CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Put simply, Capitalism is based on the principle of equal opportunity, while Socialism is based on the principle of equal outcome. The former is the idea that your wealth is proportional to the effort and ingenuity you apply, while the latter is the idea that your wealth is decided upon by the governing body, and has either a deemphasized or nonexistant relation to your effort and ingenuity. In other words, Capitalism rewards action and efficiency and punishes inaction and inefficiency, while Socialism is largely indifferent.
Disregarding progress and success is a potent method of promoting stagnation, a veritable death sentence in the modern world. As such, I can, with confidence, say that Capitalism is the superior economic system.
Capitalism is better for an economy and I'll refer to the US outlasting the Soviets in the Cold War as evidence for that.
But not pure capitalism with little or no rules. Pure capitalism is where robber barons control all, labor including children gets exploited, the environment gets ruined, and domestic and foreign policy serve only profit. Instead a successful capitalist country is one where you have capitalist engines but they have parameters from their society on safety and fairness.
It's silly to say communism is inevitable just because it's the farthest terminus from anarchocapitalism. Indeed the whole world should be trending to or already communist per that argument and it simply isn't.
All I'm certain about is that we're nowhere near the end of the history of economic systems by now. I believe Marx would have had the same opinion - since he was the first one to look at history that way, or in any materialistic way, that error can be overlooked.
Pure capitalism is anarchocapitalism, and pure socialism is communism.
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism relies on the structure of property rights and the legal system sufficient to uphold and enforce them.
Considering that societies began from one end (sort of), it makes sense to say that communism is inevitable
That's what Marx baselessly asserted and his followers blindly promote. But there is no reason to think that history is a march along a path described by him or any other charlatan. Never trust a fortune teller.
And socialism is not communism. You forgot that part
I didn't forget anything. Whatever Socialism is, anarcho-capitalism is a contradictory term, an absurdity. That's my point. If you want to say that pure socialism is one thing and pure capitalism is another, you should at least refer to coherent concepts. Communism is a coherent concept, anarcho-capitalism is not.
Capitalism relies mainly on the money owned by those who get it
At some point you will appear to be informed at least by accident. That hasn't happened yet. Capitalism relies on the institutions of property rights, rule of law, and liberty. These are the fundamental ingredients and they cannot exist in a state of Anarchy. As for money, there are always people with more and less money, in every economic structure from Totalitarian Monarchy, to Communism, to Democratic Socialism. The money involved in Capitalism is not it's distinguishing feature.
At some point you will appear to be informed at least by accident. That hasn't happened yet. Capitalism relies on the institutions of property rights, rule of law, and liberty.
You're the one who's saying that Capitalism is based on everything having a price and the money being with those who earn it or receive it.
You seem confused.
in every economic structure
In communism there are just 2 classes, and in anarchism there are none, or just one.
anarcho-capitalism is not.
I wonder about that. Though it isn't stable, it's still a real concept. I haven't coined it just now, though I might have for many things.
You're the one who's saying that Capitalism is based on everything having a price and the money being with those who earn it or receive it
I haven't mentioned prices at all, though efficient pricing is a product of Capitalism. As for money being with those who earn it, that's the Liberty I was referring to. Your confusion over my words does not equal my confusion.
In communism there are just 2 classes, and in anarchism there are none, or just one
Communism contains those who control the means of production (on behalf of the people), and those who produce (under slavery of the supposed people). The supposed classlessness of anarchy is based an a simplifying assumption that goes too far.
As for money being with those who earn it, that's the Liberty I was referring to.
A real contradictory concept. It self-negates.
Liberty is greater without a government, rather than under a contract to give it up.
Also, words aren't inherently entirely meaningful. They're just what they are decided to be. Even if capitalism were democratic by definition, it wouldn't be a contradictory concept.
Nothing is free doesn’t necessarily mean that everything has a price, because not everything is for sale. Even so, I never said that Capitalism is based on everything having a price.
Liberty is greater without a government
Not a properly functioning government under which your Liberty is protected by enforceable law.
