Is there anything better than capitalism?
No
Side Score: 66
|
 |
Yes
Side Score: 84
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is better than capitalism. Those that work hard get rewarded and those that are lazy don't. It's been proven throughout the years that people are only motivated if they have a compelling reason to be so. In a communist society where everyone is equal an noone is incentivized to work hard nothing gets done, ambition and creativity are stifled, and no progress is made. Side: No
7
points
Does it always have to be either or? Unchecked capitalism is not as great as it sounds since opportunities for people are not equal. Someone born to a poor family will never have the same opportunities as those born to rich families, they won't be able to afford the same quality education and thus won't be able to get the better jobs. This in turns means less health care and so on, resulting in further loss of opportunities for their children. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, not because they are lazy but because of the system. Someone born into a poor family needs to work many many times harder to achieve the same as someone born to a rich family. Unchecked capitalism promotes greed and a class society where only a very few people can break out of what they have been born into, it is possible yes, but it is not within reasonable reach of the general population. Full-fledged communism of course has a lot of problems of its own, but I think it doesn't have to be either or. The best solution is to combine the best ideas from both systems: The society should handle the basic needs of everyone within it at the same level: food, basic shelter, education, health care,... This provides everyone with an equal 'starting point', meaning the same opportunities, no matter how their parents fared in life. Once that basic framework is in place, everyone can chose whether to work hard or be lazy and be rewarded accordingly. Side: Yes
2
points
I like your argument, I can see you have observed both systems effectively and I agree with everything you say. I do have one question tho capitalism and communism are both systems working in different ways, how could you create a compromising system like that? Im not saying its impossible but it would be interesting to see how that would work. Side: yes
No, it doesn't have to be "either or". I think there are some instances where some socialist ideals are warranted. However, I primarily think that communism and socialism is for people who are too lazy to take care of themself and improve their lives, so they want the government to intervene and do it for them. Side: No
Agreed. Pure capitalism is basically corporate rule or oligarchy, and pure communism is generally in practice a dictatorship (although PURE communism in theory would not be). Personal liberty can be best achieved from a common starting point provided by the collective, and allowing for the individual to earn as much "property" or "wealth" as they see fit. Side: Yes
1
point
I have a question for you, what gets done with capitalism. Apart from technological advances in unnecassary luxuries the only real progress done is by the Government which is a completely seperate entity. In a communist society where everyone is equal they do things for the good of society as a whole, not just for themselves, therefore eliminating laziness. Most people in America, for instance, do not do things for the good of others but for their own selfish benefit. Togetherness promotes ambition, it doesnt stifle it, and just because creativity isnt rewarded doesnt mean it's stifled it just means that people do it out of love for art, therefore in its purest form. Side: yes
1
point
Well modern marxism gives everyone quality but also has rewards for those who work harder i.e. bigger house, better goods. So therefore progress is made. those who live in capitalist societies like myself are taught that our system is the best, but capitalism only works for the rich thats why where i live in london there are loads of homeless people, starving kids and people who cant get work because unemployment increases daily and they bring in more immigrants to keep wages low. All of what i said is fact just look it up. thats how good capitalism is. Also how can 99% of the worlds wealth be held by less than 1% of the worlds population and then people say that the system works As the saying goes the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. either way it is a very clever system as many people are blinded by what they are told Side: Yes
0
points
0
points
-1
points
There are numerous examples of why capitalism wins out over any other economic system. Plenty of people argue that in capitalism there is less equality in opportunity but that simply is not true. In fact in many ways completely unregulated capitalism provides the most equality in opportunity, why? Because the only thing that keeps a person from being successful is their own lack of ambition and or education; and education really isn't that essential to success look at Bill Gates for an example. History has shown us that capitalism allows for the most innovation in all fields. Humans in general have a drive to constantly improve and in many cases to improve their own situation in any way possible. Communism has of course been shown to be inviable for this very reason, there are little or now incentives to excel in a communist system. Socialism then is simply diluted communism, it's a good idea in theory but it goes against human nature in many ways. But this is all in a Western perspective. Different cultures have different ingrained values. For Westerners, capitalism works best collectivism simply goes against the grain for most westerners. Side: No
