Or maybe I´m mistaken... — DiegoT

Yeah, you are. Believe or not, even bad people can have good ideas. (Cf. ad hominem).

Marx has a point about the wage issue. Why should a business exponentially get bigger and NOT pay wages in accordance? It would get rid of the minimum wage war. Though if a business is starting out I believe it has no choice but to exploit it's workers, but that goes with the territory. Those that under perform are exploiting, that's our queue to leave that place. If there were more alternatives it wouldn't be a problem. The 1970's you could go from job to job... now there are certain established jobs (Big corps). Pretty soon we will have one farmer doing the crops, one healthcare company, etc. We wont have options... again I am on the premise of unlimited options.

@Jake I say stop buying their stuff too (guilty as charged). We've had these big corporations since I was little, and nothing has changed. While the small business gets regulated to the ground so nothing new crops up. The only way something new crops up is if it's a new sector in the economy (Bill Gates anyone) but then it protects itself from newcomers (buying patents). What happened to healthy competition (dual monopolies don't count)? I don't have many qualms with capitalism in essence but to me this isn't the capitalism that was meant to be, it's corrupted.

A strong middle class is a strong country no doubt.

@Jake As for free college, I dunno, why not make high school harder and actually an accomplishment? Now, hiring you need a BA to do stuff that never required it plus we get the debt. Technological advancement and jobs being SO complicated now isn't a good reason for me. Kids regardless of school learn computers. It just bars less off people from accomplishing anything, and may have to do military service to get college paid for (if you happen to agree with the war then it doesn't conflict). They seem to just water down the curriculum for the sake of kid's feelings too. And at the end of the day what is really taught?

I think it is Socialism for the Capitalist right now.

I say attack the 14th Amendment as corporations are not people... that's a starting point

"The good news is capitalism affords equal opportunity to everyone (the poor and rich included)

The bad news is all people are not created equal. Some are smarter than most. It's the smart ones that invent products and services that hit off in the market and the rest of us have to spend our money on."

Well said!

Why should a business exponentially get bigger and NOT pay wages in accordance? — Drek

Wages are meant to be based on productivity and merit. When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. We did that with cigarettes, for example. Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour. That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs. It's also why automation is making such strides in replacing human laborers. We've incentivized business owners to invest in automation because they're becoming more cost-effective than people. It may not seem like it, but allowing business owners to pay someone only what their labor is worth is the only way to lift up the poor. Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism, the tenets of which require that people make exchanges based on their personal value.

The poor benefit exponentially under capitalism when compared to socialism or communism. It's obvious.

"Smith & Wesson sometimes, Kalashnikov, Ruger, Glock, SIg Sauer. And I wish the need of it weren't so. "

lol. this is why i pray for a short life everyday.

The poor benefit exponentially under capitalism when compared to socialism or communism. It's obvious. — whollyrolling

Do you consider Scandinavia well-fare state (free education at all levels, universal healthcare, high taxes on the rich) as socialism or capitalism? Are poor people doing better or worse than a system that is more "capitalistic" in your view?

Wages are meant to be based on productivity and merit. When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. — Kenshi

When you say "meant to be" do you mean "actually are"?

When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. We did that with cigarettes, for example. — Kenshi

Do you mean arbitrarily increase the cost? How would you arbitrarily increase the value of something? And in the case of cigarettes, if your talking about the increase in cost due to taxes, was it arbitrary or was it based on internalizing the real cost to society (second hand smoke, various social costs for people dying prematurely) into the cost of the product?

Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour. — Kenshi

Neither proponents of capitalism nor socialism (of whatever form) argue about people producing more than their wage. The discussion is, given that producing more than one's wage is a given for an activity to be economic, what is done with the surplus.

In a an "ideal capitalist" system (what proponents of capitalism imagine when they justify capitalism), owners of capital get capital by working harder, being smarter and more innovative, in investing and building businesses and however the surplus is divided up is fair.

In capitalism as it is actually implemented today, owners of capital are able to own land and housing and monopolies on various needs and extract rents from the working class who do not have capital. In our actual reality, a large part of this rent extracting capital originates prior to our modern democracies in feudal rights, profits of wars, appropriating land and minerals from natives etc. and another large part of this rent extracting capital is due to government protected monopolies, through laws a tiny part of this capital is put to work to form through legal forms of propaganda and influence as well as illegal forms of corruption (a self reinforcing loop); an example of this feedback loop is passing laws that expand the domain of "legal influence" into what was previously "corruption" such as reinterpreting a bride to require an explicit recorded agreement and reinterpreting a campaign contribution to require an explicit and recorded plan for how the contribution helps. Another part of this capital is accumulated due to externalizing costs of production to society as well as direct state subsidies; again, with this capital put to work to stop people from trying to fix such distortions in the market. Another part of this capital is due to labour law and environmental law arbitrage where production can be outsourced to countries where worker protection is less or non-existent as well as it being even easier to externalize costs of production, such as pollution, onto both local and global society; and again this capital can also be put to frustrate attempts of workers in nations with better laws to correct this arbitrage. In other words, privately controlled capital is able to change the structure of society to benefit privately held capital.

In this latter case, proponents of capitalism generally say "what's wrong, all these practices are just looking out for number one; if people can't get together to protect their own interest to reverse ill gotten gains, manage monopolies through one way or another, internalize the true cost of production, and make trade rules that prevents labour and environmental law arbitrage to force down wages, then that's their fault! However, notice that the argument that when the "rich win, they're just winners" is not actually an argument in favour of the system; when workers manage to win on one of these issues the same people don't say "look at that, the workers won, good for them", but rather they invent and spread fantastical propaganda that they know to be false: privately owned land is just more efficient regardless of whether it originated in feudalism or colonialism, and colonialism and slavery benefited the collonized and slaves for that matter and taught them manners and civilization and gave them technology so it was a good exchange for them, climate change and pollution doesn't exist and in anycase the burden of proof is on whoever wants to limit a chemical in food or environment to prove beyond a doubt not within science and risk-benefit framework a company would use but a bizarre system of argument where anything goes and nothing needs to be consistent or make sense, and if a country is able to lower production costs by being a communist dictatorship without any labour or environmental laws nor any freedom of speech or right to assembly, well that's just the magic of capitalist competition at work and the whole world is benefiting from a reduction in the cost of commodities.

Marx views these rent extracting capital structures as one of two main mechanisms surplus value is appropriated by the owners of capitalism.

Which brings us to your next point:

That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs. — Kenshi

If slavery wasn't a benefit to the black community (do you agree with this), then there are negative consequences to the black community that persist through time while positive consequences of the owners of the capital that was created with black labour during slavery. Would you say that slavery was a capitalism at work with wages based on productivity and merit? If not, why is it fair for the for the descendants of black slaves to inherit the negative consequences of the institution of slavery, but descendants of slaver owners inherit the positive consequences (the surplus value the slaves created)?

