Why is everyone all bogged down by black & whitism? no one choice is the best, a mixture of capitalism and socialism, is probably the best, anarchy would be interesting but.... yeah.

Ragdrazi:
Ok. Lets see if I can remember the whole thing.

Well, I'll say that you definitely don't have your brain turned off. I admit that comment was directed to the chaos craving punk band Anarchists, and that the comment I made was a rash generalization. You have obviously done plenty of research about true Anarchism and have thought quite a bit of how it could work, given everyone understands the concept and goes along with the plan... But I don't believe people could come together and establish that sort of effective anarchist system in a state that already has an established government. This is my opinion and obviously can disagree. I realize I'm feeding directly into your closing quote... I guess I can't see putting that much faith into mankind for that sort of change. Thanks for the information!

You live in the UK which is considered to be economically mixed, or socialism. I should know, I lived there for the first 16 years of my life.

Note: 33% to 51%? How much money are you making?

Fondant:

33% to 51%? How much money are you making?

33% is 22% income tax plus 11% national insurance. 51% is 40% income tax plus 11% national insurance. Most of the working population is in one of these two tax bands. I'm not working.

goodman528:
I
I live in the UK, where income tax and National insurance is 33% to 51% of an average person's income. Council housing is provided to everyone who needs it, healthcare, education and motorways are free, unemployment, incapacity, single parent, etc benefits, are more than enough to live on. The government uses subsidies, quotas, grants, import / export duties, corporate and Value Added Taxes, minimum wage laws, and hard coded regulations; all of which has a huge effect the price of goods. So, do I live in a Capitalist or Communist or Socialist society?

.

Its not free if you pay for it through taxes. You live a a capitalist society that is slowly being converted into a socialist one.

And it's not free if you pay for it through the private sector either, but financing it through taxes gives it far more stability and much greater economies of scale than the private system.

TomNook:
Its not free if you pay for it through taxes. You live a a capitalist society that is slowly being converted into a socialist one.

It is free for those who don't pay taxes, like the unemployed. UK is not moving towards socialism. Going back a few decades UK had all these huge national monopolies, like BT (Telecoms), BA (Airways), BP (Petroleum), BS (Steel), BR (Railway), etc. From Thatcher onwards UK has become more capitalist, despite the New Labour rhetoric, they've lost their trade union roots, and is just as conservative as the Tories. Today, under new labour, schools are already being partly privatised (Academies); and there is some talk of privatising the NHS.

No option for Facism? What the hell kind of cop-out political debate is this!?

I'd sooner live in a dictatorship than I would in a capitalist democracy. You have just about the same freedom either way.

(Provided the Dictator actually cared for the people... Franco, in his early years for example... I know I'll get slapped for this, and I'm not saying that fabled German fool was right... But atleast you could leave the house unlocked knowing it was safe before the war.)

I don't quite get why you've used Anarchy as an option, but hell I'll run with it!

Ragdrazi:

gomerkyle9:
I admit that comment was directed to the chaos craving punk band Anarchists

I'm in two punk bands.

Do you crave chaos? If not, then I wasn't talking about you.

Thatcher couldn't privatise the NHS, so God help anyone else who tries. If they do, I intend to raisesuch a stink that they'll have to stop.

Ragdrazi:

gomerkyle9:

Ragdrazi:

gomerkyle9:
I admit that comment was directed to the chaos craving punk band Anarchists

I'm in two punk bands.

Do you crave chaos? If not, then I wasn't talking about you.

Do you crave understanding your misconceptions? If not, then I wasn't talking to you.

I'm sorry, but maybe you should blame it on the people who say they are Anarchists because they like flipping cars. All the people who say they are punk that I know are like that. Maybe you should make up your own stereotype for yourself if you're so sensitive about your label. Or maybe you just secretly crave chaos? Either or, doesn't matter to me, you just don't understand what I'm trying to say. There's a reason people call people punks. I wonder how that started?

