Capitalism vs Socialism
Side Score: 227
Side Score: 232
No arguments found. Add one!
"The U.S. has only been a country for 232 years, and has become a superpower. One huge reason is because of the great freedom, but capitalism has definitely helped. The GDP of the U.S. far exceeds that of any other individual country."
These facts are definitely true. However, you're attributing the cause to the wrong system. Do you remember that the U.S. (and the entire world) had a Great Depression in the 1930s? This was due to the capitalist society of the time. Unregulated banks, speculation, and greed were destroying the world economy, and no one knew about it until it was too late. Only when FDR started to begin regulating the economy did it start to improve (for example, he decreased the unemployment to only 2/3 of what it was during Hoover's presidency. Not a huge decrease, but imagine what he was up against). Of course, it was really WWII that brought the world out of the Depression, but FDR's policies put the world and America back on the right track. And that kind of government power in the economy was heretofore unknown. It was becoming more socialist.
Recently there has been the global recession. Say what you will, but because we began to regulate more, our economy has begun to recover somewhat. The crazy amount of deregulation of the Bush Era is what helped a great deal to cause the recession.
On another note, perhaps we need another war to spring us back into prosperity ;)
I tried to force myself to read all the post and failed. I have witnessed capitalism and now ready for something else.
Capitalism is wasteful. Do you know how much labor and resources are wasted in a capitalistic environment? Take the follow example: The trucking industry, aboard those trucks coming and going are the same product. A company in Chicago trucks its goods to New York and a company in New York ships its goods to Chicago. This is the same product made by two different companies. Competition, good for the consumer? We just added cost to a product because it is a free for all. Both companies have contracts to deliver goods, neither one will work to reduce the cost of labor and transportation. This happens all the time. The same thing happens with people commuting to work. You drive an hour to work and pass someone on the road driving an hour to work the other direction. Capitalism is wasteful. A waste of resources, man or other wise.
Socialism should employ people closer to their living and use products produced locally. A benefit to all and not a few.
You have a good point. But again, Capitalism is also pretty great in theory with lots of social mobility. But when it comes to practice, it's impossible to have a pure Capitalist because of innate human greed. Hence the necessity of government regulation. So it's not really Capitalism anymore (or at least as defined by laissez-faire economics). It's pretty much the same with Socialism. But Socialism I believe benefits more in practice (since neither Capitalism or Socialism are ever instituted in full) than Capitalism. As for your other request:
I can think of 1. China is one half and France is the other half. China because currently they are one of the highest producing countries in the world whereas the U.S. (the main advocate of Capitalism) produces very little. So it has a fantastic economy, but it really hasn't worked the "miracles" of Socialism. France is only a half because it's composed of two parties essentially, the Socialist one and the Capitalist one. Currently the powers-that-be in France are in the hands of the Capitalists. (interesting economic factoid about France: only 8.3% unemployment as of 2007. I don't know if there are any statistics as of 2009/10)
Perhaps I should also count Netherlands because they, like France, are capable of being socialist at any given election because they have a pretty powerful socialist party(another employment factoid for the Netherlands: theirs is a little over 4% unemployment as of the beginning of 2010) and Belgium (sorry no recent stats).
Another point I would like to make however, is that socialism has never been truly instituted in a nation. In fact, it wouldn't work on a national level because there would always be the corrupting influence of capitalism on the outside of the nation. Instead it would either have to be a global socialist state, or the potential socialist "nation" would have to be completely cut off from the rest of the world. It would have to be almost entirely self-sufficient, which we know is nearly, if not completely, impossible. I suggest this article: http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/
Copied from the Other Socialism vs Capitalism debate:
Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government. In a Capitalist society, where regulation is preferably at a minimum if it exists at all, the rich prey upon the poor. We saw that in the Industrial Revolution, where immense corporations manipulated the poor to remain rich. Specifically in America, railroad companies in the late 19th century lobbied to prevent regulation so they could exact extraordinarily high prices from the farmers. Politicians were corrupted (because everyone has a price). Large corporations and factories prevented workers' rights by blocking the formation of unions, making them work 18 hours a day for extremely low wages. Lawyers used the 14th Amendment to claim corporations the same rights as a human being. Naturally, with this kind of power, basic human rights were lost to those who fell below the poverty lines. Even today, massive corporations demand so much from an individual that only with difficulty can one rise through society. Those who are rich tend to remain rich, with their children educated the best, and the poor remain poor (unless their children are brilliant).