1. Capitalism is the "best" (most progressive) economic system TO DATE. 2. It is not true that capitalism provides freedom. Your statement is total idealism. Real men have real material needs and so long as these needs require satisfaction for a continued life and existence, men have no choice in their need to work and eat and breath. I am a wage slave. I don't willingly give up the product of my labour to my employer but i am forced to by the power of capital that he exerts over myself. Further, I am not even compensated the whole value of my product, rather it is appropriated from me. I am alienated by this process from my product, from my life activity and from my fellow man. 3. You say that capitalism allows innovation. This is because of a failed understanding of real human needs, a by-product of your idealism. Advancement and innovation in the means of production, in technology and in living conditions is not a result of the profit motive, rather it is the product of man's life activity, his labour and it's ability to satisfy his real needs. Why else did we see advancement in the age of the hunter-gatherer, or in the age of the feudal aristocrat? The manifestation of the incentive to invent in the form of the profit motive is simply a result of the self-alienation experienced by man in the capitalist mode of production. 4. Socialism is not diluted communism, read a book you philistine. Side: No
If we want to talk about idealism lets take this whole debate to the next level then, shall we. In an ideal world we wouldn't need money, we wouldn't need government. Everyone would have exactly what they needed and want nothing more. There would be no greed and thus no crime. That, is neither capitalism nor socialism. By the way, socialism is diluted communism. The basic foundations of the two systems are the same, Marx. But Marx is very clear when he says that you go all the way or none. Socialism has the same basic goal in mind as Communism, that is that the individual should work for the greater good of the group. So yes, socialism is a less radical form of communism. Side: No
2
points
I would venture to say that history has proven you wrong: 19th century Europe. Completely unregulated capitalism leads to class society with a small portion of the society holding all the wealth and preventing any opportunity to the others. The largest part of the population working 12+ hours a day in horrible conditions just to be able to afford the next meal. Education is a determining factor in success in today's society, people who can't afford to get a quality education have a much harder time to break out of whatever they are born into. The opportunities are NOT equal at all. As I've mentioned before, just because a few individuals are lucky enough do achieve success under those conditions does not mean it is within reach of the general population. Taking your example of Bill Gates, had he not been lucky enough to have access to a computer, which was by no means common back then, he would not be who he is today. Communism has failed largely because of corrupt government, not because the inherent flaws of the system. Side: No
2
points
I find your justification of communism for simply blaming its collapse on "corrupt governments" to be extremely close minded, and your the one that doesn't know history. Just look at the only successful communist government, I'm talking about VI Lenin's Russia, he used a capitalist system for his economy. Communism accepts that everyone will deal with and except what ever they are given. To say the least that is not the case there will always be human desires, and you fail to acknowledge not only this, but you fail to acknowledge the other governments that failed dude to communist and socialist principals. Look at the devaluation of the English currency, the sterling, during the 1900's. That was what the socialists did when they initially took control. While you take a look at the base system you don't fully understand the principals of the system, and you fail to justify most of your claims with statistics and examples. To assess your claims of needing an education to succeed in, as an example of a capitalist system, America there have been countless million's made by those with out an education for simply having a bright idea. (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Wozniak) They all did it, and anyone with a decent idea in a capitalist system can and will succeed. Communism failed because it uses flawed principals and it promotes laziness in its citizens. Its not the fact that the governments are corrupt (tho it is a contributing factor) its not the reason. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
The way you use innovation is subjective, we have not made any REAL advances. Communism would take a generation or two but the final outcome would be incredible. With people given a principle understanding of society and a love of society, they can, and will be motivated to advance. Side: yes
Because the only thing that keeps a person from being successful is their own lack of ambition and or education; and education really isn't that essential to success look at Bill Gates for an example. I think this argument has some serious flaws. I contend that the following things also can limit success: - Lack of money. It's very hard to start a business with no money. Even if the business itself has no start-up costs, you typically need to spend a lot of time and hard work to get a business going. If you have $100,000 in the bank, then you have 2 years of income to support your family while trying to get your business off the ground. This is a huge advantage. - Physical or metal disability. Having a disability (through no fault of your own) can make it significantly harder to be successful. Not impossible, just much harder. - Prejudice. There was a time when unregulated lenders could refuse to lend money to people for any reason they wanted (skin color, accent, family background, etc). Despite your ambition, prejudice could severely limit your success. It's very easy to be a healthy, white man with a little cash in the bank and say "With a little ambition and hard work anyone can be successful!". But, there are many other people, particularly if regulations were not in place, that would be at a severe disadvantage to you. Also keep in mind that "working hard and being successful" is really relative to other people. To be successful you only have to work harder than the average person. For example, if everyone works 40hrs/week, but you work 50hrs, you are going to be more successful. But, if everyone starts to work 50hrs/week, now your just average, and inflation goes up and 50hrs/week only buys you as much as 40hrs/week used to. So now you have to work 60hrs/week to "beat the Joneses". Along those same lines if everyone worked really hard and made 100,000 per year, how could restaurants afford wait staff? You would have to pay a bagger at the grocery store 100,000/yr because he worked really hard and got his doctorate in bagging. For capitalism to work, some percentage of the population must be much less successful than the rest of the population. As the wealth accumulates with the top 1%, more and more of the population must be making less and less to keep the balance of "total success" equal. I think it's fair to say Bill Gates, was in the right place at the right time and may be somewhat of a genius. Your kidding yourself if you think that everyone can be like Bill Gates with only "ambition and hard work". Ambition and hard work are great and admirable but don't automatically result in success. In summary: capitalism is the best system I know of, but there must be regulations if you care at all about the disadvantaged or you think you or someone in your family could become disadvantaged at some point in time. It seems perfect until your wife or daughter (or you if your a woman) faces sexual discrimination... Side: Yes
I don't agree that capitalism is the best but you bring up a good point that i'm glad you make and that is of perspective. the West is prone to think that capitalism is the best since society is run in a way that the system is ingrained in our minds. But for some Socialism is the best because it stresses community over individuals and that is what several people in the East think. Socialism does look good on paper and with the right people it would work. We just need to let it flourish. Capitalism was allowed to grow, so let us let Socialism grow. For a truly socialist nation has yet to exist yet it can be said that pure capitalism has yet existed as well. "Different strokes for different folks" Side: No
"Socialism is the best because it stresses community over individuals"- exactly my point. Those that want communism or socialism only want it because they are too lazy to work hard and make a better life for themselves. They would rather "let the community take care of me" then have the motivation, determination, and drive to make a better life for them and their family. Side: No
It completely depends on what your definition of capitalism is, but i do believe that when executed properly capitalism is the best kind of society. Let me first state that a system which is perfect is an utopia, so there will always be flaws. But if capitalism would be executed properly it would be a society in which everyone has equal rights which inevitably leads to equal opportunities. I believe these are the basic principles upon which society should function. So, no there is nothing better than capitalism. Side: No
All arguments put aside there is nothing better than capitalism with everyones elaborate rational of what the perfect system is there isn't any , capitalism comes down to the most free and less incumbersome system on it's people. If I buy a widget for $10 and somebody wants to buy it from me for $15 whats wrong with that? The freedom and the responsibility of choices is between the seller and buyer. Side: No
1
point
1
point
An Alternative to Capitalism (which we need here in the USA)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://
John Steinsvold
Perhaps in time the so-called dark ages will be thought of as including our own. --Georg C. Lichtenberg Side: alternatives to capitalism
1
point
1
point
His grandparents were bankers, his father a lawyer, etc; Upper middle class would be the better socio-economic group. His first customer he got because of the connections of his mother. He went to a preparatory school, etc. Well he may be intelligent and hardworking, He isn't your average Joe with an average background and thus can't be stated as an example of how capitalism allows any hardworking, intelligent person to become rich. Further more, just because capitalism allowed a few people with such qualities to do such, doesn't mean it will allow the entire group to. That is actually a logical fallacy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bill was simply lucky, his attributes are part of what made him lucky but they weren't everything. Side: yes
Capitalism is the better of the two. However they both suffer from the same fate. Men in power can't be trusted. Those who have more naturally cling to what they have and the desire for more isn't satiated at any given point. If a lot is good then more is better. So those who have tend to horde the pie to themselves. This creates a natural injustice in both capitalism and socialism. The reason that capitalism wins the battle over which is best is that it provides the best playing field for those who have not to attempt the climb to the top. In the socialist form of government there is no upward mobility. It is much like the unions in America. In the socialist way of thinking there are just two classes of people. The working class and the bosses who govern the working class of the people. There is no middle class so there is no climbing the ladder of success. You get to the top because of who you are or who you know, not how hard you work. Side: No
