One simple question.... Do you prefer Socialism or Capitalism?

https://youtube.com/shorts/yV8Q5oxnfc4?si=b2Ob25tiu1wHmMBC


Link: Do you prefer Socialism or Capitalism?

not for those living on wages only...hence the desire/need for more Socialism. Given that America performed very well back in the 60's when the ratio of CEO compensation to Average Workers was ~30:1, and that ratio is now over 300:1, an argument can be made by those favoring Socialist policies as a remedy...starting with our tax code.

Oedipal conflicts and empathic deficits.

Pragmatists live by the reality principal and seek self-realization in the context of the collective good.

I asked: What are your thoughts on human nature?

It's one of the biggest questions there is, and I don't think there's a single answer. Human nature seems to be a collection of tendencies that often pull in opposite directions.
Some patterns that appear across cultures and history include:

We are deeply social. Humans evolved to depend on one another. We seek belonging, cooperation, recognition, and love. Much of our happiness and suffering comes from relationships.

We are pattern-seekers. Our brains constantly look for meaning, even when none exists. This ability gave us science, language, and engineering, but it also makes us vulnerable to superstition and conspiracy theories.
We are both selfish and altruistic. People can sacrifice their lives for strangers or exploit others for personal gain. Both behaviors are part of our evolutionary toolkit, and which one emerges often depends on culture, incentives, and circumstances.

We are storytellers. We don't just experience reality—we create narratives about who we are, why things happen, and what gives life meaning. Those stories shape civilizations.
We adapt remarkably well. Humans can survive in deserts, the Arctic, megacities, and even orbit the Earth. Our greatest evolutionary advantage may not be strength or intelligence alone, but flexibility.

I also think one of the defining characteristics of human nature is curiosity. Humans are unique in how obsessively they ask "why?" That drive led from stone tools to quantum physics and artificial intelligence. It also leads people to ask philosophical questions like the one you just asked.

At the same time, humans often struggle with cognitive biases:

We tend to favor evidence that confirms what we already believe.

We overestimate our own objectivity.

We fear losses more than we value equivalent gains.

We judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intentions.

Recognizing these biases doesn't eliminate them, but it helps us build institutions—science, journalism, courts, peer review—that are designed to compensate for them.

One aspect I find especially interesting is that humans seem to live in two worlds simultaneously:

The physical world of atoms, biology, and cause-and-effect.

The symbolic world of money, laws, nations, religions, companies, and ideals.

The second world exists because millions of people collectively agree that these concepts matter. That shared imagination is arguably what enabled humans to cooperate in groups far larger than any other species.

Ultimately, I don't think human nature is fixed in the sense of dictating our destiny. Biology gives us predispositions, but culture, education, experience, and conscious reflection shape how those predispositions are expressed.

Humans have the capacity for extraordinary cruelty and extraordinary compassion. History contains abundant examples of both.

Given some of the questions you've asked before—about consciousness, artificial intelligence, evolution, and philosophy—I suspect you might also appreciate the idea that understanding human nature requires looking at it from multiple levels: biology explains our instincts, psychology explains our minds, anthropology explains our cultures, and philosophy asks what we ought to become.

None of those perspectives is sufficient on its own.

Socialism in the US:
Public Services and Infrastructure: Police, Fire, roads and bridges, water, waste, garbage collection, and the latest: Data Centers (at least on the funding and such). I don't hate the DSA ideas around managing data centers as utilities.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Food - all of these are good in the aggregate but can and should be improved to eliminate fraud, become sustainably funded, and become more efficient.

I am not against Medicare for all.

We will need some form of UBI soon as AI eliminates jobs.

The department of education needs to be ripped out and either replaced or reverted back to the states. Politicians should look at what Mississippi is doing as California is completely failing on the education front.

Adapt or die is the name of the game for civilizations.

"Public Services and Infrastructure: Police, Fire, roads and bridges, water, waste, garbage collection"...I just don't see that as socialism. Even libertarians can agree on much of that.

But, I agree we have been inching toward socialism since the New Deal, which is why the middle class is disappearing, IMO. It is time to inch away.