Likewise, if the black community today has less home ownership (less of an ability to keep a large part of their wage by avoiding rents) because lending policy was structured by the already wealthier class to not only explicitly exclude blacks communities but on-top-of-this make a condition that white recipients of federally subsidized home-loans cannot build close to a black home. If this wasn't a fair structure, again how is the system today completely fair? If education of the next generation is tightly tied to the wealth of previous generations, is this a merit based system if nearly every generation has had unfair appropriation of their labour or structures that ensure a large part of the wages they do earn go to rents?

If you have no good answers for the above questions, how do you explain your view is not just vanilla racism?

It's also why automation is making such strides in replacing human laborers. We've incentivized business owners to invest in automation because they're becoming more cost-effective than people. — Kenshi

"They're becoming more cost-effective than people" as a recent phenomena? One of Marx's main predictions is that capitalism is relentlessly replacing human labour with automation. The question is who should own this form of capital.

It may not seem like it, but allowing business owners to pay someone only what their labor is worth is the only way to lift up the poor. — Kenshi

Subsidized education does not help the poor? Nor universal health-care? If so, how are states in Europe with free education at all levels as well as free retraining when factories shutdown and universal healthcare harming the poor? or at least not benefiting them, if the only way to help the poor is through paying what the labour is worth?

Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism, the tenets of which require that people make exchanges based on their personal value. — Kenshi

Do you agree that poverty has been reduced in communist China over the last couple of decades? If so, are people really better off with the strengthening of the communist regime due to the West sending large sums of investment and importing large quantities of goods, even if they seem less poor on the surface? I.e. if the poverty reduction is real and truly a benefit to live in a much more powerful totalitarian regime with democracy potentially far less likely and further off. I.e. is the poverty reduction really a true benefit to the Chinese people even if the communist regime is much stronger due to working with Western goverments and corporations to deploy labour law and environmental arbitrage? If so, is this true benefit within the Chinese communist system, due to capitalism working as the only way to benefit the poor (that this poverty reduction was due to people freely exchanging their personal value under capitalism)? Please explain.

Likewise, within states that provide free education and universal health care, voted by democratic processes, and that have low poverty rates, is there no link between these things? How do you argue the poverty reductions were only due to the free market working? For instance, Finland was very poor before and after WWII, now it is considered a rich country; the Fin's believe they have benefited from large investments in education and other social programs since WWII. Do you disagree this is the case; that Finn's would be equally or more rich without such programs and have even less poor?

1: No, not necessarily

2: I think that's mostly semantics, but yes. And the motivation behind arbitrarily increasing the cost is irrelevant. My point was that it de-incentivizes people to purchase the good/service in question.

3: Capitalism is about the "free" exchange of goods and services. Capitalists often call for less government control of the market for exactly the things that you mention. There's a reason that the practices you talk about are known as "Crony Capitalism", because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented. As far as your land owning argument is concerned, the only places I've ever heard of where that kind of thing actually happens is in big leftist cities like New York or L.A., places where government spending on social programs are very high with the highest minimum wages as well as high taxes on the wealthy.

4: Many, MANY more black people came to this country voluntarily than they ever did as slaves. Only 2-8% of whites owned slaves when it was legal, and there's no way that anywhere close to the majority of whites are descended from slave owners, nor blacks descended from slaves. I say that the system is fair because good life choices are the biggest deciding factor in long term wealth, not race/color. The poverty rate of black married couples is 7%, the poverty rate of white single parents is over 20%. The Brookings Institution (a Liberal think-tank) found that American citizens that graduated high school, didn't have children before marriage and worked full time almost never wound up in poverty, and given the number of ways that one can ruin themselves financially, there's no reason to immediately assume that the remainder were poor because of some kind of bias. Also, "good responses"? I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Also, "racism"? I'm black, so is my grandmother who grew up incredibly poor, and despite being a single mother of 2, she went to college on a loan, got her degree and worked her way up to a 6-figure salary, a 3-bedroom house and 2 cars. Living proof of what I'm talking about. (It's just an example, I'm not claiming that anecdotal evidence is finalizing)

5: No, it's not a recent phenomena, it's just of particular concern to people today. Automation is on the whole, a good thing considering all of the affordable luxuries we now have as opposed to people of the same, or in many cases even greater economic strata, say a century ago. Plus, even with all of the automation and outsourcing that has and does occur, the vast majority of us are still employed. Even if you think that automation is entirely bad, you're only making it worse by arbitrarily raising the cost of labor.

6: I wouldn't say that those things don't help the poor. I just think that the market is a more powerful tool to solve the problems associated with those institutions than the state. Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that something is good because it's free. In England, you are far more likely to die during a hospital visit, forcing universal health care on people was deemed a human rights violation by the Canadian Supreme Court, etc.

7: I said "nearly". Even so, China is a free trade GIANT. They also only really lift people up when they display excellence of some kind and greatly impose on the freedoms of such ones. My support of Capitalism is really more about freedom than anything else. Even though China is rich, it's not free. So no, I don't think the citizens of China are well off, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism. In regards to the Scandinavian countries, Sweden is probably the most successful and they have VERY low tax rates on big businesses and the wealthy, it's the middle and lower classes that are funding their welfare state. The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. They also don't have to spend very much on defense. The U.S. has the largest defense budget in the world and spends more than the next 26 highest spending countries combined. This is because the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping as many countries free and trading as possible, because that keeps the country rich. Most of the free world benefits from this, ESPECIALLY the smaller European countries. At the end of the day, all of the Scandinavian countries employ Capitalism just to stay afloat, and in some ways are MORE Capitalist that we are. They don't even have a minimum wage. Every time I've tried to find it, I'm given graphs of "average earnings", not minimum. They understand that the rich are the ones stimulating their economy and that without them, the whole thing would crash and burn.

I'd just like to conclude by saying that you are very well spoken and intellectually challenging, which I greatly appreciate. I get the feeling that neither of us is going to budge on this, but I appreciate you forcing me to try rationalizing my positions. I hope we can both agree that we both want what's best for our poor and just don't see eye-to-eye on the solution to poverty, rather than assuming malicious intent of the other. Cheers!

I think people simply prefer a single answer to problems. Blaming “Capitalism” for all the woes of the world is kind of silly, yet deeply appealing to those who feel hard done by.

One of the most important societal changes in the world is to educate young women. I’m not suggesting that would solve all the worlds problems, but it sure as hell is known to help human society on many seemingly disconnected fronts.

I learnt some interesting things about subsidies that seem to damage poorer countries yet long term it actually serves to protect them. These topics are so complex that it’s all too easy to fixate on one particular aspect - and if we face facts we have to put our weight behind SOMETHING in life and in doing so it can be extraordinarily hard to admit we’ve made an error once we’ve committed.

Over all it seems to me that the human race (as a global entity) has matured a reasonable amount over the past several decades - at a cost of course; that is unavoidable!

