What you described is not capitalism, but state socialism. Which was the model of the USSR. Capitalism is that the market control the means of production, and the market is driven by want and need. If someone can provide it for profit, then that is good. What keeps capitalism in check is competition, which oftentimes drive a company to produce high quality to stay relevant in the market. This also drives down prices so that businesses stay competitive. Some markets are VERY capitalistic, some are not. There is no society that is totally capitalistic or socialistic. There are some that are more capitalistic than socialistic, and some vice versa. The argument against government control is basically what you described. But what you described is in now way related to capitalism or the free market

Really, sarcasm and passive aggressiveness?

This is why I don’t try to discuss shit any bigger than matchups on this website.

It’s a problem if you have 5 homes and someone has zero because someone doesn’t have a home, man.

The government gave to you, and now it’s time to give back, and when they receive, they will give to the less fortunate.

Or do you think you deserve to use the country’s education system, it’s FDA, it’s road, it’s well, everything convient, and not pay your dues?

Also, I’m pretty sure I DO NOT have an alternative to SCE&G.

I either don’t have gas or I do, and if people stop paying, either

A:They go out of business, and I have to fucking wait for another company to rise.

B:The government bails them out.

Also, if me not paying them runs them out of business, why you not voting for if something works doesn’t defeat the problem?

A government CAN be taken down, just as easily as a business.

If “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).” if you dont see the similar problem of moral busy bodies then you’re blind.

Let me quote one of my favorite religious assholes:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” - CS Lewis

These systems do not match the human world I live in.

No.

What I described was the inevitable end-game of any unchecked capitalist system.

Sent from my thumbs, using SRK technology.

That’s…Just, really dumb, man.

I’m pretty sure I can take similar quotes and compare them, too.

Taking fucking everything and distributing it equally and making sure people have the basic nessecities of life are two different things.

I am positive you do not know what Socialism is, and that’s fine.

Socialism does not care if apple kills microsoft.

Socialism does not care if you have the biggest house in the world.

Socialism does not care if you drive a fast ass car.

Socialism does care if someone dies because they had no shelter.

Socialism does care if someone needs transportation to their jobs.

Hyperbole. Americans do have the ‘necessities’. Please give statistics on american hunger. Please give moral (subjective) arguments why free health care (which i support) is something defined as necessity.

How about you start linking us to examples of this end game playing out with other countries? Some proof of this Oligarchy. Stop forcing people to apply reason to your hyperbolic and bad premises. Reason is a tool that you have misapplied.

If it were all venn diagrams I think it would’ve been worked out by now.

Communism speaks of a perfect world, in which mankind measures his worth and happiness not by things, but by [his] self, and the pursuit of achieving the best self he can.

It is utopia.

It is idealistic to a fault.

But fault the is not its own, but rather one deeply embedded in men.

Capitalism speaks to the very same fault, in an approving manner, and falls to this very approval.

Sent from my thumbs, using SRK technology.

Artsy, vague and wrong.

Adjectives with no frame of reference, spit onto a webpage, as if they somehow held some weight.

Sent from my thumbs, using SRK technology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report

Sure.

Do I really need to write out an essay for “that person is hungry, you have more food than you need, you should give him some”?

They teach people that shit in the 1st grade, it’s called “sharing”.

A lot of people in this thread have socialism and state socialism confused.

So this is the problem we’re fighting? Going to bed hungry sometimes?

I guess we have to assume that the parents didn’t mismanage anything too? The poorest are the fastest people around, get over it.

Still, why is the fact a guy is homeless have anything to do with me? He can be homeless because he poorly invested his money, made bad decisions in life, or came across unfortuante circumstances. But again, I asked, what does that have to do with me. Hey if I got a job, and made the money, I deserve to have whatever I can afford. If I get 5 homes I don’t need, then fine, I EARNED it. Why should a guy who hasn’t earned anything get what I have? He deserves to be where he is for making the wrong decisions, and I deserve my 5 freakin homes.

This is radical egalitiarism, but hey no one is equal. That guy in the streets may not have the marketable skills needed to have a great job like me. But hey that’s his problem not mine. We’re not equal because he has less skills than me. And someone with less skills does not deserve to have the same results as soemone with more skills. In a video game against a competitor, it’s like someone being way better than you, and the programmers still make you both win. At that point, what’s the purpose of improving, if at the end of the day, we both get the same reward? If I worked my butt off to get a house, what’s the point when a homeless guy can still have the same house? I didn’t have to work hard, I could have done nothing and still got rewarded the same as if I had worked.

