socialism doesn't work? People become too dependent on the government for all their needa. If they're getting, say, unemployment benefits (which are great, but the US pays too much) and food stamps, why would they go out and get a job?

I saw that somewhere out West, they're making people do community service to get food stamps. Excelent idea.

communism would be good if everyone was equal

capitalism would be good if idiots weren't attracted to power

socialism would be good if people always thought of others

but unfortunately almost all humans tick none of these boxes

WE TRIED

Capitalism. Socialism and Communism have proven to fail time and again. It is much safer to have a smaller government in which the people have a say in what goes on. America used to be like this, but it is gradually becoming socialist. Sadly..

Well, since all attempts of Communism have not gone too well I'm not gonna go with Communism.
Socialism seems like a nice way to get rid of class systems, but at the same time free market is eliminated and laissez faire is basically gone.
Capitalism, which the United States uses (or as close as it can be, there are still some regulations by the government), is nice for freedom of business and market, but it also causes major class divisions.
Probably going to choose Capitalism though just because it allows people to make their own fortunes and hold their own private businesses/land.

Thank you for explaining what does those terms mean. I`d say capitalism or socialism.

Really it comes down to what are the "rights" of a human in the 21st century? Obviously we have the freedom of speech and religion but it should go far beyond those basic things.

- To defend themselves and their opinions?
- Freedom of belief and pursuit of knowledge?
- The right to a safe environment?
- The right to a stable home, clean water and hot food?
- The freedom to access the infinite knowledge of the internet and enjoy the various technological luxuries?

Honestly we need to rethink exactly what every person's very basic right is. We have to define when the better future is. The problem with socialism is resources being stretched too thin to grant those rights and capitalism forces a select group to be put at the bottom because someone has to be there. Simply too large of a population. What do?

Well, ill take into consideration that our government isn't the best, but can you give an example of a country that has a better government in which isn't capitalism? I am going to have to side with capitalism due to the fact that i personally believe there is virtually no better alternate. About the USA not really doing the best... i think larger companies are using monopoly to there advantage, but i am not educated to make a backed up opinion about that end of the topic.

57r4d

SasukeUchiha2214Uhh whichever America is... 'MURICA FTW

EDIT: More on the serious side though, I dont get all these terms, but America's government is my personal favoirte, so thats why I choose whichever they are using.

Good lord man, have you seen the state of our government?

America's government was originally intended to be a constitution republic

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people. They must govern to existing constitution. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers can be separated into distinct branches. - Definition.

They have found out the best way to counter this is to completely ignore such a governing document. It has morphed into almost a socialist democracy over the years.

Communism could be the best, IF IT WORKED LIKE ITS SUPPOSED TOO. The reason Capitalism has been the overall power in the world is because Communism has been poorly executed. Also, since most of us have grown up in America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. we have always been taught the downsides of communism and barely go over the downsides of capitalism.