I'm not sure how long people will insist on using "Scandinavia" as a model for the supremacy of socialism parroting a moron socialist like Bernie Sanders, but those nations are capitalist, yes. They transfer heavy taxation from all economic classes into social programs and institutions, but neither the state nor the public owns the means of production, and obviously the primary factor contributing to their "happiness" is a state of cultural, ethnic and religious homogeneity (approximately 90%).

And the motivation behind arbitrarily increasing the cost is irrelevant. — Kenshi

If the motivation is not arbitrary, then the action is not arbitrary. You can just say "increasing the cost decreased motivation to buy". The only reason to add "arbitrary" is to try to avoid saying "for the purpose of internalizing the true cost to society". It is not just semantics.

Do you agree that increasing the cost of cigarettes internalizes the true cost to society in the cost paid for the product? Do you agree that this is a good policy to follow with cigarettes as well as any other product? Why or why not?

Capitalism is about the "free" exchange of goods and services. Capitalists often call for less government control of the market for exactly the things that you mention. There's a reason that the practices you talk about are known as "Crony Capitalism", because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented. — Kenshi

Yes, I mention in my post that there are two definitions of capitalism used by the proponents of capitalism: hypothetical "free markets" is one definition and "the US / Western system as it is today" is another definition. These definitions are of course not referring to the same thing.

For instance, when you say "Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism" you are clearly referring to systems that actually have and do exist.

If capitalists can use their money to pass laws to make "crony-capitalism" legal; how is this "exploiting capitalism". They've used their capital to make more capital, what's the problem vis-a-vis capitalism. Should constraints be placed on people who control large stores of capital to convert part of their capital into influence that legalizes and promotes "crony capitalism"? What should these constraints be? If there shouldn't be constraints as people should be "free to use their money as they way" and this leads to the crony capitalism being amplified, entrenched and a positive feedback loop of using crony capitalism to get generate more capital to generate more crony capitalism, how then should this problem be solved?

When you say "practices you talk about are known as 'Crony Capitalism', because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented" does this include the politicians implementing crony-capitalism into law and the lobby groups promoting to the public these crony capitalists laws are actually good or freedom or whatever? If these people know they are exploiting capitalism for their own benefit, how does this contradict the motivation to make as much profit as possible? Is anyone in the wrong? If not, presumably it's up to the people to stop them, but it f there is no economic benefit to engage as a citizen in politics as the effort to vote does not equate with the likelihood of affecting the outcome (free rider problem), then how are people who don't engage in politics in the wrong for likewise following their own interest?

Many, MANY more black people came to this country voluntarily than they ever did as slaves. — Kenshi

What are the numbers here? "Many, MANY" seems to me like orders of magnitude, what do you mean by this in terms of numbers?

Only 2-8% of whites owned slaves when it was legal, and there's no way that anywhere close to the majority of whites are descended from slave owners, nor blacks descended from slaves. — Kenshi

I did not say "all whites" nor a majority of whites, I said the descendants of slave owners that benefit from capital accumulated during the slavery. Is it fair they keep the benefits of slavery? To start, only even in principle. If it's fair, was slavery just and simply capitalism at work (free folk using their labour to kidnap people and use them as slaves)? If it wasn't fair nor capitalism at work, should the stocks of capital that resulted from slavery that still exist today that are used to extract rents, an example of capitalism working? My question here is not whether there is a practical method of separating slave-derived capital from other forms of capital, my question is one of principle of whether such stocks of capital are fair or not? Would such capital come from "'free' exchange of goods and service" which you claim capitalism is and so it seems to follow all stocks of capital are examples of the result of "'free' exchange of goods and services", does this include the capital that resulted from slavery? Or does capitalism not include all forms of capital. If not, please explain.

I say that the system is fair because good life choices are the biggest deciding factor in long term wealth, not race/color. The poverty rate of black married couples is 7%, the poverty rate of white single parents is over 20%. The Brookings Institution (a Liberal think-tank) found that American citizens that graduated high school, didn't have children before marriage and worked full time almost never wound up in poverty, and given the number of ways that one can ruin themselves financially, there's no reason to immediately assume that the remainder were poor because of some kind of bias. Also, "good responses"? I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Also, "racism"? I'm black, so is my grandmother who grew up incredibly poor, and despite being a single mother of 2, she went to college on a loan, got her degree and worked her way up to a 6-figure salary, a 3-bedroom house and 2 cars. Living proof of what I'm talking about. (It's just an example, I'm not claiming that anecdotal evidence is finalizing) — Kenshi

I don't see what your point here is and I don't think you understood my argument.

If there are no structural reasons that "especially black teenagers can't find jobs"; i.e. if there are no processes in society that have disadvantaged black teenagers, that the only variable is that they are black and they can't get a job because they are not willing to work for low wages; then the only variable left is that they are black. If the only variable is that they are black, then they are poor in a fair system because they are black and because the system is fair it must be that black people are less capable.

To remind you of your words, you say "Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour." and you follow from this premise with the conclusion that "That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs."

The premise is true for all people, but you say it's particularly true for black teenagers. If there isn't some unfair structures within society built up over time to disadvantage black teenagers (that the system isn't fair), then your argument is it's particularly hard for black teenagers to get a job because they are black. You have no other variables in your argument and you seem to be saying the system is fair, so again, how is this not vanilla racism to attribute the cause of black "under performance" to the variable of being black?

What would "good responses" mean in this context other than solid arguments that address my questions? I don't see this or any of your response addresses my questions.

5: No, it's not a recent phenomena, it's just of particular concern to people today. Automation is on the whole, a good thing considering all of the affordable luxuries we now have as opposed to people of the same, or in many cases even greater economic strata, say a century ago. Plus, even with all of the automation and outsourcing that has and does occur, the vast majority of us are still employed. Even if you think that automation is entirely bad, you're only making it worse by arbitrarily raising the cost of labor. — Kenshi

I don't view automation as bad. I was simply pointing out that the "socialist" issue around automation is who gets all the benefits, who owns capital (the means of producing things); socialism has no problem with automation.

To provide food for though, a lot (most) of fundamental R&D is paid by the state because it is too early stage and too high risk for investors to finance. In other words, workers through their taxes fund a large part of the R&D that results ultimately in new automation that replaces their jobs; yet, the worker that is replaced doesn't benefit in this scenario. Should the state not fund R&D with people's taxes? Should part of the value produced by automation be redistributed back to the worker who's taxes helped create it (for instance, through things like re-training, health-care, general safety net while finding a new job)?

6: I wouldn't say that those things don't help the poor. I just think that the market is a more powerful tool to solve the problems associated with those institutions than the state. Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that something is good because it's free. In England, you are far more likely to die during a hospital visit, forcing universal health care on people was deemed a human rights violation by the Canadian Supreme Court, etc. — Kenshi

I'm no sure you understand what your words "Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism" mean. By saying "nearly every instance" is due to X, this implies it's a very small part that is due to not-X.