This is why the system is illogical. Socialism doesn’t reward hard work, because it’s concerned with egalitarianism. But again, not everyone is equal or deserves to be equal. We all deserve to have equal human rights, but we are not EQUAL in the market.

And paying my dues? To whom? The government is suppose to serve me, not the other way around. Public education is a disaster, but I won’t go there quite yet. The only person who is responsible for my success is ME. Not the government, not the bum on the street, not anyone. It’s all me if I happen to make 10 million dollars., that’s all me. So what gives the government the right to take from me and give to someone else? If you want what I have, then get off your ass and work for it the same way I did. Or else be happy with how little you do have.

The government can not be taken down as easily as a business, specifically not the US government, who have the US military. Sorry, I don’t want to even have to worry about taking the government down, because governments cease to be dangerous when you give them no power.

Yep other companies will eventually rise, but hey look at this, it doesn’t matter. If a gas company goes out of business, it’s because everyone has left that area. So if it goes out of business, its because it has no customers. If a company with no customers go out of business, who cares anyway? Either a utility company in another area can expand to that area (this happens all the time), or a new company arises. Doesn’t really matter, the point is that companies can’t do anything they want. All you have to do is stop paying them. This is different than government who can take your money against your will. You don’t have a choice in paying taxes, you do have a choice to pay a gas company.

“Going to bed hungry sometimes?”

Are you fucking patronizing this shit?

Wow, I just went from debating to fucking pissed in 3 seconds, that hasn’t happened in a good while.

Who gives a fucking shit if the parents mismanage money, does that mean the child deserve to go to bed hungry?

And if a poor, starving homeless man guts you in the middle of the street, to get the money he needs to eat, then he earned that money… and you earned you entrails decorating the concrete jungle.

Sent from my thumbs, using SRK technology.

I think it does. Yes. Do i have to say aloud I don’t give a shit about your kids?

I dont.

You just said:

When a small cabal of persons own all of the means of production, problems ensue.

That’s socialism not capitalism. Capitalism does NOT put the means of production into a “a small cabal of persons own all of the means of production”. This AGAINST capitalism to it’s core. Maybe you have capitalism mixed up with something else.

Hey I covered this ;).

If only right? But lets entertain the though, Obama or Rommney, and yes, it can get much shitter than it already is. And depending on which asshole wins, it can get much worse.

And true Capitalism does not work because its unsustainable, In fact, in true Capitalism there would be a system in which it would be even easier to exploit, provided you have massive capital. Capitalism is not your friend, and neither is Socialism. There shouldn’t be one or the other, because if its simply one or the other we come to the same conclusions every time. If we pick Socialism we end up like the USSR, if we chose capitalism, we end up Great Depression x1000 does not. To simply say that capitalism is better than socialism because of what it can provide is short sighted and naive. Capitalism does not give a damn about you, society, or sustainability, because all it cares about is hording wealth at the very top at whatever the cost may be.

You make it seem like you have an actual choice. When you don’t. You either participate in society and this little circle jerk or you pay more than what is possible for the average individual. Money doesn’t grow on tree’s, and if it does, its illegal because im supposedly stealing it from “people” ie corporations.

No, its not a problem that you own 5 houses. It’s a problem when there are enough houses for everybody, but people can’t buy them because of their circumstance, or because some asshole’s in suits think its a good idea to sell homes that are 3 bedroom 1 bathroom for 700K plus dollars, but its real easy to owe more than what the house is worth because some bank made less profit one year. You don’t always choose to be out of work or homeless, it just happens sometimes.

You also assume homeless people don’t want to work.

Answer this, how is a homeless individual supposed to get a job, when it’s required that you show proof of citizenship, a home, and a phone number in which an employer can contact you.

HOw is an individual who is homeless suppose to have access to all of those services if it requires capital to begin with.

Or how is another homeless individual supposed to get a job when he has no access to mental health facilities because it requires stability and capital to have access to them.

Society is not geared to help these people, so how can they participate in society, if society deems them “useless” because they don’t have a “home.” Its not that they don’t want to work, society doesn’t want them to work because they don’t meet the basic requirements for work. So if anything, capitalism is even worse at taking care of society because it only cares about “worth”, whereas government, in our case, cannot readily do that.

And I don’t see why we shouldn’t give houses to these people. Working 12+ hours a day looking for cans, metals, scraps of food just to survive. If anything they work harder than those who own 5 houses.

Stop making a grey issue black and white, because it really isn’t.