This financial crisis is an obvious indicator of how corrupt and weak the capitalist system is, it's fallen into the hands of a few. I strongly believe socialism should be considered an option at this point.

The fighting in Iraq is an obvious indicator of how uncaring and weak the pacifist and isolationist system is. I strongly believe empire should be considered an option at this point.

lol. Good point, as this attack is too often made. Unfortunately for conservatives, conservative media sources haven't done a particularly good job of making the case for (or even attempting to make the case for) too heavy a hand of government being at the root of this crisis. In fact they are even saying, Greenspan included, that deregulation was, in fact, the main problem. From a political standpoint, this seems foolish IMO.

My contention, however, is that this thinking can go overboard. In our mixed economy, one can only speculate on what the result of a perfectly free market, or more free market, would have been. But one can also only speculate on what the result of a less free market, or more centralized government, would have been.

Define capitalism.

Define socialism.

I refuse to get into these debates anymore until everyone understands what the other means by these words.

meh i kind of agree with op. everyone on this forum seems to advocate decreased role of government and in some cases "anarcho communism" but that would be so dumb, everyone would just go crazy and people could just kill and steal without consequence. in a socialist system at least everyone would be provided for and not have to worry about not being able to afford health care or retirement or job security. why not give it a try? the system they have in europe is kind of socialist and it seems to be working fine for them...

capitalist= every man for yourself, only the strong survive, if u get ****ed over, sucks for you

socialist= everyone provided for, no one has to live in fear of not being able to access basic human needs

geez...


edit: Just look in the politards section, there are like 2 or 3 threads on this topic there.

If you don't know what caused it don't try to cure it.

lol, awesome definitions. I guess I'm a socialist then. While your about it lets define nazism as free ice cream for all and rainbow shooting unicorns with bags of gold decending from the heavens.

no i'm not an idiot, nazism is ******ed. you get my point though.

Is it not possible to have a capitalist society where the poor and weak are provided for? Though private charities for example? Is it not possible to have a socialist society where high ranking officials abuse their powers and the greater population suffers? Or are these not true scotsmen?

Either of these types of economies, in their pure form is rare. I suppose I assume too often that we are speaking only of mixed economies with different leanings.

Would you object to saying that decentralizing power to individuals in any way constitutes a shift toward capitalism, and that centralizing power to a tax-and-spend governing unit in any way is a shift toward socialism.

Your sarcasm is uncalled for and unnecessary. How would you define socialism?

This seems reasonable enough.

"socialism (uncountable)

1. Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources"

sounds good to me

People once had similar fears, prior to the 18th century, about how economic chaos without a central planner.

Health care and retirement-maybe. Job security seems dangerous to me, though.

A better argument can be made for Scandinavian countries in particular. Their government is more centralized than ours, but prior to the last decade or two, had a fairly successful economy.

Undoubtedly incentives are distorted by the government in such economies which limits economic growth. Economic freedom is the cost of such equality and lower stress, for better or for worse. It is arguable that this is sometimes for the social benefit, but that sometimes it is not. Many socialists are quick to reference France, which I feel weakens their stance.

How about something like "A societal structure whereby a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force is granted to (or taken by) a group of individuals with the presumption that they will use that force for the betterment of the lives of those they have power over. "

your location is fitting, people like you are what's wrong with this economy.

How so?

Just playing the villain here btw. I think you guys should consider either a dictionary's definition or my definition.

So only democracies can be socialist?

Undervalued compared to what?

How are you measuring and comparing utility between and among people?

edit : sandman your approach is refreshing. It's always good to debate with people who are generally interesting in debate. I need a good schooling in my personal logical deficiencies (which I'm sure are still numerous) every now and then to keep me sharp.

Point taken. Rash assumption on my part. In the interest of avoiding a semantic argument, however, I think we should, from now on in this thread, assume a democracy. Unless, of course, anyone advocates for a socialist economy with a different political structure. Anyone?

Assuming rational choice theory, undervalued by private costs and benefits, compared to social costs and benefits.

It is impossible to measure utility accurately between people. I'm just making the assertion that average utility is not the same as average material well-being. I'm assuming a kind of theory of diminishing marginal utility (not from a pure economic standpoint) which supposes that $10,000 has less utility to someone with $100,000 than $1,000 has to someone with $10,000. This is, by one argument, the basis of our current tax code. Maximizing utility involved a delicate balance of this theory, with the realization that too much redistribution distorts economic incentives to the point of lowering utility.

If one wants to increase average utility of its citizens (and I'm not saying you do), but argues against wealth redistribution on the grounds that utility is impossible to measure is making a logical fallacy. If one is incapable of saying how much wealth redistribution will maximize average utility, then one is incapable of saying that zero wealth redistribution will result in maximizing average utility. However, a government may err on the side of too little redistribution in virtue of economic freedom.

Likewise. I always enjoy debate with people who hold well-thought-out views. It's certainly easier to accept one's differences when you know the other person has considered your stance, but disagrees because of different judgement or core values.

Haha, wow, wut?

Just a suggestion, but providing a reason for your views up front will make them seem more legitimate.

Go ahead, "give it a try," what's stopping you?