I am glad you have revised your position, and agree that universal health care and free education help the poor. However, please explain how a free market is a more powerful tool to provide education and healthcare or that going without these things is a counter-intuitive help to the poor. Also, in the case of education, please keep in mind a "voucher system" is still public funded education; I

The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. — Kenshi

have zero problem in principle with a voucher system, if it is the same voucher for all students it is public-funded-education and fair (whether vouchers and which kind of voucher system and if and what kind of quality control is needed, is more effective than public school boards, is a different subject). Free-market education is not public funded voucher system, but children only getting education that they or their parents can afford, and someone not being able to pay for something means not getting that something.

I said "nearly". Even so, China is a free trade GIANT. — Kenshi

Yes, I agree China is a free trade giant, is this a good example of capitalism? You seem to equate capitalism with free trade, so is communist China a good example of capitalism and the wealth the communist party has accumulated a good example of capitalism at work?

They also only really lift people up when they display excellence of some kind and greatly impose on the freedoms of such ones. — Kenshi

I'm not sure what this means, but I understand that you admire parts of the Chinese communist party system? Or no?

My support of Capitalism is really more about freedom than anything else. Even though China is rich, it's not free. So no, I don't think the citizens of China are well off, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism. — Kenshi

How does this follow from China being a free trade giant due to integration with the global capital system? Since you agree that the Chinese are not better off because they are not more free (we agree here), how is capitalism not involved if the wealth and power of the communist dictatorship is due to integration with free markets? Is the global free market system not an example of capitalism?

In regards to the Scandinavian countries, Sweden is probably the most successful and they have VERY low tax rates on big businesses and the wealthy, it's the middle and lower classes that are funding their welfare state. — Kenshi

But above you said that a free market system is more effective than universal health care and free education. If Sweden is a success, did they achieve this despite inefficient well fair state policies or because of them?

It's not clear what your position is on universal health care and free education.

The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. — Kenshi

Yes, Scandinavia is a market economy, but not anything close to a free market economy. The Scandinavian countries have a social democratic system with a strong well fair state. There are a lot of environmental regulations, there are strong unions, there is free education at all levels, free money for the poor and various poverty programs, there is universal health care, there are tax and tariff systems that seek to internalize the true cost of products.

Do you view all these policies as example of well run free market system? If not, how does this square with your view that these countries are a "success"?

The U.S. has the largest defense budget in the world and spends more than the next 26 highest spending countries combined. This is because the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping as many countries free and trading as possible, because that keeps the country rich. Most of the free world benefits from this, ESPECIALLY the smaller European countries. At the end of the day, all of the Scandinavian countries employ Capitalism just to stay afloat, and in some ways are MORE Capitalist that we are. — Kenshi

I'm not sure how this argument follows. How are the Scandinavian countries "more Capitalist"? Also, keep in mind that Finland has conscription and is not part of NATO, and so has hundreds of thousands of reservists; Sweden too has conscription (we Finn's just don't take them seriously).

They don't even have a minimum wage. Every time I've tried to find it, I'm given graphs of "average earnings", not minimum. They understand that the rich are the ones stimulating their economy and that without them, the whole thing would crash and burn. — Kenshi

I'm not sure about the other Scandinavian countries, but in Finland it is true there is no mandated minimum wage across all industries. However, there is a law that if unions representing 50% of an industry come to an agreement with their counter-party employers on a minimum wage, this minimum becomes law for the whole industry; i.e. smaller unions or non-unionized businesses cannot undercut the large unions. It is basically the extreme opposite of right-to-work laws. Is this Finnish approach to minimum wage a good example of "more capitalism" in the sense of free trade based on personal value? Why or why not?

I'd just like to conclude by saying that you are very well spoken and intellectually challenging, which I greatly appreciate. I get the feeling that neither of us is going to budge on this, but I appreciate you forcing me to try rationalizing my positions. I hope we can both agree that we both want what's best for our poor and just don't see eye-to-eye on the solution to poverty, rather than assuming malicious intent of the other. Cheers! — Kenshi

I have not assumed any malicious intent, so please be at ease. Where I am unsure of your position I have asked for clarification. I appreciate you reading and responding to my post. I think it is premature to assume no one will budge. I have moved a lot on all these issues over the years.

However, when you say that the debate has "helped you rationalize your positions", it is an interesting phrasing. One interpretation is that you already decided your on your conclusions even if you had no good reason to at the time, and now generating reasons backwards from your conclusions. Another interpretation is that you have strong intuitions that require more work to articulate. Perhaps a combination of both. Maybe worth thinking about.

I think people simply prefer a single answer to problems. Blaming “Capitalism” for all the woes of the world is kind of silly, yet deeply appealing to those who feel hard done by. — I like sushi

Since you are replying to a Kenshi who's replying to me, it seems implied that you are referring to my "blaming capitalism". However, please correct me if I'm wrong and you are referring to others in the thread or just people out there.

If you bothered reading my post, no where did I blame "all the woes of the world" on capitalism. If you furthermore read carefully, I focused on specific issues such as crony-capitalism, free education at all levels, universal health care, publicly funded poverty reduction programs of any sort. My main purpose was to respond to the idea that "only capitalism" has reduced poverty.

I make clear that capitalism is used in two sense, an hypothetical free market in some contexts, and in other contexts as the essentially Western "system as is" (where if we are talking about technology, it's an example of how "capitalism" of the first time works in practice, and if we're talking about market failures and monopolies this is due to the system not being real capitalism but big government and social programs are preventing getting the benefits of real capitalism; i.e. the system is and is not capitalism depending on context). So, depending on how capitalism is used I may or may not various things to say.

In some contexts, proponents of these first two definitions of capitalism use a third definition of capitalism simply referring to the need of "capital tooling and investment" to make anything. I agree.

So it depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about markets with regulations to internalize the true cost of production into the cost of the product and regulations to prevent working condition and environmental arbitrage, I have no problem with such markets. If this is what someone means by "capitalism" then I do not view this as a problem for society. If someone wants to use this definition of capitalism but not use a reasoned science and precautionary based risk-benefit framework to evaluate "true-costs" but rather a hodgepodge of fanciful reasoning originating with paid propagandists, then I do have a problem.

Likewise, if by capitalism you mean "market based economy" where education at all levels if free (including retraining), healthcare is universal, voting is proportional, there is robust public transportation, public funded news and cultural programs, housing is subsidized for the less wealthy, and taxes are progressive, the budget balanced, parties get money for each vote they get and private campaign financing is limited and strict, a very wide definition of corruption, and there is conscription for the defense of the nation but a constitutional block to invading another country, then I can get behind your definition of capitalism. Do these policies count as capitalism at work for you?

However, please correct me if I'm wrong and you are referring to others in the thread or just people out there.

I have only skimmed over a little of the thread. I was responding to the post before mine and trying to express a much neglected issue (education of young women) regarding social harmony, economic stability, population growth and environmental issues.