Socialism, on the other hand, addresses these issues. It gives a piece of every company, of every corporation, of every factory, to every individual. Contrary to popular belief, the government isn't necessarily given control of the means of production (that's communism). Therefore, Democracy is one of the fundamental attributes of a Socialist society. When the people make the decisions, the corporations aren't allowed to abuse a person's innate rights. People are given material items according their needs. People are paid according to their skill, the difficulty of the job, and the time that they dedicate to that job. It's what most people hope to have in their lives: freedom.
Capitalism is based upon the negative attributes of mankind. Greed, betrayal, selfishness, and thrives upon strict class distinctions (i.e. rich and poor, with little to no middle class). In order to succeed, one MUST step on others, one MUST destroy others' economic futures, one MUST advance forward without looking back to consider what he or she has done. What kind of a society wishes to leave the good people in society writhing in the dust? What kind of society doesn't prevent bad people from gaining to much power? What kind of society cares so much about the present that they forget the future?
Okay, I see a lot of cut and paste on here to make an argument on both sides. I'm gonna just say it the way I see it. Capitalism originally would of worked if it wasn't for Greed. The CEO's and Share-holders had sold out their own American brother.
Corporation CEO's and Shareholders control;
- your salary
- what you can wear and not wear
- what your appearance should be
- how long you can take lunch or even take a break
- your vacation leave
- if you deserve bonuses/incentives
- your benefits
- annual raises
- credit rating
- the type of car you can afford
- the type of home you can qualify for
- and basically control your fate to loose everything
You’re a modern day slave. So why all the paranoia about Socialism? I think some people are mistaken the word Socialism with State Capitalism.
Capitalism was working until GREED and CORRUPTION began to take over. I can't see it repairing itself unless there is government oversight or socialism to be introduced to spread the wealth.
Advantages Of Socialism
A Fair System
Socialism gives equal distribution of national wealth and provides everyone with equal opportunities, irrespective of their, color, caste, creed or economic status. Socialism, in its truest sense, means equality by all means
Cons of Capitalism
Capitalism makes an economy money-oriented. Business corporations look at the economy with a materialistic point of view. Profitability remains their only primary business goal. Business giants take over smaller companies. Employment rights are compensated with the sole aim of higher productivity.
Extremes of either Capitalism or Socialism can run into problems. Since the current economic depression was caused by out-of-control Capitalism and "fixing" the problem within a capitalistic framework is going to cause "pain" - such as job losses, along with loss of basic support for food, housing and health insurance - I must side with Socialism which would provide basic support for everyone, even when jobs are scarce.
I personally believe that capitalism got out-of-control because we allowed private interests to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few people. This provided them with the means to unduely influence our elected officials. After using their wealth to run advertisements (or even buy the media) they could also unduely influence us and sway the public as a whole.
When wealth is concentrated to the point where those who have it cannot find productive investments, they start gambling. Rather than gamble in casinos, they gamble with the stock market. They invest heavily in one sector of the market - causing prices to rise, and kicking off a bubble in that sector. When the bubble approaches the top, they sell of their assets, causing prices to drop and bursting the bubble. Since the last people into the market are usually middle-class investors with limited time and experience, they don't realize how the bubble was created (or that there even is a bubble). They also lack the time and expertise to properly evaluate the market so as to leave with a minimum of loss. Instead, they are the ones who lose their hard-earned wealth to those from whom they bought their investments. This is nothing more than fraud.
As people work for a common cause and all the profits are shared equally, the feeling of selfishness is eliminated and a united feeling is gained. Plus, since socialism bars the difference caused on the grounds of color, sex, creed or religion, harmony and unity become the keywords for the countrymen.
Creates Better Human Resources
As all people, irrespective of their differences, are provided extensive public services and better facilities, they achieve their full potential. Better education facilities for all also help in creating better human resource. Manpower doubles, thus doubling the country’s economic growth, as everyone works towards a life of betterment.
Socialism reduces the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist within capitalist societies. By taking the ownerships of production units from the rich and presenting them to the workers, the government gives the workers a chance to earn more profits and thus rise to levels of economic well being
I'll refute now I suppose:
Correlation doesn't mean causation. First you must look at the two depressions in different lights: the depression in 1920 was after a World War, and the Depression of 1929 was due to trade imbalances, over speculation, over production, and too much unbacked credit.