Throughout the history of the human race, anything that is not individual sovereignty has failed. Only capitalism works within the confines of reality, scarcity and individual sovereignty and freedom. Those who dispute this have not read economic history in earnest. The evidence is quite clear. Is there anything better than capitalism? It is the best solution within the limitations of scarcity and the problems of distribution. Wealthy nations still have scarcity and distribution problems, but are MUCH further from the catastrophic collapse. Unless we can completely remove the scarcity and distribution problem, nothing else will work better than capitalism. Side: No
|
Social Capitalism. Capitalism is good because it helps allocate scarce resources, but it tends towards monopolies and concentrations of power or money. Mixing in ideas from Socialism and providing services for people help level the playing field a bit and make lower income people less poor by providing the necessities of life - food, shelter, and medical care. Does a private yacht mean as much to a rich man as a years worth of food to 100 poor? Side: Yes
In terms of making money i think capitalism is the best of any form that we have followed but at what cost? Socialism is a system were the focus isn't on the individual attainment of wealth but of the collective attainment of wealth. In socialism all of society suffers or non of society suffers. We are told by capitalists that all socialist nations suffer but is that the fault of socialism or of capitalism? Capitalistic nations such as America do all in their power to undermine and dismantle non-capitalistic nations. Socialism is a system that tries to better the conditions for all in society where the human is more important than the corporation. Capitalism cares nothing for living things, it's only goal is to obtain wealth as quickly as possible, the suffering that it causes is of no concern unless it costs money. If we allowed a socialist nation to properly flourish and grow without the economic restrictions capitalistic nations put on those countries we could see that socialism is truly the best system that we know of to better society because in the end your should live your life for you and what you want to do, not to to work and create more money. Side: Yes
How to we define better? I refuse to use wishy-washing short-sighted humanist ideas of equality and humanity. Man can no more choose his particular mode of production more than he can choose the weather. Capitalism, like all class based societies sows the seeds of it's destruction in the oppressed classes. This is why capitalism is today moving ever closer to it's revolutionary destruction. Socialism is the new revolutionary mode of production, "destined" to overtake capitalism, just a capitalism overtook feudalism. We can no more combine the best of both worlds, more than we can combine absolute monarchy and liberal democracy. They represent real historical stages and not theories floating in the realm of ideas ripe for the piping and applicable where desired Side: Yes
1
point
Mixing political ideologies? To what end? The best (not ideal) system is the one that creates the highest levels of comfort. That cannot be socialism because Houston, we have a problem. That problem is illegal immigration. We cannot support them at equal levels with citizenry that are propped up by big govt and cronyism. We need to fix the economy, period. If special interests will get out of the way for a bit and let unfettered capitalism work as it should we can climb out of this mess. Side: Yes
3
points
The cycle in capitalism, unfortunately, is that the rich do get richer and more powerful, while the poor get poorer. On a primal level, survival is being able to provide food, shelter, and water. In our more advanced society, survival is getting money in order to provide food, shelter and water. Money, thus, is what keeps us alive. The incentive for a business is provide in-demand quality goods & services at a price that will net the most money. This means there is an incentive to cut costs, both in the production process as well as the wages of the workforce. It is these companies that succeed and go on to expand, thus crushing their competition. The streamlining of processes and the advancement of technology aren't bad things for society or for business, but it does not take into account, the individual human being. What is good for a large corporation's stock quote, isn't always good for everyone. When these companies become this large, we become dependent upon them for goods, services, as well as employment. What happens naturally is that as a few corporate giants emerge, the competition disappears. Businesses or individuals just starting up will find it impossible to match prices with a large corporation that has a huge overhead and an elaborate system already in place. Unfortunately, what happens is that the top executives & upper management are the ones that benefit and there is no incentive to share the wealth with the working class. Now there will be some that say these lower positions don't deserve the higher pay because what they do isn't important enough or isn't hard enough. But one must keep in mind that they are in fact contributing to the overall success of that company. They may be working 40 hours a week, and that should enable them to a decent paycheck. They shouldn't have to worry about, at the very least, the necessities of life (food, shelter, & the transportation to and from work). What is happening today, is that the typical CEO is making more in bonuses than what any working class person would make in several lifetimes. The very thing that makes Capitalism work, is destroying it; greed. With the money that these executives make, they are then able to also control and influence our government. Lobbying should be made illegal. Money should not be an influencing factor in creating laws and creating tax breaks for the rich. The system is not broken....this is the system!! What we need, is a new system. It