I was referring to the general feel of “people out there” and judging by the post I was half-replying to I can see you’re not looking at this in a superficial way - so consider yourself corrected ;)

Hope I find time to dip in a bit more, or at least have a proper read of the interesting exchange you’re having.

1: It's arbitrary because market value has nothing to do with the health of society. If it did, it ought to just be banned.

2: I do NOT condone every way that people gain capital. No Capitalist does. Using the state to get rich is socialist if anything.

3: I got this from a New York Times article. Here's the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/more-africans-enter-us-than-in-days-of-slavery.html

4: Who are you even talking about? How do you even know that these people exist? Even if we knew, at least some of them would be black. Thomas Jefferson had 6 black children. Also, most wealthy people are self-made, not heirs, so it seems to me that this issue is a non-sequitur.

5: Black teenagers generally live in big cities with bloated minimum wages and terrible government-funded schools. This combination has made it far worse for them economically.

6: R&D is not the same thing as automation. They accomplish entirely different tasks. People DO benefit from automation. If not for factories or GMOs, we'd lose immeasurable resources and many would starve, not to mention the number of technological advances that few people would be able to afford anymore. In terms of whether or not the government should be handling such things, why? 75% of all FDA approved drugs come from the U.S., nearly entirely privately funded. If not for the FDA (a Government Program), even MORE medicine would be available to people. So no, I don't think that the state is particularly well equipped to deal with R&D.

7: Where do you think these countries got the money and resources to do these things? Capitalism and Free Trade. Doctors and teachers don't work for free, In your case, they're tax funded. Taxes come from income which is created by the market. Under Communism/Socialism/Marxism, no new capital is created and everything becomes horrible. To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Don't twist my words into saying that free healthcare and education are good things. My issue with them is that they're unsustainable. The market would be better at handling these things because competition drives quality up and costs down. Private/Charter schools in the U.S. are objectively better than public schools. There is also the issue of morality: What if I don't want to go to college? It's still my financial concern that other people get to go? On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor? Why should anyone be forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them? Also, a voucher system is NOT the same as free schooling. It just means that you get to decide where your money goes.

8: Vouchers are SELF funded. It's YOUR money.

9: China is a good example of how Capitalism produces wealth. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO HAVE AN OPPRESSIVE STATE. With more freedom, China would be great. Why isn't it free? Communism. Why is it rich? Capitalism. Capitalism>Communism

10: No

11: Despite. They understand, at the very least, that stealing from the rich is not an avenue towards prosperity for the poor. THAT is the point that I was trying to make. Also, I said "MOST successful", not "successful", not "superior", not "exemplary". If they were a free market, EVERYTHING would be better for them for the reasons I've already given.

12: See argument 11

13: ANY European country would be absolutely CRUSHED by the U.S., Russia, China or Iran. Exactly ONE of those countries is interested in protecting Western Europe. Because of that, Western European countries don't need to spend too much on defense, so they have more money in the budget to spend on social programs.

14: "IN SOME WAYS" are more capitalistic than we are. In that they don't overly tax the wealthy and have no minimum wage.

15: Workers negotiating with employers as to their pay is in no way anti-Capitalist. Unions are terrible for a host of other reasons. In the U.S., all of the worst teachers and schools are unionized. NONE of the private schools work with the unions, and are ALL better than ALL public schools.

16: I've had and witnessed these kinds of debates and conversations many times. I've only ever seen 1 person switch sides. I'm not claiming to know you or your inclinations.

1: It's arbitrary because market value has nothing to do with the health of society. — Kenshi

You're saying smoking does not lead to ill health for both smokers and anyone inhaling second-hand smoke?

If it did, it ought to just be banned. — Kenshi

You are really ready to ban everything that is bad for society's health? For instance, if it was shown that car exhaust was bad for society's health, you'd support just banning cars outright, and certainly any elective use of cars?

2: I do NOT condone every way that people gain capital. No Capitalist does. Using the state to get rich is socialist if anything. — Kenshi

Capitalists that use the state corruption to gain more capital condemn themselves?

I don't follow; there actually socialists?

Some capitalists (people who have and control large sums of capital) only believe in gaining more power and wealth for themselves; in other words, they believe in "might is right". They not capitalists in your view? Or do they not exist? Or are they actually socialists? What version of socialism do they follow?

If and when a capitalist corrupts the organs of the state to increase their capital and influence, this is not socialism.

The expression of "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" when capitalists get bailouts and subsidies; it is pointing out the capitalists that argue for people "competing fairly" without a social safety net, and no government intervention in markets and certainly no subsidies for competing industries or the poor, suddenly want a safety net for their company and industries and state intervention to "maintain market stability" when their own interests are threatened and of course to keep the subsidies their own industries have been receiving for decades. The point that is being driven at, is these capitalists who fund propaganda (via think tanks, owning media, etc.) against safety nets, government intervention and subsidies, only bring out these arguments when they serve their interests. When it doesn't serve their interests, they suddenly have a different set of arguments supporting government intervention, subsidies and bailouts.

In other words, they are hypocrites. "Socialism for the rich" is supposed to be ironic, not that they are actually socialists.

However, for certain forms of libertarian and conservative ideology, this creates a problem, as if it is claimed that the rich produce value and social good for everyone by pursuing their own interests, then it follows from this that if you can gain by corrupting the government and court systems and get away with it, then you have followed your own interest and gained handsomely, so what is the problem?

So, is there are moral problem of corrupting the state for one's own benefit? Why isn't this "being good at competing" within society? If it's not good, is there a problem with the idea of competition as the basis for value creation? If so where? Likewise, if there is a problem, who should try to fix it, what arguments should they make to justify fixing it, and what steps should be taken?

4: Who are you even talking about? How do you even know that these people exist? Even if we knew, at least some of them would be black. Thomas Jefferson had 6 black children. Also, most wealthy people are self-made, not heirs, so it seems to me that this issue is a non-sequitur. — Kenshi

This does not address the question. The question I raise are in principle. If in principle, the slave trade was capitalism doing good by creating wealth through people competing to capture slaves and extract value from them, as with any resource, then there's nothing more to discuss.

However, if you want to deflect, let's deal with your deflection. "Most wealthy people are self-made" is simply untrue. Most wealthy people are born in the upper class and remain in the upper class; it's called social mobility and there are statistics available for the present and the past.

5: Black teenagers generally live in big cities with bloated minimum wages and terrible government-funded schools. This combination has made it far worse for them economically. — Kenshi

You clearly do not understand my argument. You have made another argument where the only variable tying black teenagers to their conditions is that they are black. Therefore, from your argument we must conclude the conditions are because of their blackness.

6: R&D is not the same thing as automation. They accomplish entirely different tasks. People DO benefit from automation. If not for factories or GMOs, we'd lose immeasurable resources and many would starve, not to mention the number of technological advances that few people would be able to afford anymore. In terms of whether or not the government should be handling such things, why? 75% of all FDA approved drugs come from the U.S., nearly entirely privately funded. If not for the FDA (a Government Program), even MORE medicine would be available to people. So no, I don't think that the state is particularly well equipped to deal with R&D. — Kenshi

Did I say R&D is the same as automation?