Even if capitalism were democratic by definition, it wouldn't be a contradictory concept.
Capitalism isn’t the contradictory concept, anarcho-capitalism is. Capitalism relies on a legal structure that is not present in Anarchy.
If the extreme form of Socialism is Communism, the extreme form of Capitalism a government that remains refrains from economic meddling and is dedicated to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. A number of governmental systems can be extremely Capitalist, so long as they refrain from economic meddling.
Capitalism isn’t the contradictory concept, anarcho-capitalism is.
Actually, considering that I preceded that statements by some arguments on its etymology, it refers to anarchocapitalism. (Though I can see why that might seem suspicious.)
If the extreme form of Socialism is Communism,
It isn't, though. Any extreme form is always meant in contrast to some other comparison. You have ignored that.
Socialism is democratic, communism is totalitarian.
under which your Liberty is protected by enforceable law.
By limiting liberty of others. And yours, too.
Rights are purchased at the cost of freedom.
Nothing is free doesn’t necessarily mean that everything has a price,
I'd say that's basic syllogism, but
because not everything is for sale.
That changes things.
Even so, I never said that Capitalism is based on everything having a price.
That's because we aren't talking about the same set of things.
Actually, considering that I preceded that statements by some arguments on its etymology, it refers to anarchocapitalism. (Though I can see why that might seem suspicious.)
Actually, considering that your “etymology” amounted to you saying “Pure capitalism is anarchocapitalism, and pure socialism is communism”, and considering that this isn’t true, it does not refer to anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism is a self-contradiction and is not related to actual capitalism, which is not a self-contradiction.
Socialism is democratic, communism is totalitarian.
Who ensures the democratic will of the people is carried out if not a totalitarian?
By limiting liberty of others. And yours, too. Rights are purchased at the cost of freedom.
You think that taking from others is an expression of freedom. That’s because you don’t understand freedom or what is required to have it. The theory of rights does not require to forfeiture of freedom, it is the prerequisite for freedom.
That's because we aren't talking about the same set of things.
Right. I am talking about economic structures and what they require and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You don't understand what freedom is and what it requires. You think that by imposing laws that require an individual to respect freedom, that the individual is less free. But this isn't how liberty works. I am not saying that no economic structure is free, I am saying that you don't understand freedom. Furthermore, capitalism properly understood (something I am beyond hoping for here), is the only example of an economic structure that is free.
Yes, proper laws increase Liberty. No, I am not saying that there is no free economic structure. But you're functionally retarded. You can't or won't grasp the political philosophies that created the conditions under which Liberty could exist.
Liberty for all can exist only as much as it is restricted per individual
By this reasoning, maximum liberty for all is achieved by maximum restriction for each. I'm not surprised that you don't think I know what I am talking about.
Nope. Laws for public safety are not counter to capitalism. Indeed its instead a lack of public safety laws is which results in those private owners going to steps such as slavery, piratism, and indeed restores us the age of serfs.
I would argue that pure capitalism relies on the legal institutions you mention later in the post, rather than existing in contrast to them. Property rights, and law designed to protect them, are fundamental to Capitalism. As are laws protecting individual Liberty. The situations you cite as problems of pure Capitalism are actually situations wherein the institutions required for Capitalism have been broken down due to corruption. If the institutions that foster pure Capitalism are strong, then corruption is sufficiently reduced. When that is the case, labor is traded as voluntarily as any other commodity and protections against injury apply equally to all, including the laborer.
I am in agreement with your statement that "a successful capitalist country...'has' parameters from their society on safety and fairness", but I disagree that the alternative is conducive to capitalism, pure or otherwise.
Socialism is Totalitarian Dictatorship when it is still growing into its clothes, and sometimes it is Totalitarian Dictatorship in disguise hoping you don't realize it is the wolf underneath the mask. Monsanto will feed you... uh huh... as long as you comply. Don't make them get the shock collars out.