To fully understand the differences between these situations, you must realize that the two cannot be compared very easily.
As the depression in 1920 was after a War, one could readily see that as hundreds of thousands of troops return home, a huge surge in the civilian workforce would naturally correlate with a shortage of jobs, artificially spiking the unemployment. Additionally, the surge in workers would be accompanied by lower wages as well as decreasing output in factories. Indeed, these three occured as we moved from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy (vastly different). Another cause of the depression of 1920 was the Federal Reserve (newly created) that raised interest rates rather sharply. This caused a period of deflation and when the Reserve lowered rates the depression finished rather quickly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The Depression in 1929 was during a peacetime economy however. Those who lost their jobs really lost them and the rate was not artificially high due to returning soldiers. In fact, over the course of the Depression, Roosevelt lowered the unemployment rate by 2/3. He lowered it by about 25% in 1933 (really, "unemployment wasn't that low"?) to about 9% in 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
And yet again, I have to ask you to get back on topic. Remember the purpose of the debate!
Let's see if I can use my own analogy:
The economy is like Babe, the Giant Blue Ox running rampant in the streets of New York (without Paul Bunyan). Here he is, goring people left and right, destroying city property, and toppling skyscrapers. Now imagine Paul Bunyan is accompanying his ox. The Ox will occasionally misbehave, but generally, it is well behaved and its surrounding remain intact, alive, and well. It seems everyone is profiting from the control Bunyan has on Babe.
See, everyone can make an analogy to suit their purpose. Now give me some real facts, not a made up story.
"Also during the Hoover...era we had prosperity"
Hoover's presidency saw the Great Depression. Even he started to spend government funds to stem the tide of unemployment. Have you ever researched the Great Depression?
"Coolidge...era we had prosperity"
Coolidge's policies of extreme laissez faire were one of the main contributions to the Great Depression. Did you not read or respond to any of my points?
"Reagan...era we had prosperity"
Reagan had tax cuts and budget slashes that left it at $38 billion budget deficit and a $152 billion trade deficit. His tax cuts were to the large business owners to stimulate "supply side economics". Of course, we're still waiting for that trickle down effect. The rich-poor gap actually widened during his presidency. Overall, he increased American federal debt to $2 trillion, or to put it in perspective, more than all previous presidents' debts combined. Indeed, prosperity in the widening rich-poor gap.
"Bush Jr. era we had prosperity"
Bush's economic policies were essentially the same as Reaganomics: tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. In addition to the tax cuts were the deregulation. Certainly, there was short term prosperity, but eventually that bubble had to burst. Now we see first hand the effects of the "prosperity" of the Bush Jr. era: some of the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression (15 million about at around 9.7%), our debt steadily climbing to $13 trillion (much of that climb was during Bush's presidency, not Obama's), and the income gap has nearly doubled since 1980. How ridiculous is that?
And why did the Depression last longer than all the others? Could it be because the government did not spend enough (until WW2)? I think so.
"capitalism promotes progress"
In judging this assertion, I think you contend that technical progress is better promoted by private enterprise than by a nationalized industry. If my judgement is accurate, then you are only recognizing the side of the goods and the capitalist, and not the side of the wage earner... which is what the rest of your argument fully recognizes. Thus, your argument contradicts itself.
The incentive to work would not come from the desire to earn a wage, it would come from the impulse to participate in creative activity ( I will forego a lengthy explanation regarding how socialism can secure the latter principle, I feel a bit lethargic at the moment. Feel free to question my assertion when you care to dispute!). I could assert the axiom that a satisfied impulse (enacted responsibly) bears far more individual happiness and far less individual misery than any satisfied desire (enacted responsibly) ever has, but I only want to argue it if you disagree with me. By the way, it is not essential in Socialism that everyone earn the same wage, just that each earning be justified en reason.
I would also like to note... the relevant justification for utilizing creative impulses and direct workers management as a means to produce goods is the fact that it stimulates far more growth and progress than if left in the hands of bored, subservient workers. If you wish to dispute, I will explain this point further.
Umm, sweetheart; those figures come from the CIA (you know, the Communist-Sympathizing United States government's spy agency which is headed by Fidel Castro himself). Cuba's healthcare achievements are independently verified; I am not trusting the government's own accounting alone.