I'm sorry but I will not be able to continue the discussion if there's no good faith read my words; if you say I say something, quote me.

I said "workers through their taxes fund a large part of the R&D that results ultimately in new automation that replaces their jobs".

I am clearly referring to the "R&D that results ultimately in new automation". That statement does not exclude other forms of R&D, so that quibble is not available. As for substance, what's the alternative to automation resulting from R&D? That it is spontaneously invented?

I also clearly state that the issue is not about automation itself.

I literally say "I don't view automation as bad. I was simply pointing out that the "socialist" issue around automation is who gets all the benefits, who owns capital (the means of producing things); socialism has no problem with automation."

The question is who benefits. In our system as it is today, governments fund, especially the early speculative and high risk components, the R&D which later industry employs to automate; that funding is through taxes that the workers contribute to, who then lose their job. My question is that is this a fair setup? If the workers contribute to the automation, shouldn't they also benefit? For instance, through a social safety net being available to deal with job loss that is disproportionately contributed to by the taxes on the wealthy that have the direct benefit of automation (i.e. through a progressive tax that pays for social systems that benefit directly the worker being automated; as the rich do not need public transport or subsidized education or healthcare, as they can afford it).

7: Where do you think these countries got the money and resources to do these things? Capitalism and Free Trade. Doctors and teachers don't work for free, In your case, they're tax funded. Taxes come from income which is created by the market. Under Communism/Socialism/Marxism, no new capital is created and everything becomes horrible. To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Don't twist my words into saying that free healthcare and education are good things. My issue with them is that they're unsustainable. The market would be better at handling these things because competition drives quality up and costs down. — Kenshi

It's you that implied Scandinavia are examples of capitalism working, even quoting the Danish King, which, as a Finn, isn't much of an authority on anything (Finland has no king, Finland needs no king).

Scandinavia has universal health care and free education at all levels, so if you use Scandinavia to support your arguments as successful "market economies", my question was how do you explain these social systems they employ. How are they able to compete as high-tech, high-innovation countries with an inefficient public health and education system? If they've succeeded despite these inefficient systems, what's the mechanism?

You proposed these arguments, how is it twisting your words to ask you to explain how your arguments work?

Private/Charter schools in the U.S. are objectively better than public schools. There is also the issue of morality: What if I don't want to go to college? It's still my financial concern that other people get to go? On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor? Why should anyone be forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them? Also, a voucher system is NOT the same as free schooling. It just means that you get to decide where your money goes. — Kenshi

This is just more bad faith debate without reading what I say.

I say a publicly funded voucher system is a public system, not an example of a private system. A private education system is one where you only get the education you can afford.

If you pay taxes that fund a public education system, either through vouchers or public school boards, you are funding things that don't benefit you.

A voucher system is free schooling if your parents would not otherwise afford any school. Going to university for free is free schooling for the students that do not pay. Now, is there a cost that is paid by not-the-student, yes. I think I have been pretty clear that taxes pay for these systems.

Now, the grounds that the government, and society insofar as the government represents society, can use to tax you is simply that it can. Nearly all societies have taxes, and nearly all societies have tax systems where the rich pay more taxes than the poor. There are different reasons society's have had to justify taxes.

But, before going into those reasons, isn't it just winning at competition to be able to tax? Agreed, it's not winning if those taxes are counter-productive, but assuming they are productive and benefit most people, isn't this most people getting together as a team and "winning" against individuals that would rather not be taxed? Why should the winning side need to justify their actions to the losing side? Seems like sour grapes.

8: Vouchers are SELF funded. It's YOUR money. — Kenshi

There are two voucher systems. I clearly state publicly funded vouchers. For tax-rebate based vouchers, this is simply the ability to take the money in one's taxes that would otherwise represent contribution to one's children's schooling, and use it to pay or partly pay for private schooling. However, one is still paying taxes (especially if one has kids) that cover the schooling of any child of poor parents who is going to school (whether that system is vouchers or public school board). It's another debate which of these public systems is better and under what policies. Neither are a free market system where people can only buy what they can afford. Both are public, and I state ahead of time I am referring to both systems as public funded schooling precisely to avoid obfuscation with "market principles" in a public system: if you are supporting market principles in a public system, you are still supporting a public system created due to collectivist concerns (the difference is only on the technical implementation of the system; there is no ideological difference). A free market education system is one where parents buy the education services they can afford; just like if you can't afford a fancy car in a free market system society does not buy you that car, if you can't afford education for your children society does not buy you that education.

9: China is a good example of how Capitalism produces wealth. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO HAVE AN OPPRESSIVE STATE. With more freedom, China would be great. Why isn't it free? Communism. Why is it rich? Capitalism. Capitalism>Communism — Kenshi

Do you have any arguments to back this view up? Did China use a free market capitalism to train their workforce? Did they use unregulated markets with little state intervention?

Your argument seems to be backwards, that anything you consider good you attribute to capitalism, anything you consider bad you attribute to socialism and / or communism. If capitalists are corrupting the state, that's "bad" capitalists. If China has industrialized, that must be capitalism (nothing to do with the "great leap forward", or Western nations and firms agreeing to "open china up" and use wage and environmental arbitrage to produce cheaper, not because of a free market where people are free, but because China has a tyrannical oppressive state that crushes any movement that wants freedom, better working conditions, better environmental laws). Who has benefited? We agree it's not really the poor as they are not more free. So who has gotten all this wealth? Is it through honest, nose to the grind stone competition? Or is it mostly through state corruption?

13: ANY European country would be absolutely CRUSHED by the U.S., Russia, China or Iran. Exactly ONE of those countries is interested in protecting Western Europe.

Because of that, Western European countries don't need to spend too much on defense, so they have more money in the budget to spend on social programs. — Kenshi

This is simply factually wrong.

Your saying that without the US, Russia, China and Iran would invade the EU?

Now, if you're talking about the cold war with the Soviet Union, where there was a legitimate threat to invasion, it's still a complicated issue between the US overestimating Soviet forces (largely thanks to employing the Nazi in charge of soviet intelligence who wanted more budgets and more Nazi friends hired, and a bigger Soviet threat aided that), and UK and France having a Nuclear deterrent as well.

But it doesn't matter as the cold war is over. China or Iran invading the EU is simply laughable.

In the case of Russia, they have a lot of tanks, missiles and planes, so I would grant there is some sort of contest in a full-scale invasion of the EU by Russia absent the US. I still wouldn't bet on Russia though, the EU has a larger population, far larger military budget, many states have conscription (which is a significant force multiplier). Russia has far more nuclear weapons than the UK or France, but you don't need thousands to maintain a nuclear deterrent; hundreds will do.

However, if you feel Russia, China and/or Iran would invade the EU without the US around, please explain how this is both politically and militarily likely to succeed?