J-Man:

Capitalism = The problem here is that we've had capitalism for thousands of years, and it's thousands of years out of date.

........in my opinion with communism, and if that doesn't work socialism is a viable alternative.

This has to be the most ignorant moronic statement I have ever seen in my life.
No wonder socialism failed completely, with people so uninformed trying to replace the free market with mindless rhetoric.

History has proven that socialism is fundamentally flawed as it depends on the desire of an individual not to better himself or herself or rather to better their lot in life which is a natural human trait (if not instinct). Capitalism on the other hand functions through competition. People naturally try to better their situation in life (little to no government interference necessary) and it is through this competition that capitalism has been so successful.

Having said that capitalist systems do go through periods of recession and even depression from time to time (partially through a natural cycle but they can be prolonged by outside interference usually from the government) however this is a small price to pay as a capitalistic system will inevitably turn itself around because individuals never stop competition and are always trying to better their situation.

Seekster:
History has proven that socialism is fundamentally flawed as it depends on the desire of an individual not to better himself or herself or rather to better their lot in life which is a natural human trait (if not instinct). Capitalism on the other hand functions through competition. People naturally try to better their situation in life (little to no government interference necessary) and it is through this competition that capitalism has been so successful.

Having said that capitalist systems do go through periods of recession and even depression from time to time (partially through a natural cycle but they can be prolonged by outside interference usually from the government) however this is a small price to pay as a capitalistic system will inevitably turn itself around because individuals never stop competition and are always trying to better their situation.

Well I disagree with you in part. I'm not sure if you agree with this, But I believe that capitalism is the best choice, but only when coupled with a hefty dose of socialism.

Free Health care, Free Public education is socialism.

I disagree with you that the depression capitalism goes through is a natural cycle. A lot of the cycles are because greedy assholes use their money as a fist and try to bully people around. (well they don't try as much as they succeed). Short selling and ridiculous CEO termination of contract payouts show us that.

The problem with the capitalism picture you paint is that there is no safety net. If someone fails at a risk they took, they are out on the street, no hope to get money, no hope to get a job. The society you paint is total crap. You NEED socialism in a functioning Capitalist society.

Arcticflame:

Seekster:
History has proven that socialism is fundamentally flawed as it depends on the desire of an individual not to better himself or herself or rather to better their lot in life which is a natural human trait (if not instinct). Capitalism on the other hand functions through competition. People naturally try to better their situation in life (little to no government interference necessary) and it is through this competition that capitalism has been so successful.

Having said that capitalist systems do go through periods of recession and even depression from time to time (partially through a natural cycle but they can be prolonged by outside interference usually from the government) however this is a small price to pay as a capitalistic system will inevitably turn itself around because individuals never stop competition and are always trying to better their situation.

Well I disagree with you in part. I'm not sure if you agree with this, But I believe that capitalism is the best choice, but only when coupled with a hefty dose of socialism.

Free Health care, Free Public education is socialism.

I disagree with you that the depression capitalism goes through is a natural cycle. A lot of the cycles are because greedy assholes use their money as a fist and try to bully people around. (well they don't try as much as they succeed). Short selling and ridiculous CEO termination of contract payouts show us that.

The problem with the capitalism picture you paint is that there is no safety net. If someone fails at a risk they took, they are out on the street, no hope to get money, no hope to get a job. The society you paint is total crap. You NEED socialism in a functioning Capitalist society.

Perhaps, unfortunately socialism and capitalism do not function well in the same system, one tends to attempt to override the other.

I admit that in a full capitalistic system there is little room for error, it is somewhat like social darwinism which is not entirely fair, however capitalism has historically been far more successful economically than any socialist system.

To put my thoughts in the simplest of terms:

In capitalism some people "lose" and some people "win" (admitting that more people will "lose" than will "win")

In socialism nobody is allowed to "win" which leaves only one other alternative.