It's obvious that you didn't actually look at the links I gave. If you aren't going to actually take the time to read arguments and look at the facts do me, others, and yourself a favor and stay out of debates until you have the integrity to participate.
Socialism has voer the last century been dragged true the mud to the piont where the word barely represents what it once did, its content has been usurped by various ideologies and twisted to suit their agenda e.g. the Societ Union was called a socialist society, by both the US and the Russians themselves, the US called it socialism in order to defame socialism and associate it with the police state the USSr became, the USSR called themselves socialist in order to benefit from the moral appeal of true socialism among the world population but it was not a socialist society.
In essence true socialism means that ordinary working people must be in control of their own work (i.e. production), and communities must be in control of their own destinies. This is natural consequence of democracy, poeple should have control over their own work, the people working in the mill should have control over the mill.
Please refer to the following sources for further info.:
Eliminates Social Evils
Socialism reduces poverty with eatable wealth distribution. It also eliminates ill health, as it lays the foundation for the availability of proper health facilities for everyone. Socialism eliminates other forms of social deprivation too, by caring for everyone.
More Humane & True
The effort to make everybody equal in economic, social, and political terms makes socialism more morally worthwhile than capitalism. It reinforces the fact that everyone was created equally and it was only through human actions that disparities arose.
I could make the same argument for any number of countries. Just as many countries suffered from the fall of the USSR as those that prospered, Including the Russian federation itself. Also one might point out that the USSR was more of a Communist state than a socialist state.
You mean did I earn to go to primary school? In many places around the world, children are lucky if they can go to school. I would say most if not a good portion of the food I have eaten was free.
And in return, Ideally I will help the members of my society to the best of my ability. I have society to thank for my modern lifestyle. Although many of the younger ones, do not comprehend just how incredibly lucky they are, many of them do not realize that the problems that they blame on society would not even be problems if they were not already blessed in some way, a rebellious stage in life is pretty common but most people grow out of it.
Indeed I had. His internment camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII? I definitely do not agree with them, but if you analyze the political backdrop, one can easily see FDR's reasoning (this in no way justifies them, just an analysis):
1) Eugenics is at its height as well as American exceptionalism (well, perhaps modern times takes that trophy), so the newcoming Japanese, all too eager to work the jobs Americans wouldn't work would be inferior.
and 2) We are at war with Japan. As such, public sentiment is against those of Japanese descent. One may argue that the Germans, Italians, and others were also at war, but their American counterparts were not sent to internment camps. To this I reply that those countries were European. Due to the white supremecy thoughts of that time, the Japanese were barbarians, whilst the Germans and Italians were integral parts of the American culture.
The post was a little long-winded for your short quip, but I must ask what this has to do with Capitalism vs Socialism.
P.S. The prisoners were released after WWII and were compensated $38 million (total) as well as issued a formal apology.
You are anthropomorphizing the animal. The animal does what it does. It does not know the value of people or real estate. And you are mistaken: Bunyan is most clearly the regulations. How often have you heard of people suing an animal? I've heard suing of owners, never of animals.
"FDR's (and Hoover's) policies were the main reason the depression lasted for so long."
First of all, offer a proof/warrant/data to support your claim, otherwise I have no obligation to refute. Second, we only saw the end to the Depression when we mobilized for World War II. That was when the Federal debt was increased, but government jobs (temporary) were created in the factories and the front lines. We can logically infer that, indeed, it was Roosevelt's policies that prolonged the Depression, but not in the sense you wish. It was he did not spend enough.
"Yes but their wealth is increasing at the same percentage rate. $40000 + 10% is $44000 while $60000 + 10% is $66000. So the gap is increasing but everyone's wealth is too."
Where do these numbers come from? I have data a bit more grim: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/
Ultimately your argument has strayed from the "Capitalism vs Socialism" debate into "What created and ended the Depression". As such it is inappropriate to debate this matter here unless you reel it back in to the original debate. Certainly American history is good evidence for the debate, so perhaps you should draw some conclusions about the two systems. I am not required to do so, merely defend myself against your "refutations".
I am wondering that myself. Even though the Depression ocured during Hoover's administration, I think it is unfair to lay the blame solely on him. The blame should be more spread out to his predecessors as well. I wonder if Cicero has ever heard of "Hoover-villes", the shanty towns by the new-homeless of the Depression.