The alternative, is that US military spending is not in the benefit of Europe; it benefits US elite interests. Not only could the US military budget be easily reduced to pay for universal health-care, it's not even economically necessary to do so. The US health-care system costs more as a percentage of GDP than European peers with worse outcomes, and so changing to a European style health care system would simply shift money currently spent today on private insurance (with mandated "no negotiating" prices) to a single payer system that could, with money to spare that could then be used to increase military spending!

But, more importantly, which one is it: The US must sacrifice it's health-care (foregoing a more efficient and beneficial public system) to spend on its military to protect fragile Europeans ability to pay for a public health care system? Or is it that a private free market health care system is more efficient and benefits everyone and makes society better, and so the US is only helping somehow for Europe to harm itself with public health care systems?

There's one more critical problem with your arguments, perhaps the root, which warrants much more time, so I will put it in it's own comment.

My issue with them is that they're unsustainable. The market would be better at handling these things because competition drives quality up and costs down. Private/Charter schools in the U.S. are objectively better than public schools. There is also the issue of morality: What if I don't want to go to college? It's still my financial concern that other people get to go? On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor? Why should anyone be forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them? Also, a voucher system is NOT the same as free schooling. It just means that you get to decide where your money goes. — Kenshi

This is I think the core issue, and deserves more unpacking and critique than the erroneous understanding of voucher systems vs actual free markets (where no money of parents to pay for school would equal no schooling).

I want to address here, your question "On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor?"

This is the usual contention of libertarians (I'm not sure you identify yourself as that or not, but it's a principle they often bring up). The general pattern is first arguing that a public system is actually worse for the poor somehow, but if that fails due to actual evidence out there in the world that social safety system help the poor, then the real belief comes out which is "taxes are theft".

So, "On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor?"

First, on what grounds to you claim the fruits of other people labour to pay for the US military? Or police, or court houses? You seem to be supportive of the US military as well as against corruption. These things are paid by taxes; you are supporting policies which are funded by the government "claiming the fruits of people's labour" to fund.

There's only two places to go for libertarians from here. First, is to say "oh yeah, taxes are theft, the military and police and legal system are paid by taxes, so, yes, these systems need to be also privatized". I don't think this is your case, but I have argued with many libertarians who advance this; that paying for military and police protection should be "opt in". Of course, the break-down of law-and-order in society has actually happened, and people do seek to pay for protection; that's where the term mafia comes from, private justice groups in Southern Italy that emerged to protect people from crime when the tax-funded government became ineffective. Somehow, this form of libertarian can manage to believe the outcomes of the exact conditions they are advocating for actually coming to pass many times in human history, isn't relevant to their argument: free market justice would be more efficient and more moral than public funded justice.

So, the other alternative is to bite the bullet as it were and accept some public institutions are required and need to be paid by a tax system where the rich pay more (as the lowest common denominator can't pay for the system). However, this system of argument becomes just "taxes aren't stealing if it supports policies I support, but it is stealing if it pays for policies I don't support"; libertarians of this group believe that "oh, it's obvious" is some sort of argument, and there need not be any criteria to determine what services should be public and what should be a free market. Obviously, it's not obvious, otherwise there wouldn't be the first group of libertarians claiming that those institutions too should be free market, nor would there be people claiming those and additional institutions should be publicly funded. The only criteria available is of course "it's good for society to have a military, police, and justice system"; notice that it is not "good for everyone", as such systems aren't good for the leaders of criminal gangs that benefit from lawlessness.

So, if taxes are stealing, "fruits of labour appropriation", then this principle doesn't actually matter if you are in this second line of reasoning. And I would agree that taxes are labour and value appropriation, and under certain definitions of stealing I would even say "yes, it's theft of the majority on minority groups using violence"; the state (when functioning) is a monopoly on violence in a region; taking things using violence is the simple definition of theft, unless we basically add taxes as an exemption (which is how society actually uses the term; it's theft if it's not through the justice system, if it is through the justice system, and no corruption occurred that an effective justice system would try to correct, then it's by definition just and we call it taxes instead).

Now, there's a third group of libertarians that are aware the above lines of reasoning go nowhere; making everything free market and nothing paid for would mean not having the conditions of what is meant by a free market (protection of private property, both internal and external, contract enforcement, and a hodgepodge of other regulations of the market, such as consumer or investor protections, that a given libertarian supports), and as soon as we say "taxes are fine for A, because it benefits society as a whole" then it is open season to debate what other things can be supported with the exact same argument: such as universal health care, education, worker protections and safety nets, as well as limits to monopoly formation and wealth accumulation whenever it is more dangerous than beneficial to society.

So, this third group, though often using the "taxes are theft" when dealing with less sophisticated opponents or potential converts, argues in the presence of more sophisticated opponents that yes there is a criteria, which is whatever maximizes personal liberties on the whole. So the state can in fact infringe on your liberties, such as exacting a tax, if it on the whole maintains more people's liberties than not.

Since you are in the second camp, that taxes are theft, we should for now stay on that topic, but I wanted to foreshadow the two places to go from there: either everything is free market, including defense and justice, and there is no tax (state enforced theft) at all, or then, regardless of whether we call it theft or not, taxes are fine under some conditions, if it maximizes personal liberties overall. Now, there's a fatal flaw to this third argument as well, but it's only relevant if you are abandoning the "On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor?" position. I don't want to assume that is a foregone conclusion.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that this debate is officially no longer productive. All we'd be doing from now is re-asserting points we've already made. You think that I don't understand your position, I don't think you understand mine. You're claiming that I'm accusing you of saying things that you didn't. You're accusing me of saying AND thinking things that I didn't/don't and I reiterate my final statement from my first response: That neither of us are likely to budge on these issues. I thank you for your thoughts.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that this debate is officially no longer productive. All we'd be doing from now is re-asserting points we've already made. — Kenshi

You realize that "what seems to you" is fairly incompatible with "officialness".

What's your standard for deciding a debate is no longer productive?

And productive for whom?

You think that I don't understand your position — Kenshi

Yes, I don't think you understand many of my points. You have yet to respond on what other variable than "being black" affects job prospects for black teenagers. You did not understand by "public vouchers" I meant "public vouchers", a public education system where the rich subsidize the poor.

I don't think you understand mine. — Kenshi

Yes, many of your positions I do not understand your supporting arguments or how you resolve apparent contradictions, that is why I have asked many questions.

You're claiming that I'm accusing you of saying things that you didn't. — Kenshi

I didn't use the word accuse. My claim, for instance vis-a-vis education, was that I was pretty clear that in referring to public education, a public paid voucher based system is still a public system and not a free market system. So by responding about tax-rebate voucher system where the "money is your own" you were not responding to the question. If a free market system is more efficient, then zero education subsidies for the poor would be more efficient (people competing freely for education services): if not, then it is not a free market system.

So this is one example. If you did respond to the actual question, please cite where you do so.