is my belief that Capitalism works in theory, when everyone begins at the same starting point. It would be similar to a poker game in which four friends have bought in for $20 worth of chips, and then some other guy sits down and buys in for $1000 worth of chips. That guy with a $1000 worth of chips is going to bully the other four around and will easily dominate the game. Now, it may be that one of the others is still able to play his cards correctly and win a few hands, but the risk is much less for that man with a $1000. He can afford to play every hand. Those of you that do play poker know how much easier it is to win when you have the chip lead. That being said, we need a system that is independent of how much wealth you have to start with. It should be one that allows everyone equal opportunities for education, health care, and basic necessities. Money should not be able to influence the governing bodies that dictate our laws. Government should be run by the people, for the people; all people. The system should reward those that work the hardest and that strive to do the right thing. Today, too many things go unregulated and because of it, many industries (including government) have become corrupt. We must not look at government regulation as a negative thing, but rather, an agency that is there to protect the consumer and the well-being of all. Of course, it isn't like that today, but it should be. I'd like to think that this would be possible, but I'm afraid that we are already set on a course. It is too late to just revamp government all together. I feel like it just needs to be tweaked. It will take time, and the right individuals in power for these changes to come about. Or maybe, just maybe, it could happen if people rallied together and demanded change. What will you do to make the world a better place? Side: alternatives to capitalism
Well said. I believe the answer is mostly education. When we compare the idea that ten percent of the population (in most capitalist countries) hold 90% (not as a rule, this is a generalization) and everyone in those populations have one vote for their democratic government, it is a surprise that the policies you suggest do not already exist. Even more shocking that in countries like mine (New Zealand) the government is cutting funding to health insurance and education budgets that already exist. I suppose the problem is twofold, the capitalists with money influence government decisions (as you say), and people just don't understand, or don't care about the implications of their votes (we can look at a few arguments in the "no" column of this debate as a case study). We need free education, and if people really understood and knew who they were voting for, behind the glossy election campaigns billboard, behind the smiling personable well picked candidate... If the population understood the implications of their vote, would not the majority who are marginalized these days be able to vote for a change (and not just in the ethnicity of the president, no disrespect to obama for the good he is trying to achieve...). Heres an idea: we have a minimum wage in my country, why not a maximum wage? Or even better(?) a wage system in which the top earner in any company can only earn say (as a suggestion) five times the amount of the lowest paid worker? The lowest paid worker makes enough to live, so surely the CEO on even three times the salary should be quite content! I think profits and shareholders should also be taken into account. Then everyone, by making the company better, improves their own wage. My idea is not completely rounded, it has faults, but surely its a "better" system than one where someone can work hard and stay on 25 thousand a year, and his boss, who cannot physically work 40+ times harder each hour, or 40+ times as many hours, is paid a salary over a million dollars (obviously this does not apply to every company). So he has invested more time and effort over the history of the company? Pay him equitably. But it still comes back to the mindset of the average person. If there is an opportunity to get gratuitous amounts of money, most will take that option, with the risk, over an equally distributed lifestyle with no grand potential for the individual over the community. I pay poker a lot, and if I was playing with my friends with $20 each and someone asked to join with $1000, I would almost guarantee my friends would be more than happy to let them take a seat. They are good poker players, and secretly think they are better than everyone else. It's only $20, and we've all fought back from bad losses to win at some point. Imagine getting $1000 from your $20? But then again my friends are chumps and let gambling get in the way of logic. Its a mindset thing. Too many people let capitalism get in the way of a logic (ok debate away; the logic of the free market bla bla bla), but by supporting it against a change for the better, it's not just their own $20 they are gambling. Side: yes
Every advocate of capitalism is ignoring its key flaw: inheritance. Most people begin life without a penny to their name, though a growing number have modest trust funds, and some - a minority of thousands, maybe tens of thousands - never work a day in their life and yet receive the best of everything. In a total capitalist state - America for instance - this doesn't just affect a vast difference in quality of life, but in survival itself. Privatized health care, driven by purely capitalist ideologies, cheats people of average wealth out of life saving medicine regularly, and completely denies it to the poor. People who've worked hard their whole life, paid their taxes, made the rich richer, don't have a chance. NEVER had a chance, not from the moment they were born. So long as 'greed is good', social revolt, war, destruction, poverty and inhumanity will all prosper. I don't know if there are enough resources for everyone on Earth to live well, and right now I don't care. Thanks to modern technology we have become a global community, but unless we shed this profitless greed(1) in our own cultures, we cannot move forward as a global community - moreover, we risk regressing to another world war. (1)Afterall, what can billions buy that millions can't? Hell, what can millions buy that a million can't? And what kind of fool makes these purchases? Buying your own spaceship? That's hella cool. Buying the latest gadget... in 24ct gold? That's the kind of stupidity that - by capitalist logic - shouldn't exist in someone so rich. Side: yes