You said, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Food - all of these are good in the aggregate but can and should be improved to eliminate fraud, become sustainably funded, and become more efficient." How would you eliminate fraud? I don't see eliminating fraud as long as the government is involved. Maybe return most of such things to private charities, which watch over their money better than the government does.

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy that argues that the means of producing goods and services—such as factories, utilities, natural resources, or other major industries—should be owned or controlled collectively, rather than primarily by private individuals or corporations. The goal is typically to reduce economic inequality and ensure that wealth and resources are distributed more broadly.
There are many forms of socialism, including:
Democratic socialism: Supports achieving socialist goals through democratic elections and political institutions. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of key industries, while others emphasize expanding worker ownership and strong social programs.
Social democracy: Often confused with socialism, but distinct. Social democracies generally retain a capitalist economy while using taxes and government programs to provide services like universal healthcare, public education, and social safety nets. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark are commonly cited as examples of social democracies rather than fully socialist economies.
State socialism: The government owns and operates much of the economy. Historical examples include the former Soviet Union and Mao-era China, though each implemented socialism differently.
Common goals of socialism
Reduce income and wealth inequality.
Ensure access to necessities such as healthcare, education, and housing.
Increase workers' influence over their workplaces.
Prioritize social welfare over maximizing private profit.
Common criticisms
Critics argue that socialism can:
Reduce incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Lead to inefficient allocation of resources if governments make economic decisions.
Concentrate too much power in the state, particularly in systems with extensive government ownership.
Create bureaucracy and reduce consumer choice.
Capitalism vs. Socialism (simplified)
Capitalism
Socialism
Private ownership of businesses is dominant.
Collective or public ownership plays a larger role.
Markets largely determine prices and production.
Government or collective planning has a larger role, though some forms still use markets.
Profit is a primary motivator.
Social welfare and equitable distribution are emphasized more heavily.
In practice, most countries today have mixed economies. They combine capitalist markets with varying degrees of government regulation, public services, and social welfare. For example, the United States has a predominantly capitalist economy with programs like Social Security and Medicare, while Nordic countries combine market economies with more extensive public services and higher taxes.
Because "socialism" has been used to describe a wide range of systems and policies, it's important to clarify which form someone is referring to in any particular discussion.

I would define socialism generally as anything funded by the people and provided by the government.

That is only a national problem if the NGO's are getting their money from the government.

If the NGO's are private organizations getting their money from private citizens who donate voluntarily, then their fraud is less harmful, because I am not being required to contribute to their fraud. When I donate to a charity, I check to see what their overhead is, to assess the risk of fraud. If 60% of it is going to the executives to attend conferences in Switzerland, or the like, I know that their public assistance spending is merely a cover for their fraud, so I don't donate. However, if the money is coming from the government, the government doesn't stop donating. Indeed, the NGO just lobbies harder, and promises kick backs, jobs, and speaking opportunities to make sure the government money flows no matter what.

All the liberals who are funding the KKK and other racists groups by way of donating to the Southern Poverty Law Center ... it would be worse if the government were giving money to the SPLC. If the government gives money to the KKK by using the SPLC to hide the transfer, we have institutional racism and institutional fraud; but, if Democrat voters give money to the KKK as a result of SPLC fraud, we don't have an institutional problem.

Private charities, in general (not all the time, but more of the time), take care of their money better than the government does.

less.

The conditions now lead to more socialism and that is exactly what we are seeing.

The predominant inherent quality of government is growth (into socialism and beyond). It rarely decreases. Look at the outcry when DOGE tried to fine tune the system, and the opposition to eliminating fraud that we see from the Left. We do not have a finely tuned and adaptable system.

And the only way to get there is through incremental advancement towards the goal.

The bigger you get, and the more people you let in who have a different set of morals (or lack thereof), the more difficult it is to have a finely tuned and adaptable society. When you are one of the least corrupt socieites in the world, and you encourage people to come to our country from more corrupt societies and not integrate or adopt our morals, you are encouraging corruption. Just look at Minnesota.

Having said all this, I hope your are right, and I am wrong, that such a society is achievable. I've been getting a little pessimistic lately that the only way to have one is to reset society as one, and begin the inevitable gradual incremental change away from it. But, societal resets are painful. People usually die.

(no message)

(no message)