You're accusing me of saying AND thinking things that I didn't/don't — Kenshi

Where do I accuse you of thinking things that you don't. I even say things like "I don't know if you identify as Libertarian", but since it's a argument libertarians often make I think it is useful to present that context for the benefit of other forum participants. Precisely to avoid accusing you of thinking or saying anything you haven't, I ask many questions and specify when I am unsure if a counter-argument applies to your position, which is very unclear to me so I ask questions.

and I reiterate my final statement from my first response: That neither of us are likely to budge on these issues. I thank you for your thoughts. — Kenshi

How do you know if I am likely to budge or not? If your position is simply true and you have good evidence, shouldn't you be confident of persuading anyone seeking the truth of matters? Do you have evidence I am not seeking the truth? Do you have epistemological grounds to know our positions are simply unbridgeable regardless of facts or truth seeking or debate? Or, are you simply not confident your arguments hold up to scrutiny?

Now, if you don't have time, what time constraint is there? Perhaps in this case simply say you don't have time but you may return when you do? Or then that you must pace out your responses.

If you don't have answers to the above questions, you may be confused as to what goes on here. On a philosophy forum, participants generally do not expect to persuade each other in a couple of comments and generally do not even place a requirement of confidence in persuading other interlocutors to there positions as condition for continuing debates.

If it is necessary for you, then speak for yourself, but don't imply that it is a mutual belief that we will not budge from our position or that it is a mutual sentiment that we should therefore not discuss further. Both conditions I would view as irrelevant to continuing to debate. And for my own part, I feel it is actually quite likely that your position will budge, perhaps not today, but based on your comments there is plenty of potential triggers for aporic doubts to flood your entire world view; generally, it is some personal experience, not debate on a forum, that leads to such reflections, but, if I was a betting man required to place a wager on scant information (as most gambling entails), then I would wager events will eventually emerge in your personal life (whether yourself or someone you know) that leads to a re-evaluation of the issue of public health care, education and other social programs. On that day, I will be smiling ... but only because I tend to smile everyday, it's a likely coincidence. For, if free market capitalism turns out not to be the most efficient system, it should be manifest in many practical scenarios.

Capitalism needs the poor more than it needs capital. The exploitation of an underclass kept in a state of necessity by semi to permanent unemployment is a necessary condition for stable labour costs.

The mark of a civilised society is how it treats this collective.

Some welfare systems are constructed on the understanding of the vital role played by the least, economically, fortunate in society, and treat the poor with dignity. Classically liberal economies blame the poor for their own penury.

I think capitalism, especially in its American flavour, along with continuous-growth economics, has lead to our destruction of the world. Greed prevails. Nearly-exhausted resources are plundered even faster and deeper.... Billionaires strive to obtain even more wealth than they already have. The poor starve, as they always have. Plus sa change....

Hey, I'm dirt poor almost to the point where I wonder if I will get another meal and still dead set against socialism and Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class.
As others have stated, there are some people that are so to say "smarter" than others. This, in my opinion, doesn't make anyone better than another. Each kind of person plays an essential role in society.

I'm dirt poor almost to the point where I wonder if I will get another meal and still dead set against socialism and Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class. — Waya

¿!?

If The State owns and maintains supreme control of the livelihood of The People, needless to say at gunpoint, then his comment is close to the mark--albeit semantically slightly inaccurate.

Hey, I'm dirt poor almost to the point where I wonder if I will get another meal and still dead set against socialism and Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class. — Waya

You accidentally confused capitalism with socialism. It's the capitalists who are the elite class that takes from the poor.

Socialist position: No need for slaves; no room for masters.

No, that's actual communism, which never existed. Everything we see today is a degree of socialism.

Socialism requires a high degree of micromanaging of the people by a government system. Usually, this results in starvation, corruption, and brutal violence as seen throughout the world in nations that embraced actual socialism. Removing the property from the "rich" essentially takes away from the working class.
Believe me, I know this. I have a jerk for a boss who is sexist against women and pays me well below the living wage for my area. If government restrictions were actually reduced it would be easier for me to find a decent job because other people of the "rich" class would be willing to hire me. This is the case for my relative area, as I am developing a side business in which I am well paid for the work I do for those who are considered "wealthy." (unfortunately, that all goes to basic living expenses to make up for that which my "job" doesn't pay for) Hence, I support the reduction of taxes and decreasing government handouts towards "poor" people, aka people unwilling to work harder and longer. For those who actually need help, private charities and religious organizations should be given liberty to assist those they deem in need of such help. Thus, those who actually need help would gain it. Again, from my experience, the government's system of assisting those in need is an unflexible wall of red tape. They refuse to help me.

Socialism requires a high degree of micromanaging of the people by a government system. Usually, this results in starvation, corruption, and brutal violence as seen throughout the world in nations that embraced actual socialism. Removing the property from the "rich" essentially takes away from the working class. — Waya

And what do you think corporations are doing if not micromanaging people in a corporate system?

Believe me, I know this. I have a jerk for a boss who is sexist against women and pays me well below the living wage for my area. — Waya

So your boss is a jerk, he doesn't pay you enough, and this is the government's fault?

Why don't you keep the blame where you laid it: on your boss's doorstep? He's the one deciding to underpay you and maybe harass you to boot.

For some odd reason unknown to me you would prefer to blame non-existent socialism for your problems instead of a harsh, capitalist system which doesn't give a shit about you.

↪Bitter Crank No, that's actual communism, which never existed. Everything we see today is a degree... — Waya

Possibly, but you said this:

Karl Marx. He speaks for an elite class that takes from the poor and manipulates them into slaves for such a class. — Waya

You might argue with Marx's proposed solution to the woes of capitalism. You can certainly argue with practical communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc. But it's not so easy to disagree with his analysis.

"poor" people, aka people unwilling to work harder and longer. — Waya

Unwilling? Or unable?

Here is a recent interchange I had on Twitter:

Tweeter 1: The Tories said privatisation of the railways would give us "better, more efficient and cheaper trains". Today rail fares go up by 3.1% while punctuality is at a 12-year low. Meanwhile in Luxembourg they are making all public transport free from 2019.

Tweeter 2: Another leftie after free stuff.

Pattern-chaser: Free? We all pay. That's the point of socialism: from each according to their means, and to each (or all) according to their (our) needs. And we share the cost. It's not free, it's mutual care. Love thy neighbour?

This offers an alternative perspective to your own. I can't guarantee it's more accurate, although it seems so to me.

Do you consider Scandinavia well-fare state (free education at all levels, universal healthcare, high taxes on the rich) as socialism or capitalism? — boethius

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist, they are capitalist. Period.

They surely have a long tradition of social-democrats in power and many welfare programs and state programs that seem to be socialism for an American, but in the end the system is based on capitalism. I would object that we let socialism to be defined by those who use it just as an swearword.

The misconception does exist, though. I remember one Cuban, who was member of the Cuban communist party, saying that he thought Cuba's objective would be to be like Sweden. Well, Sweden is quite capitalist. The capitalists just maintain a low profile.