Still I can see that we will have to agree to disagree. No system is entirely flawless however I stand by the statement that capitalism is the most economically viable system (though perhaps not the most socially kind).

How about none of the above. All the systems listed suck.

Socialism all the way

Socialism and integration would be my opinion. I believe it is the government's duty to provide its people with the vital elements of industrial civilization: water, power, food and infrastructure (roads, city/district-planning, public institutions, etc). I also believe in the freedom of the people to provide those for themselves or others (capitalism) outside of governmental matters of regulation, but which are subject to review and standardized grading for the awareness of the general customer.

So, in the great big debate about health care, I'm for having it both ways: keep HMO's while still opening up universal health care options. Give more jobs to doctors (we need those in the US) with standardized pay in public, governmental hospitals, and let HMO's compete among themselves with private offers for their own staff. The HMO's could then be considered 'higher class' for typically offering specialized services with higher pay or wages, while those who pay their taxes and have not he clout to buy a health plan could (and trust me, they would) take the option of standing in line for a doctor. It doesn't have to be one way only.

The government might as well open up 'general food stores' that sell simple vegetables, fruits, meats and dairy goods, with standardized wages for workers, mostly minimum wage (I'd suppose, having worked at Ralph's myself). This would create jobs while still allowing private enterprises to capitalize on specialization of product, services, and therefore wages, giving the people two forms of choice: simple and general, or complex and specialized at different prices. This way, the government wouldn't be letting the poorer classes down with simple jobs and products on offer. If a community is small enough and there are local, simple grocery store owners who depend on their business to survive, the government should use its discretion to not jeopardize its own people in this manner and decline to open up such establishments in those communities unless the people of those communities demand it. That is democracy.

Socialism: have it both ways.

Rajin Cajun:
How about none of the above. All the systems listed suck.

And what doesn't suck?

Ragdrazi:

goodman528:

What is Anarchy?
An apple is worth whatever the guys with the biggest muscles and blah blah blah

No and poop.

lol.
One word:
Somalia.
...
You must admit, he has a point.

lenin_117:
BTW communism isn't "Lenin" communism, think more like Stalin or even Marx. Long Live the Reds!!!

So you're telling us that communism isn't anything remotely close to being practiced communism, but is instead more like a perfect utopian world where everyone is equal and happy, yet at the same time a totalitarian form of government that completely contradicts even the most basic of communist beleifs?
The OP doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, Marxs communism is a hell of a long way from Stalinism.

Lord Krunk:
[Stalin sucked as a communist leader, he was the epitome of everything that was wrong with communism.

Communist leader is an oxymoron, just thought I'd point that out. If there is a defined leader then everyone does not have equal say and it is therefore not communism by definition.

This is a bad poll
Anarchy and Communism are political systems Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems.

There are Anarcho-syndicalism as advocated by Noam Chomsky. There is Anarcho-capitalism as advocated by Raun Paul (sort of).

There is communist-socialist like Soviet Russia and there is communist-capitalist which is sort of what China is right now.

I vote democratic socialist because I believe that gives the most amount of freedom without abuses of those freedoms.

please put up an 'other' thing

I think all governments are stupid - but 'anarchy' is equally stupid/immature

If i wanted a government i'd call it an englightened monarchy of logic... i'd be king of course

Arcticflame:
I'm not sure if you agree with this, But I believe that capitalism is the best choice, but only when coupled with a hefty dose of socialism.

Free Health care, Free Public education is socialism.

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

I disagree with you that the depression capitalism goes through is a natural cycle. A lot of the cycles are because greedy assholes use their money as a fist and try to bully people around. (well they don't try as much as they succeed). Short selling and ridiculous CEO termination of contract payouts show us that.

I agree that the massive cycles are not natural, but what I mean by that is that they are caused by governments through central banks. CEO termination of contracts and the like are of absolutely no significance. Those come out of the stockholders' pockets, it's up to them how much they want to pay.