Capitalism is better for economic growth, socialism is better for delivering equality of outcome. But i reject this question as ridiculous. There is no such thing as a pure anarcho-capitalist society and no such thing as a pure socialist society. In the real world countries are an amalgam of private sector capitalist arguments to promote economic growth and prosperity and a socialization of certain industries for the best interest of the people. For instance the UK clearly has a capitalist private sector with manufacturing and trade and the like, but their healthcare industry is socialized to promote equal access.
Communistic Socialism is socialism without capitalism, it has never worked.
Democratic Socialism is socialism WITH capitalism, it CAN and DOES work.
Capitalism has been great but, in this country, it is out of control! We need to cut the ridiculous profits it is making for the few who have more than they could EVER use, and USE it for the betterment of the COUNTRY! THAT would make America great again! You can't have a great country with poverty, poor education, sickness, bankruptcy and OUR money invested in countries that HATE U.S.!
So you have to pay a high tax to do business in a "great country"! Too BAD! It can make THIS country GREATER! During the 50's/ 60's when we were BECOMING great, the tax rate on businesses was between 60 and 90% ... the rich STILL got rich! (maybe not as fast)! Having the most billionaires does NOT make a country great! Saudi Arabia is not great! It is a conservative MYTH that more money to the rich helps U.S. ALL! That stuff trickling down on you is NOT money! Do to recent budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned OFF! (For many Americans)! But for the FEW.....it's burning bright! That's capitalism .... out of control, for ya!
Just to clarify, putting the word "Democratic" in front of a word does not inherently change the meaning of that word. What if I someone supported "Democratic Slavery"?. It does not change the meaning of the word slavery. Just because they support the idea of slavery being put to a vote does not mean its okay to do so.
Really? Do we HAVE to get ridiculous with everything? Nobody supports "democratic slavery" and it doesn't exist. If slavery is ever put to a vote in this country we will no longer be the U.S.A.!
However, we HAVE been a "socialistic" U.S.A. for years, much to the chagrin of conservatives .... through our BEST years!
Yeah you're right, we do have some socialist programs and look where they got us. We are $20 Trillion dollars in debt. The ACA is falling apart. Medicare has $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicaid has $35 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The Veteran's Health Administration is a disaster and our veterans, who give their lives for our freedom, are subjected to absurd wait list for sub-par treatment. American infrastructure is at an all time low. Obama's Stimulus package, $800 billion redistribution project, cost up to $4 million per job with 10% covering Medicare and Medicaid and 5-7% on infrastructure. I don't know about you but I do not think the solution to these failed socialist programs is more socialism.
Obviously most if not all of the socialist policies America has implemented have failed in spectacular ways(looking at you Obamacare). However, it is important to note that socialism is not the only reason the United States is $20 dollars in debt. Part of that debt is the huge cost of constantly involving the united states military into conflicts where they had no place in or where there was no conflict at all (Are you guys still looking for those nuclear weapons in Iraq?). The reason I say this is because the way you phrased your argument implies the socialist programs are the reason the US is $20 trillion in debt. You are $20 trillion dollars in debt for many reasons but it is likely that the socialist policies did not heavily alter that. Rather they merely proved useless after being advertised as miracles.
Let me be clear in my message. I am not saying that the only problems with the debt being so high are the socialist programs, What I am saying is that socialist programs have a greater economic impact compared to any other program we have. If you want proof on the matter take into account how the majority of President Obama's programs had to do with the distribution of wealth. This itself put $10 trillion dollars onto our national debt in just 8 years in office. So understand where you are coming with your example, military spending, but I do not believe military spending had a more negative impact onto the economy when compared to the socialist programs that we have in place.
Are you guys still looking for those nuclear weapons in Iraq?
No one was looking for nukes so much as weapons of mass destruction in general. The weapons were of a chemical nature. No legitimate source actually disputes their presence after a New York Times piece stated "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
This is not disputed. You may not have heard about it, because of the sorry state of our general media.
AL of Road Island your rants are ridiculous. There are more slaves today than at any time in human history, reported Benjamin Skinner, a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School of Government. An estimated 27 million people in the world are forced to work, held through fraud, under threat of violence, for no pay beyond subsistence, in forced marriages, in sex-trafficking and prostitution.