I'm starting to think your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who thinks of "prosperity" when they think of the Hoover administration surely hasn't read their history books. There is a reason why an empty pocket pulled inside-out was colloquially known as a "Hoover flag". Haha!
But they wouldn't lose any revenue, that's the point! If it's a necessary service people would have to buy it. If they jack the price of electricity, what are you gonna do, live in the dark the rest of your life? Of course not, you're just gonna pay the high price, and your gonna complain about it, like people always do.
Indeed, Hoover's near communist policies caused too much government oversight (sarcasm).
"The protectionist policies of all the world nearly halted all free trade."
The protectionist policies of the laissez-faire capitalist presidents you mean? Hoover, Coolidge and Harding were all much more willing to raise our tariff than to lower it. Eventually the Hawley-Smoot Tariff (under Hoover) raised our tariff to 60%. Such a high rate was sure to decrease trade (leading partly to the eventual collapse of worldwide economies), and yet these three presidents were so keen on developing our industry and over-producing we flooded the markets.
"FDR's policies kept the unemployment rate rather high for over a decade. "
Are you serious? The unemployment rate shrank from 25% in 1932 to 15% in 1939. And yet he only increased the national debt by about $20 million. Compared to the war effort for WWII, the New Deal took up much fewer resources and added much less to the national debt.
" And Bush's tax cuts spurred the largest peacetime expansion of the US economy. Your argument is flawed."
And you can attribute peacetime expansion solely to his tax cuts how? Please explain how tax cuts and deregulation help the economy in the long run (because we are so prosperous now).
It's been shown time and again that without government oversight or federal regulation the booms and busts of capitalism become relatively periodical. When the government began to take a greater interest in the economy, we were able to forestall immense financial setbacks by about four decades (until Reagan began the deregulation process). One could attribute the periodic nature of capitalism to the greed of its powerful constituents. People consistently overextend and soon they find that they have nothing beneath them to support themselves. We saw this with the housing market recently. We saw this with the banks. We saw this with Wall Street.
(P.S. Do not downvote me because you do not agree with me. That is not the purpose of the point system. Down vote me for invalid logic, grammar, etc. You will notice I did not downvote you, although in your words "your argument is flawed")
My objection to regulated capitalism is basically that it's not as good as a democratic socialist system could be. It wouldn't require a dictatorship, just an educated populace to be able to realize when they are being abused.
In our society, we are also bread to be uber competitive at a young age. Schooling and getting into good colleges are perhaps the most obvious example. We flaunt ourselves, do tons of extra-curricular activities, and then hope that the thousands of other people who did the exact same thing don't get in, but we do. Then we try to earn a degree in a field where we'll always be competing against. Then as we try to be "successful" we compete against our colleagues for pay-raises, promotions, and better jobs. That sounds like a lot of pressure to me.
The thing is that it doesn't exist right now. But we are more than capable of moving towards that better society. I know it will sound cheesy, but if we don't ever try to achieve socialism (not a dictatorial socialist society but a democratic socialist society), it won't ever come about. Sure there were attempts at some form of socialism, but it was never attempted with selfless intentions, i.e. the leader of the "revolution" would always claim power afterwards. European nations are the closest to the true socialist agenda, e.g. France and the Netherlands, but they still have a long way to go.
How are we to measure success? For Capitalists, it's money. In a Capitalist society, to improve the health of the country, the main religion must be materialism. Materialism is healthy for no one. For Socialists, it's human happiness. In a Socialist society one is able to achieve what one wishes to do, not necessarily what pays the most. I don't know about you, but it seems there is WAY less pressure to be "successful" (in the Capitalist sense) in a Socialist society. That decrease in pressure would be inversely proportional to the mental stability and happiness of the society. I would rather be happy than rich, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry about the link. For some reason, it included a period I accidentally put after the sentence.
That should fix it I hope.
The U.S. trade data: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/
The Chinese trade data: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/
Notice the difference: U.S. balance is -$425.5 billion whereas Chinese balance is +$368.2 billion. That indicates greater export:import ratio which means more production.
"One of the main reasons I don't go for Socialism (even Chinese modern socialism) is that it requires a dictatorial approach to government. You can't have socialism without having TOTAL control."