The problem with the capitalism picture you paint is that there is no safety net. If someone fails at a risk they took, they are out on the street, no hope to get money, no hope to get a job. The society you paint is total crap. You NEED socialism in a functioning Capitalist society.

The job thing is flat out wrong. You are virtually guaranteed to find work under capitalism as there is always a price at which your labor is worth buying.

Might I also point out that without free-market capitalism, it's already easy to take arbitrarily large risks? Just drink yourself silly while sitting on a 10th floor balcony railing, smoke while filling up at a gas station, etc.

The reason people generally don't do these things is that they know there's a danger. If you had less of a government safety net to fall back on, the act of signing a contract would gain healthy respect and a tiny tingle of fear, and again people would know to be careful with it.

Without massive government-created moral hazards, people would also be a lot more careful with their investments, so people who can't pay their debts wouldn't be able to go deep in debt in the first place, since the lender would really stand to lose it all if the borrower defaults.

Nutcase:

Arcticflame:
-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

Nutcase:

-snip-

The job thing is flat out wrong. You are virtually guaranteed to find work under capitalism as there is always a price at which your labor is worth buying.

I don't think the job thing is flat out wrong. Look at Wallmart and their hiring of low cost labor. Without minimum wages (Socialism)the wages wouldn't be enough to live on. Hence no safety net with no socialism inserted into capitalism.

Nutcase:

Might I also point out that without free-market capitalism, it's already easy to take arbitrarily large risks? Just drink yourself silly while sitting on a 10th floor balcony railing, smoke while filling up at a gas station, etc.

I don't follow how this applies to my post.

The reason people generally don't do these things is that they know there's a danger. If you had less of a government safety net to fall back on, the act of signing a contract would gain healthy respect and a tiny tingle of fear, and again people would know to be careful with it.

Not true, people go gamble away their lives taking risks all the time. They don't take these risks knowing there is a safety net to fall back on. The dole in Australia sucks really badly, and I'm sure it's better than America. It's barely livable and nobody wants to stay there unless you are addicted to Ice.

Without massive government-created moral hazards, people would also be a lot more careful with their investments, so people who can't pay their debts wouldn't be able to go deep in debt in the first place, since the lender would really stand to lose it all if the borrower defaults.

Yes, they would. How do you think mafia's have been run for years? These people put themselves into debts then spend the rest of their lives getting out of the debt. Capitalism already rules when it comes to lending.

I don't really understand what moral hazard you are talking about in the first place.

Arcticflame:

I don't really understand what moral hazard you are talking about in the first place.

'Moral Hazard' is a term for externalized risk: when you come to be protected from some or all consequences of your actions. It's commonly referred to in the context of insurance, where the fact that an asset is insured compels the owner to be less protective of it than he would otherwise.

Socialism, honestly, anyone come up with a factor that another government does better. Try it.

1) Higher economic growth (capitalism) and higher social fairness (socialism) are mutually exclusive 99% of the time.
2) Higher economic growth benefits everyone, especially in the long run.

This is why capitalism wins. African countries have tried socialism for 40 years and it has not helped their situation one bit. Now theyre finally opening up to a good market economy and look what happens.. Sustainable 5% yearly growth of GDP.

Arcticflame:

Nutcase:

Arcticflame:
-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#History

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved."

Nutcase:

Arcticflame:

Nutcase:

Arcticflame:
-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#History

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved."

heh... white population?

And I highly doubt that. Wikipedia is no source.

'Moral Hazard' is a term for externalized risk: when you come to be protected from some or all consequences of your actions. It's commonly referred to in the context of insurance, where the fact that an asset is insured compels the owner to be less protective of it than he would otherwise.

I understand that, I don't understand what you are saying is insured.
Because my money I borrow on interest, sure as hell isn't, and the banks who charge me bleed me dry with no help from the government.

" The communist looks at a rich man and says, "No man should have this much!". The capitalist looks at a rich man and says, "Everyone should have this much!"."

So true.