Though mostly illegal and called by different names, slavery nevertheless exists today in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Southeast Asia, Romania, Sudan, Haiti, Brazil, Latin America, and even in the United States.
Al slavery exists you just don't care to acknowledge it.
Really? So forcing people to do work for you, democratically, by a vote is not comparable to the forceful enslavement of people to work for them for free? I mean I don't get it. Both acts are forcing humans to do something they do not want to do. Socialism is the most selfish ideology on the face of the earth. It is based off of the idea of "I'm here, I'm breathing, give me free stuff". It is slavery. Lets take healthcare as an example. Socialist want free healthcare for all. What they are saying is since we have a right to healthcare, we can force any doctor to go to medical school and take care us no matter what. Capitalism affords economic freedom, consumer choice, and economic growth while socialism makes economic calculation impossible with the government owning all means of production and distribution. Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is forced slavery. Therefore, it is not logically fallacious to compare socialism to slavery since both acts are forced upon people without consideration for their freedom to chose the labor in which they want to engage in.
Socialism -- noun -- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Democracy -- noun -- the practice or principles of social equality, or, a system of government by the whole population.
Socialism is democracy done genuinely. In a true socialism, distribution of power in all issues of social organization is spread across the electorate who collectively decide on all matters of contention, thus allowing a true representation of the wishes of the populace. No more voting for people who change their minds on policies last minute and instate laws we don't, as a population, want. No more having to choose from a bipartisan sham election. Socialism is complete democratic control over all matters of social importance, through the power of collective vote and collective veto only. The only unchangeable tenet of socialism is the dispersion of power. For a society to remain socialist, power over infrastructure, economy and any and all matters of importance -- economic or otherwise -- must rest with the populace as political equals, all of them, ad infinitum.
American constitutional republicanism is not democracy (though it has perhaps the highest potential to be that). British parliamentary monarchism is not democracy. Likewise, Stalinism is not socialism. The current Venezuelan rule-by-decree is not socialism. Leninism is not socialism. Russian oligarchy is not socialism. Swedish regulated capitalism is not socialism. The "welfare state", is not socialism.
Socialist democracy is a society where power is dispersed evenly, thus a society where people are both economically free and politically equal. It's the rule of a country by the people holding power individually no smaller or greater than the power of the next person. There's no supreme leader or president. There's no corporation with more political power than a single individual. There's no infrastructure laid claim to by private interests. There's no issue of political contention which is decided outside of the choice of the collective.
A true socialism manifests in the legal institution of power-equality; the idea that each and every citizen should by birth have the power to direct society as part of the collective as he or she sees fit; that power being inalienable and irrevocable for all time and place. It's political and economic collectivism, democracy in its purest manner. The country and all its assets are the property of the collective to direct as a collective. The birthright of each citizen is his or her stake in that distribution of power, that all people come together to create a society that works for that society as a collective.
It's epic, and it's Athenian. And it's the way it should be.
Nevermind the tragedy of the commons. Nevermind the tyranny of the majority. Nevermind that human beings are individuals and not Ants. Nevermind that the collective decision must be directed by an executive who, by his very nature will have more power. The only place where power is spread evenly is in Hobbes's state of nature.
We should be glad that true democracy doesn't exist. If it did, freedom wouldn't last. There is no freedom for the outnumbered. When every single individual is outnumbered by "the people", no one is free. Mob rule is a poor ideal.
I've been to Venezuela many times. It is a DICTATORSHIP. NO political system works "for the people" under a dictator! The U.S. will not work under Trump if he continues to "dictate"! Venezuela does NOT resemble democratic socialism in ANY WAY. Much of Europe is DS, it looks NOTHING like Venezuela's system. Not at all comparable! I'm not surprised that Venezuela comes to YOUR mind, outlaw, it is in it's OWN "nirvana".