None of you know enough to form an opinion that would satisfy the answer. When you look at the world around you, at things in your local shop, WalMart, at people, and at life itself and when you finally stop parroting others, you will realize, if you haven't already have, that capitalism, in the form we have today, is a big scam. It is no different from imperialism or communism. These are just words, but in action, it is all slavery, only on different levels, masked under different words. I have lived in a communist country for quite long to be able to figure out, how economics there works and the answer is: no difference. The USSR party made money. All around its territories there were shops opened that accepted gold only as payment, robbing people and making everyone but those on top poor. How is capitalism different? It is a different word. So, if there is something better: it depends, what is meant by better. Better like more social, or more progressive or how better? There is not absolute good, only relative one. Kant failed at proving the opposite. The real question that is meant: what is more social? Communism is on the bottom of all of economic forms, it is close to slavery. So is capitalism, but a level higher. Socialism is the highest level, but of course it has disadvatages of its own. There is a seamless transfer between all forms. Capitalism and slavery - all only economic conditions of the same thing we call life. There is still farmers, neighbours and people around you. The only difference is who rubs them. Why capitalism is the most popular (which is not the same as 'the best') has something to do with Jewish history, as they were and are the ones promoting freedom and democracy, because democracy makes a country weak and unstable to fall for credits. You can look at the history of Kosovo: the reason Rothschilds wanted it to be 'independent' is because they want to dominate the banking sector in Eastern Europe. Putin made an excelent move by leading South Stream through Serbia. But it is a different matter for a different time. :) Side: yes
1
point
i will name one thing better than capitalism, anarchy. capitalism brings nothing but struggle, and ruined lives, it puts people above eachother without need and it causes a war among everyone, buy, or be bought, sell, or be sold, its just another way of greed bleeding through their evil, black hearts Side: yes
1
point
Socialism is of course better than capitalism, but I believe communism will be a far better world. Humanity can move beyond social division. Side: Yes
I don't think true capitalism has been tried yet, or maybe we are leading up to it. I think it goes something like this. Have most of the earnings of a company go to share owners, instead of wherever it goes now. In this way we all become part owners of our country, similar to employee owned companies. There is such a small portion that comes back in dividends now, why not give most to the owners, the stock holders? What do you think ? Side: Yes
Anything which doesn't hurt democracy is better than capitalism - and there are plenty of alternatives. Capitalism is good for expansion. Unfortunately, our planet is NOT unlimited. Capitalism is anti-democratic. On paper, in theory, capitalism is about fairness. Well, that's in theory. In practice, the more money you have, the more you can suppress other smaller companies. How comes that the richest persons, on average, are those producing NOTHING?! You've guessed it, I'm talking about the banks. In order to understand the entire issue from the ground up, you have to watch the following documentaries in order: http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ Yeah, it's a few hours of intensive thinking. But hey, you wanted to know it! Side: Yes
1
point
Capitalism is overrated. The end result of capitalism is a very few who are very VERY rich and a vast majority who are very poor. However, capitalism that is kept in check by government with elements of socialism is good. Though, the best would be socialism with elements of capitalism. Side: Yes
0
points
Okay, this is a falacy, but here it goes. We must first accept that capitalism is better than anything else we've tried, since if anything we have is better we would use it. However, we are not at the end of time, so logically, there must be something better, that subsequently follows. That is, if we are to continue to grow and evolve. Now rip it apart. Side: Yes
I think I see what your saying, but you presuppose the notion that man always does whats best for him, which I dont believe is the case. For example, the government of Greece was a partial democracy, and afterwards the whole of Europe went under monarchistic rule (the dark ages) This shows a nonlinear progression of government types, a "devolution" if you will from democracy (commonly considered a better form of government) to monarchy (commonly considered an inferior or unfair form of government) I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, I think, but not the idea that what we have at any given time is the best we know of. In fact, there are some who believe tribal government (i.e. the government and economic systems of the Native Americans or African tribes) is the best sort of government: Collective property, social punishment for crime (exile or banishment) and rule by the elders. Side: Yes
1
point
|
