Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

xris, I am sad to say, but you are simply mistaken. And it doesn't seem to be something you are willing to change your mind about.
You cling to a few plausible facts, and since they confirm your beliefs, you are not willing to explore the more counterintuitive realities of the matter. You always return to these plausible facts. "But it does work, it is a third cheaper."
If it was that simple then there would be no argument.

I am confident that humanity will continue to move in the direction of free markets in the future, so you will benefit from them even if you don't believe in them.

Don't put words into my mouth I have never said that a free market economy is wrong, in just needs laws to control its excesses. It needs social benefits included to manage the greed that man will exhibit.

xris, are you saying that in the unbridled free market we are allowed to participate in all mutually beneficial transactions, and this will lead to some being 'unfortunate', which necessitates welfare to help them out. I agree. That's why I suggested the negative income tax to provide a basic income. But what we are practicing, and what you seem to support, is wholly different. What we are doing is merely the one person using the coercive force of the state to get other peoples money. That's class warfare, not realizing the need for a safety net. The difference is important. We can realize the need for a safety net for the unfortunate, or we can think that we are better off if the state pays for health care and education. That's doing socialism because we think it provides us with a free lunch.

No ones suggesting we dole out large sums to lazy bar stewards, no one suggesting the health service become a breeding ground for Marxist oppression. Practicality and pragmatic reasoning, not stupid ideological intransigence.

Of course nobody is suggesting it, but that you don't intend it does not mean that it doesn't happen. You have to separate intentions from consequences. Did German Democratic Socialists intend to give rise to Hitler? No. But that's what their actions consequences were. But since that were not the intentions of socialism, you can easily shuffle off that attack; for you it is only about what your intentions were.

Just tell me, are you suggesting that we provide a safety net for people inbetween jobs, or do you think that by having state health care, pensions and education society is better off? It is clearly the latter that you advocate, you think if we put the state in charge of things, we will be better off. Not that we should redistribute some wealth, accepting the economic reality that that means that we are poorer as a society.

But you say that you get more out of it than if it were provided by the market? Because if government shifts around money, society overall is poorer than it would have been. That might be worth it, because then those who need it have it, but you don't have more because you put the state in charge of it. But you are saying that you have more because you put government in charge. Like that health care is cheaper. And that doesn't work that way. You have to pay for everything in some way.

What? the government shift money around:perplexed:because those who needed it, have it:perplexed: Im sorry I have no idea what your on about.

Yeah, that didn't really make sense.
But we're not gonna agree, are we?
Shouldn't we agree to disagree?

No your wrong...:bigsmile: of course Nero..

You backed away the last time you appeared to loosing the debate..You see difficulties in debate and then disappear for a week and then start again as if the debate had never happened.

We are all capitalists in the literal sense of the word. Im not a communist, how many times must I repeat myself. This is not a battle of strict dogmatic values. I am a democratic socialist. Debate on those grounds or leave me alone.

I was debating other people when you responded to my posts. You started it. So don't act like I'm the one pestering you.

No you are not a communist. Of course you are not a communist. Will you ever stop hiding behind the "I'm not a communist" line? It's such a easy excuse for everything. By your definition nobody is a communist.

But yes, I do want to debate "democratic" socialism. This: you are for putting the state in charge of pensions and health care. Why?
- Because you think there is a free lunch? "It is cheaper." That's factually wrong.
- Because you think the rich should pay for everybody else? That's violent expropriation.
Why?

The problem is you cant differentiate between a communist state and democratic socialist economy.

If pensions are not paid by other people, but each for himself, then what's the purpose of putting the state in charge of it? Individually everyone would get higher returns in a free market, so the only reason to put the state in charge of it is to force some to pay for others.

Let me ask in another way, why shouldn't we live in a free world where everybody can freely decide what they want to buy... health care, pensions, etc? From that foundation, why should we use the coercive power of the state to force anyone to do anything, even if it's supposedly to their benefit?



Yes, in terms of economic policy I do not see any difference, except degree.

Coercive its not coercive, we desire a pension, we request it, guaranteed by the state and paid for by the vast majority. We dont trust private run pensions they have the habit of bankruptcy and to the vagaries of the market. Its a basic pension, if you wish to contribute to a private one , no one stops you but too many have been let down by the private sector. Its a pragmatism not ideology.