You're a little flawed in this reasoning. Total control is necessary by the GOVERNMENT in PURE socialism. Just like total anarchy is necessary in PURE capitalism. But as we were talking about, it seems virtually impossible for such pure societies to exist. Also, it doesn't require a dictatorial approach. It can still have duly elected representatives, and a president, or a parliament, or prime minister. The thing it does is help prevent the corporations and big businesses from hurting customers, workers, and ordinary people. In fact, I think socialism would work BETTER with a parliament or congress rather than a president or prime minister (because of humanity's natural tendency to be corrupted by absolute power). That's one reason why I like Plato's Republic. When there's a congress or parliament, it curtails the imprisonment, enriches a citizen's life, regulates the power of corporations, increases jobs, provides stability, and numerous other attributes can be attributed to a stable socialist government/economy.
Also, as the data seems to indicate, there is a pretty huge difference economically between socialist China and capitalist America. It's not just some petty difference you can discount.
This is what you said:
"lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?"
I was responding to that specifically. The issue isn't that I would just let it happen, there is nothing I could do in the case of unanimous or virtually unanimous decision. The only course of action would be to try and convince people that it is or was a bad idea and then do something.
If a simple majority votes away voting rights for itself and the rest of a population we are still in rather simple territory: as I said before, if a democracy ends democracy then it is no longer anti-democratic to fight against that society or government.
Equality is one of the most important values I hold; of course a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny and it should be fought. Even if a democracy in place; democracy is only right in so far as it is an equal democracy, a democracy in which everyone has the same rights.
An oppressed minority has the following options: secede, passively fight for equal rights, or aggressively/violently fight for equal rights.
"and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit."
Ya know what; if you don't like the policies of this government you are free to move to another one. That kind of logic goes both ways. Noone is forcing you to stay in this country; if you don't like our policies you can leave.
Is that right? No. What you are saying is just as silly.
"1. if one man rules all and tells everyone what to do, it doesn't matter how he got the power, it matters what he's doing now. we're restricted from any freedom, and it's more natural to revolt. you have to stop seeing things as black and white."
"you have to stop seeing things as black and white."
Let me repeat this:
"you have to stop seeing things as black and white."
"it's either this or we give the government control over everything"
"the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?"
You're killing me here, Pyg, you really are. I could copy-paste every argument you've made as a testament to your sudden turn-around in ideological philosophy.
Anyways, the point of what I was trying to say is that your system always leads to that revolution. It usually isn't one man taking all of the power through property; it is usually a small group of men (maybe women, in this day and age) taking power; a class of people; the wealthy.
When you walk into a Target, or a Wal-Mart, or a Best Buy, or the factory where you work who makes the rules? Especially if there is no Federal Government, no state government, no city government with rules regarding private property, business practices..etc. They become kings of what they own automatically; your say goes from a single vote to literally no say at all.
"2. it's not just ban drugs, it's all of those things. it's complete control over the lives of individuals. really, the turning point would have to be the banning of guns (as the NRA believes) because that is really our only chance of revolting. the people ban things and then unban them left and right, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. but that is why wars are fought, for conflicting ideals (revolutionary war would be best example). lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?
maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others."
When a majority votes away Democracy the system is no longer Democratic; therefor it is no longer a matter of competing versions of freedom. If that actually happened I would sort of be at a loss; if all of the people actually gave up their right to vote willingly I wouldn't have any basis to rise up (neither would you); noone would stand with either of us in the defense of the vote.
That's akin to a unanimous decision to commit suicide; I wouldn't be for it but using violence to stop it would be kind of pointless.
My job is to convince, not to kill; there is no point in killing in a democracy. Outside of one we must fight for democracy and representation (violently in defense, not in offense); if noone else on earth (or a small minority) is for it; then we can either try to convince people, secede, or take a snooze I suppose.
"maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others."
I think you don't know what freedom means, you've proven that. You have a version of freedom, your belief, and you don't believe there is any other valid version of freedom otherwise. You are willing to kill people because they ban: guns, drugs, alcohol, and other pointless things even if, say, they provided free healthcare, a democratic system of government, roads, bridges, good jobs, press freedom.....but if they ban weaponry and mental poisons you are willing to blast the crap out of men and women who aren't actually being violent towards you.
I think you need to broaden your scope of freedom, and you need to cease being a hypocrite and see things in shades of grey, not black and white.
"i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically)."
That's a pretty big contradiction. You've basically admitted that both the "market" and government decisions are people deciding what to do with other people. Your argument falls flat on its face at this point.