NOT when they have a democracy and the right to vote. Our "republic" has a problem when those elected bypass the majority and vote party policy. That's a blight on democracy and a turn toward dictating. It SHOULD be corrected at the next election. However, in our slowly deteriorating republic, MONEY too often leads us to dictatorship by the "few". Republics have that problem. (The Republics of Cuba, Iran, Soviet Socialists, N. Korea, etc.) WE really need to go to an actual Democracy where EVERY VOTE COUNTS, and there are no "leaders" doing what THEY think is best for U.S.! THAT would be the only type of government that could NOT dictate what the MONEY purchased. That could not be done when our founders set up the nation, it would take a year or more to gather votes. Today, with a smart phone or computer on the internet, it could be nearly instantaneous! COME BACK Jefferson, Madison, Monroe ... let's do this thing RIGHT .....er.... CORRECTLY!
So you consider the American people to be a "mob"?? And NO, the Democratic Party tries to protect the "majority" from the FEW, from the MONEY that is taken from them and used AGAINST them. From those who BUY the laws that put the MAJORITY at a disadvantage. Mob rule?? Give me a break! The MOB pays the lobbyists (or the politicians directly), to KEEP U.S. at a disadvantage! They would HAVE NO ADVANTAGE in a (true) Democracy where the voting comes direct from the people!!
Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try. It isn't surprising for education to, then, make people ready for just repetitious jobs.
Instead of choosing between any two arbitrary fixed points, we should rather remove the negative aspects of capitalism.
But, anyway, for the debate, the best possible governance would lie closer to socialism than capitalism, due to aforementioned reasons.
Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try
Would you say that people who drive cars poorly are "punished" by their auto collision?
A social construct that lets people fail is not the same as one that punishes. Capitalism doesn't only let people fail, it allows them (through property rights) to keep what they have earned. For this reason Capitalism has historically done the opposite of what you claim; it has encouraged the entrepreneur and brought more innovation that at any time in human history. Despite the various socialistic restraints of various countries.
Yes, it does offer incentives. But humans are not naturally risk taking animals.
It'd be better if things were socialistic enough.
I do prefer selection to build a better human race, which is at its peak under capitalism, but that's too slow a process now. It probably won't even be needed later.
So, some stuff should be more freely available to all - primarily an access to information and means of employment. Which generally means education and job. A mandatory wage to all, perhaps?
Yes, it does offer incentives. But humans are not naturally risk taking animals.
You'll have to speak for yourself; ever see a skydiver or rock climber? While you may not be a risk taker, this is not a natural or inherent trait of humans. Enough human beings are sufficiently willing to take risks for rewards as economic history has demonstrated. No credible source upholds socialism over capitalism for its productive capacity. History doesn't support the claim.
some stuff should be more freely available to all
Slave owners would agree. The fact is that nothing is free. Everything must be worked for. If you have something for free, someone has worked to produce it. This is the moral pitfall of socialism as well as its appeal.
ever see a skydiver or a rock climber? While you may not be a risk taker, this is not a natural or inherent trait of humans.
Financial risks don't offer the adrenaline thrill of adventure sports.
But that's not my point. At least, not the main part of it.
If you are an educational institution, then would you teach students to take risks or to keep it stable and safe? Which one would parents send their kids to?
After all, risks mean that you can lose a lot of stuff. (Something tells me it isn't emphasised enough there already.)
If the risk was some lower, institutions wouldn't be so based on rote and repetitious stuff. It is capitalistic education that is the problem here.
The fact is that nothing is free. Everything must be worked for. If you have something for free, someone has worked to produce it.
Every right for the weak includes stripping away the strong of the power to take it away.
Though yes, that's right. It mainly works from government owned enterprises and/or taxes.
Financial risks don't offer the adrenaline thrill of adventure sports.
I take it you’re not a businessman
If you are an educational institution, then would you teach students to take risks or to keep it stable and safe? Which one would parents send their kids to?
Have you ever heard the saying “When you fall off a horse…stay on the ground, it’s safer that way”? No, the saying, often repeated in educational institutions, is “When you fall of a horse, you get back on”. This teaches kids that failure will happen, but that persistence in the face of adversity is a virtue worth cultivating. By understanding and accepting that risks are part of life, kids learn when it is appropriate to take risks and when it is not.
