Argh, getting longer again
. Let's end this. Reply to this post, and then we'll both just post our concluding remarks or whatever.
cff said:
Wrong. Both are mostly an economic ideology.
Capitalism is an ideology that says that natural laws of economics work well, and that any intervention results in adverse effects. Socialism is an ideology that says the natural laws of economics must be revised to build a 'better' society. The fact that socialim's purpose is related to the society, not to economics, proves that it is not an economic ideology. And the fact that it would try to intervene in something that even socialist economists consider to be the natural order of things proves that it is the dumbest idea ever - to complain about supply & demand is like complaining about gravity.
Oh, but capitalism has a STRONG opinion how you should life. Live the way that maximizes profits. Just open your eyes - pupils are beaten by others because they don't have the 'right' hip clothes.
Foolishness. Pupils get beaten because they don't have the hip clothes? What the hell does that have to do with capitalism? You've come up with a problem and arbitrarily linked it to capitalism for no reason other than because you think capitalism is bad. What can capitalism possibly have to do with stuff like this? What, is it supply and demand? Those pupils not wearing hip clothes are demanding to be beaten, and those others decide to supply the beating? Or do those other pupils demand someone to beat, and those ones not wearing hip clothes decide to supply themselves? Your arguments are simply getting ridiculous.
And again, capitalism has NO opinion on how you should live. The ONLY thing capitalism says is that the economy works best when the government doesn't intervene. Libertarianism goes further by combining this with liberalism (in the 19th century meaning of the word), arguing that the government should in general intervene as little as possible in the life of its people; that a person should be able to do anything he likes, as long as he doesn't usurp other people's freedom (so, no, it's not a "do what you will, kill who you will" ideology). The running theme here is NON-INTERVENTIONISM. Capitalism and libertarianism CANNOT tell you how you should live, because they're too busy telling you that the government shouldn't tell you how you should live.
And you assumtion is based on what facts? Just being private doesn' make anything better.
My
true and accurate statement 
p) is based on logic supplemented with evidence drawn from what is happening all around me. For example, by comparing the experience of visiting a dentist (private healthcare) and the experience of visiting a doctor (public healthcare). A private business has every reason to treat its customers well - it wants to secure a return visit. A public business, on the other hand, has every reason to treat its customers as badly as possible - it
does not want return visits. To a dentist, you're a liability (in terms of time and materials spent on your treatment), but you're also the source of revenue, so he respects you. To a public doctor, you are only a liability - he has to spend time and materials on you, but he doesn't get anything from you in return, and it's reasonable that the less he spends on you, the more he'll be able to siphon off for himself.
In short, public businesses work badly for the very same reasons for which private businesses work well - because both operate under the same unchangeable laws of economics.
Besides you also employ a rather capitalistic idea to the sozial system as well. If it is broken throw it away.
More foolishness - if you follow the economic laws outlined by capitalism, you will realise that it's usually cheaper to fix something than to throw it away. So, "if it's broken, throw it away" has nothing to do with capitalism - in fact, such rules usually operate in incompetently-managed public businesses (in other words, in all public businesses), which means that you are once again blaming capitalism for socialism.
And as for fixing social systems... socialism has had over a hundred years. Had these problems been fixable, they would have been fixed. But no - instead, they were made worse, and keep getting worse. Socialism is a dismal failure, exactly as capitalists said it would be - and you're still talking about fixing it?
Ah, but if capitalism rules 100% the companies themself will force the government that it will increase its influence in order to help them along once again.
That's why there must be a strong constitution that sets the basic rules in stone, and which cannot be changed by the government. Because the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance - capitalism has an uncanny ability to morph into socialism, and this is dangerous.
The other topic is the fusion of corporations.
No, it isn’t. Corporate fusions are entirely irrelevant here. They are entirely unaffected by all this - you will still be able to buy somebody else's company and merge it with your own.
What is the difference if a bankrupt company owes you money versus a bankrupt single person owes you money? [...] It just needs a person willing to stay bankrupt for the rest of his life (or tricked into getting bankrupt). [...] Simple as that done millions of times even under current law.
Ah, another classic socialist argument - that capitalism ignores human perfidy and thus should not be tried because it doesn't fix everything. Well, hang on - exactly how is the present situation better? Because if it isn’t, then any improvement is a good thing. And if a person, rather than a corporation, owes you money, your chances of getting retribution through law are better.
Firstly the fictional leader of that company would of course be more guilty if something bad happens then the silent co-owners, right?
Only to a point. If the company was somehow responsible for somebody's death, for example, the guy in charge might be charged with murder - but the silent co-owners would be charged as accessories to murder.
However as I said - either your private law is voluntarily or it is illegal. Simply because you don't have the right to issue laws.
Unless I can afford to pay off the police. Besides, my private law is not the only one based on money - those laws that make my law illegal are also enforced using money.
Equal chance means communism: in that case, maybe 'equal chance' is the wrong term for me to use. Picture a race. The competitors all must follow the same rules - they run the same distance, starting simultaneously, etc., etc. The race, therefore, is considered fair (and this is what I want). But of course, not everyone has an equal chance to win - some of the competitors are more talented than others. Regardless of this, however, the race
is fair, and if we took steps to ensure that everyone in the race were of precisely equal talent, we would turn it into a parody, because the winner could only be determined randomly or through a violation of the rules. I don't want this, so I would never suggest any sort of communism - equal rules are what's important here.
Talent vs. money: Money is just a random variable? Hang on - I earn money through hard work. If I have lots of money, this isn't at all random. Even if it's my parents that earned the money, and not me, the money is still not random - I have it because someone earned it. Talent? Intelligence? Now, there's some random variables - with our rudimentary understanding of genetics and heredity, we really don't know why some children born from moronic parents are brilliant, while others born from brilliant parents are morons.
I respect people solely for how hard they try.
You're lying
. If you had your own company, you would hire people who could prove to you that they can get the job done. Nobody wants to hire somebody who has time and time again failed dismally, even if they always try really hard. Of course, you may reply saying that even though you wouldn't hire such a person, you would have deep respect for them - but then your respect is just a worthless word.
And of course, you cannot measure everything on the same scale - the requirements for a good painting are different than the requirements for a good car. But this has no bearing on the effort-vs-result question. After all, the effort required for these two things is different as well, and that doesn't make one of them better than the other.
People will start to engineer our race towards achieving the most results out of the least gain. [...] In the end you'd end with biological robots.
This is wonderfully ironic. Your argument against result-based judgements is based on the end
result. Unless you admit that you are wrong (which you are), you have no right to use this argument.
I can say that the process you describe above is bad, because it will result in biological robots, and I don't think that's a good result.
You cannot say this - as far as you're concerned, the process described above is a good thing, because the people in charge of the process are making a great
effort. What's more, according to your effort-based judgement, I am worse than these people, because while they're making an effort to improve humanity, I'm just sitting there complaining about what the end results will be.
I never denied this. Bill Gates money is more useful. But it is LESS NOBLE.
Sure, in your eyes - but again, you don't matter.
. Well, it was a fun discussion.
