Capitalism is wealth, socialism is poverty.

Its why history always repeats itself, especially when it comes to governments. The governments become more and more intrusive into peoples lives accumulating more wealth around those in power until the people at the bottom decide no more. Doesn't matter what economic or political system one uses. That is why the founding fathers tried to establish a weak government where the people had lots of freedoms, to try and stop the oppression of the individual that comes from large governments. They also knew it wouldn't last, its plain as day to anyone who has read some of their writings. Giving the government more power for our "protection and security" always leads to the inevitable abuse of the people for the gain at those at the top. Thats why some of us still strive for smaller government, we must always be watching and trying to curb the power. Of course to paraphrase some old Roman "Most don't want true freedom, instead they wish for fair masters"

 

You forgot to mention Finland and Denmark.

 

Still, there are nuances that come with each era; things don't repeat exactly.

We don't HAVE to repeat the same problems, if we learn the lessons. Allowing GREED to rot us from the inside, is something we can counter/mitigate; and we should.

 

Which is a free ride?

TANSTAAFL

 

No, they're the socialists.
The capitalist have whatever they fancy.

I once thought socialism was a good idea, even as far as joining the British Labour party and I'm glad I did.
After seeing that bunch of daft monkeys and hearing what they actually thought, I realised how stupid they were and how capitalism was the way forward.
I tossed in my membership card and joined the Tory party.
I've explored many political ideals but only capitalism embraces reality so is the only viable system.
All the others rely on ideals and dreams.

 

The principles of supply and demand and a fairly free market economy are not quite the same things as Capitalism, but Socialism is definitely less suited for dealing with them. There are definitely aspects of Socialism that are likely to better suit the citizens of a nation (universal healthcare, impartial justice, wealth gap narrowing or at least non-widening) but Socialists have great difficulty understanding some basic economic principles and thus tend to gradually cut off the air supply to the Golden Goose.

 

I hope you're being sarcastic. 'Cause if you aren't, you lack any basic understanding of economics. Not to mention voluntaryist theory, or anarcho-capitalism either...or the militias. Tell me, how would Germany get over here with no navy? If backwards nations like Iran can hack and take down drones, I think well trained militias could do worse even in the modern day. Just as a parallel.

 

Borrowing by the US government is not capitalism, is simply government spending more then it takes in, and forcing the taxpayers to repay it. It's simply a massive tax increase.

 

In other words, forever chasing their unobtainable Utopian fantasy

 

It's simply a system that failed and had to borrow trillions from the commies and socialists.

 

I cannot revoke it because I never signed it to begin with. I am not bound to it in any legal matter.

Besides, it's not like the government actually adheres to the laws that, not only they set for themselves, but also what the people use to restrict its growth (i.e. the failure of the Constitution). Because whether it be one thing or another, either the Constitution has allowed our immoral, corrupt government to grow this terrible, or it has been powerless to prevent it.

 

actually you don't have to go any further back than the native American Indian societies if you want an example of life without private property. They were also an example of a society without poverty, their bottom classes were indeed better off than the people living in our streets today

 

Yes because the BLS doesn't totally wreck the unemployment statistics. Oh wait...

 

And whether gov. adheres to laws or not, they are set in stone until repealed. Just be a good boy and abide by the laws. Judges don't let you off for running a red light, just because they let the last guy off for running a red light.

 

Ahh yes, I forgot, libertarians have to make stuff up to push their BS ideology.

 

Life without poverty? Simply ludicrous. They often died due to lack of food especially during winter and some tribes in the south were cannibals.

 

I never said there weren't worst case scenarios, but in comparison to the cities in Europe and the American colonies, their bottom classes did not experience poverty (that is until their forced migration).. and that was acknowledged by the people who were alive at the time, the Indians were seen as a society without poverty

 

Doesn't include discouraged workers. Seems to me that's a pretty big variable. And a fact. And btw I'm an anarchist (pure libertarianism).

 

Their bottom classes were slaves who could be tortured at will. There are no Native American societies without private property. Obviously given that Nomadic peoples don;t claim land ownership but the still own their clothes,tools, animals etc.

 

More like a wet dream, but with no hope of ever getting the fantastic blonde they're after.

 

Seriously?
It is called the social contract not the the contract you individually sign with your government....

are you a teenager or something ?

 

This is a form of socialism not capitalism:

 

Yes, he is, but he works for us, the CIA, and is on some kind of mission, of which only he can elaborate.

 

Like re-education camps and gulags of People's Republics of Asia and Russia eh.....

 

Obama promised to transform our country but he never said it would be to socialism and poverty. I hope that the trend can be reversed.