After all, risks mean that you can lose a lot of stuff. (Something tells me it isn't emphasised enough there already.)
No one knows that better than the people who have risked and lost, as many eventually successful people have done. Those same people wouldn’t achieve the greater things if their lesser attempts were supported and their mediocrity cultivated (something tells this has been over cultivated for you already).
If the risk was some lower, institutions wouldn't be so based on rote and repetitious stuff. It is capitalistic education that is the problem here
How extensive is your capitalistic education?
Every right for the weak includes stripping away the strong of the power to take it away
Are you not a supporter of equal rights? The problem with this line of thinking is that in a capitalistic system, the strong don’t gain anything from anyone that is not given freely. Neither do the weak.
Though yes, that's right. It mainly works from government owned enterprises and/or taxes.
If your income is taxed, then the percentage of your tax is equal to the percentage of your time dedicated to servitude.
No one knows that better than the people who have risked and lost, as many eventually successful people have done. Those same people wouldn’t achieve the greater things if their lesser attempts were supported and their mediocrity cultivated (something tells this has been over cultivated for you already).
And as many have done who aren't eventually successful. Which would actually be a greater number.
This teaches kids that failure will happen, but that persistence in the face of adversity is a virtue worth cultivating. By understanding and accepting that risks are part of life, kids learn when it is appropriate to take risks and when it is not.
That's not what I meant. It isn't about just persistence, but mainly novelty. That isn't encouraged (generally by telling them of the risks.)
How extensive is your capitalistic education?
Mine is for a licensed profession, so that can be excluded for it.
Are you not a supporter of equal rights?
Not really. Rights are earned. I'm just a supporter of everyone being able to try.
If your income is taxed, then the percentage of your tax is equal to the percentage of your time dedicated to servitude.
And in every other economic possibility, there is something that can serve the function.
I have encountered many critiques of Capitalism over the years, but yours is by far the worst and most ill-informed. The notion that the problem with Capitalism is that it is “too risky for human nature” because failure is “punished harshly” and thus “anyone is afraid to try” is wrong on so many levels. As is the vague notion your keep referring to that Capitalism leads to repetitious education.
-First, risk is a part of life inherent to a dynamic causal universe. There is no getting rid of it. Reducing it is often illusory. People have varying degrees of risk tolerance, including very high and very low. There is nothing to support the notion that humans have low risk tolerance by nature, even if you do.
-Second, Capitalism doesn’t “punish” any more than reality punishes. Since the foundation of Capitalism is Liberty, the freedom to pursue one’s own interests carries with it the freedom to enjoy or endure the results of one’s pursuits. This isn’t a fault with Capitalism, it is a virtue.
-Third, people are not “afraid to try” under Capitalism. The economic history of the world does not support the notion that Capitalism is too scary for people, rather the opposite. When a country embraces, free enterprise and free markets, important elements of Capitalism, regular people are often happy to pursue their interest unimpeded. The relative lack of government meddling (for good or ill) was a primary draw for immigrants to the US for most of the country’s history. The fact that making a life for oneself (rather than demanding someone else make it for you) is risky has never been a disincentive to most, even if it is for you.
As for the other notion you have subtly alluded to, there is nothing about Capitalism that encourages repetitious educational systems. In fact, education in a free market would be driven by demand. Different parents, having different aspirations for their children, would have a certain amount of choice in the type and quality of education their children receive. The type would be constrained by geography and the quality constrained by cost, rather than both being constrained to a monopoly by government dictate. Capitalism would lead to a more dynamic and diverse educational structure.
Though it was a bit off topic from your original uninformed position; nothing is free. Risk cannot be eliminated, and nothing is free. Capitalism embraces these facts of existence while Socialism acts on the foundation of fantasy.
I see that it might also have come off as contradictory, considering your interpretation of it.
It is only as much about risks as people are motivated by such fears. Humans are just civilised animals, but whatever. Let's just grant their fearlessness for you seem to believe that beyond doubt. While taking their own risks only, of course.