"when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it"."
A dictator? I am confused, this person acquired this power completely legally. They did it without violence; they just did it by buying and selling property; the basis of your system. Why is it okay to kill them for exercising their basic right to own and run their property?
Anyways, according to your definition of what a dictator is and following the system of economics you desire you end up fighting against, possibly violently, the people who became successful because of their talent and ability to achieve within the system you yourself endorse.
When you propose methods of keeping this from happening they end up following the beliefs of Karl Marx himself, as well as other classical and modern Socialists, Communists, an Anarcho-Communists.
"take away guns
ban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.
restrict the market and redistribute wealth
...I may actually consider it."
And if the majority of people choose to vote for these measures, will you kill all of them as well? I mean, with respect to the banning of drugs thing you have quite a large number of people on your "execution consideration list" seeing as both parties are still pretty solid on banning narcotics and a majority of the population wants to keep that ban in place.
And you call me authoritarian. You do realize that killing people because they institute policies you don't agree with; especially if these policies are voted for or supported by the majority population, is a text-book definition of authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if you are doing it "for freedom", murdering people because they have a different definition of freedom is certainly authoritarian.
""a violent revolution can also be considered anarchist, since, that is what results from a violent revolution usually. actually, under communist rule, that is the perfect time to violently revolt."
So, if I get voted into power; say I become mayor of your city, you think it's okay to execute me? Hmmm..odd. Bet lets put aside your illogical hatred for Communists and the Communist ideology.
Violent revolutions are not particular to Communism, of course. However, violent revolutions against overly-powerful businessmen or wealthy classes is certainly either Communism or Left-Anarchism. We are close cousins and technically fight for the same ultimate goal; we have different means to achieve this end of course.
"the thing about communism though is that the government decides what is done with these patches of land. they tell the people what to do. i'm referring to make it that no one is told what to do."
That isn't true; that is one version of Socialism, not even Communism. Communism is the end result of Socialism, a stateless egalitarian society where freedom is maximized utterly.
The whole theory of Socialism, the whole reason we strive for Communism, is to arrive at a society where noone is told what to do by a government or by the wealthy. We believe, though, that government can be a tool (though not the most important, the only, or an essential tool) to arrive at this society of perfect freedom and equality.
"i see that you have a point on the wealthy have the most say (in a warped, but true way), because they create things that the people use. tv for instance. but the thing is, they created it, and the people have decided to use the media as their reference. i just don't believe that restrictions should be made on the market like that."
The wealthy don't create anything, especially by themselves. Tell me, without everyone else in our society, our world, where would Bill Gates be? Where would he have gotten the education that would teach him how to make software? How would he be able to concentrate on education if there aren't farmers making food for him to eat? What about pencil makers? What about all of the dead millions who researched and developed the knowledge that allowed him to even begin to come up with these ideas?
The wealthy are not wealthy because of what they themselves provide, they are only wealthy through their intelligence, their ideas, and their ability to utilize others, to utilize society and all of human history, to their advantage. Now, of course, this only applies to business leaders and entrepreneurs, not those who became wealthy by marriage, inheritance, or dumb-luck.
Tvs took the effort and brilliance of billions of people stretching across the whole globe and human history to come into existence. Somehow, though, we allow certain individuals to take all of this and set themselves way above the rest of us.
They contribute to society, I will admit that, but they are a fraction of the effort.
"but it once again ends in you wanting everyone to be set into equal roles where no one has a disadvantage, and i want people to have different things to work for and look forward to. this, of course, leading to some who become wealthy and others who become homeless."
People can have various goals, various talents, various desires; they can do whatever it is they want. But noone has the right to own another person, to have unequal power over others, and noone should starve because those with the power don't deem them worthy to have food.
You must see people as useful and useless in order to believe that it is right to have some super-wealthy and some homeless. I, however, see that there are many ways to make valuable contributions to society, to humanity, and that we should focus our efforts in using our own abilities and ideas to enrich everyone around us, as well as ourselves.
I don't care if there are minor differences, some people having a few more lamps than others, one person owning a car and another owning two. I believe there is a certain proportional limit to the individual differences in productivity and contribution.
Bill Gates certainly didn't contribute several billions dollars to society, to the world; he had the help of billions of people in order to do what he did. Take them away and he wouldn't have made any meaningful contribution at all.