In fact, even education is a misleading term. I mean only the schooling system. But I'd guess that the unemployment statistics would testify it for the whole education, or something.
As to nothing being free, it's more of investing in people. Which isn't a very capitalistic notion, except for exploitation.
Let's just grant their fearlessness for you seem to believe that beyond doubt
The courage to act in the face of risks is not fearlessness. I have no doubt that some lack courage while others do not. I do not believe that it is human nature to be cowardly.
As to nothing being free, it's more of investing in people. Which isn't a very capitalistic notion, except for exploitation
Investing in people is what a capitalist does when they hire someone. As for exploitation, the only thing worse than being exploited, is not being exploited. The homeless are not exploited, while the gainfully employed is thoroughly exploited, and can build a nice life as a result.
So, what about investing in people's ability to be exploited?
Companies do that all the time when they pay for training and even degrees in some cases.
an educated population is in everyone's interests.
Not to mention that no one can deserve not being educated
This doesn't apply only to education, it applies to most things we take for granted, including many things that the free market has made cheaper and better over time. It's important to note that almost nothing starts out as inexpensive or high in quality, that's a process. But when the government assumes the role of provider of commodities, the costs tend to rise and the quality tends to stagnate or decline.
This doesn't apply only to education, it applies to most things we take for granted,
No, the government doesn't have to be the sole provider.
It's just what I decided under the veil of ignorance - that everyone should be literate and have access to information (and preferably some minimal healthcare, but that might as well be lumped into the education and be self administered).
Anyone who can afford should, of course, be able to get better services. Which is generally the part of private market.
After they have an education, they might be able to do well. Whatever, I'd hate having a life of ignorance, so unless we differ there, you should agree that no one should have a life of ignorance for being born into conditions that can not materially afford information.
It's just what I decided under the veil of ignorance
You should consider lifting that veil sometime.
Anyone who can afford should, of course, be able to get better services
You ignore the impact that public services have on private counterparts.
you should agree that no one should have a life of ignorance for being born into conditions that can not materially afford information
The question isn’t whether a person should have any given good or service (deserved or not), the question is whether others should be forced at gun point to pay for it. The question is how effective the good or service actually is when provided by others at the point of a gun. Given appropriate economic and legal institutions, public services are often less effective than private counterparts. Less effective in price and in quality over the long run. Again, this applies to most things we take for granted. Should anyone go without shoes? When the USSR decided to provide them, everyone’s feet were much worse off. The private market has made cell phones an option for almost everyone. Soon they will be called a “right” and the government will hinder the cell phone market by providing garbage to someone who didn’t earn it at the cost of someone who did. This isn’t a matter of what a poor person deserves (from whom?), but rather how more people can get what they deserve.
But more to the original point, plenty of people are willing to risk their own money to provide goods and services for a profit. This shouldn’t be discouraged, as it is a good thing. It’s good for entrepreneurs and it’s good for impoverished consumers.
I see that it might also have come off as contradictory, considering your interpretation of it.
It is only as much about risks as people are motivated by such fears. Humans are just civilised animals, but whatever. Let's just grant their fearlessness for you seem to believe that beyond doubt. While taking their own risks only, of course.
In fact, even education is a misleading term. I mean only the schooling system. But I'd guess that the unemployment statistics would testify it for the whole education, or something.
As to nothing being free, it's more of investing in people. Which isn't a very capitalistic notion, except for exploitation.
Denmark is a modern hybrid of socialism, and we have been stampled as the happiest people on earth... Just saying. I dont mind paying taxes, if i know that it helps my society. The health insurance payed with tax, is not for the poor. It's for me aswell. Because of the government paying all healthcare, i also get free treatment.
Capitalism is where any failed attempts are punished harshly, so that anyone is afraid to try. It isn't surprising for education to, then, make people ready for just repetitious jobs.
Instead of choosing between any two arbitrary fixed points, we should rather remove the negative aspects of capitalism.
But, anyway, for the debate, the best possible governance would lie closer to socialism than capitalism, due to aforementioned reasons.
