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

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


Link: Do you prefer Socialism or Capitalism?

(no message)

(no message)

the need for constant vigilance (regulation) of our Capitalism. The recent experience with our "Great Recession" also shows what can happen when Capitalism is un-checked...and if you read the book entitled "Tyranny, Inc." (written by a Conservative Influencer), it'll bring the economic system's foibles home to your doorstep.

All that being said, Democrats still stand in favor of Capitalism, while at the same time making sure that it serves ALL Americans...Fairly...some call it a dose of Socialism...not Communism.

Socialism centralizes power, and therefore can cause greater events of corruption and abuse. Just look at the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party) if you want the worst example of socialism.

Communism is obviously worse, as we've seen in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia.

I prefer inefficient, distributed abuses of power and corruption, not abuses of power and corruption led by people who also control the police, courts and military. So, give me capitalism every day, and give me the grossly inefficient governance of our Democratic Republic, which is the best system available, even with its inherent faults.

Note that there are always rich and poor in any system. In capitalism, the rich employ people and are usually selected by merit. In socialism/communism, the rich control people and are usually selected by political expediency/loyalty.

Also note that although people are calling themselves Democratic Socialists, the Antifa movement (Antifaschistische Aktion) is a communist movement, not a socialist movement. A "fascist" to them is anyone who is not a communist. They think libertarians are fascists. So, the Right is up against communists on the Left. There is no telling which of the so called Democratic Socialists are actually socialists or are actually communists.

I want America to be a free-market based productive economy, aka, free-market based producer.

I want America to be a republic, based on production not speculation, invention not manipulation, sovereign not global control, real wealth not paper wealth, the dignity of labor not credit expansion and debts of consumer.

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.

it's their compulsive drive that creates the modern world we all enjoy.

By contrast, the severe OCD of leftist. power hungry politicians retards progress and makes the general population miserable.

you know that un-regulated Capitalism causes Human and Economic Harm. It's a never ending 'Balancing Act', but Democrats have never sought a Party Platform to eliminate that system...just keep it fair, for the good of all.

Remember....Democrats have 401Ks, too...;-)

solved this way. Why?

Because most economic inequalities are generated by market forces. For example a QB makes 20 millions a year, but an elementary school teacher makes 45k a year. This gap is purely because of free market force. So, you need to get rid of the market in order to reach equality between QB and the teacher. That is called socialism.

I'm shocked.

(no message)

Specifically here, you're championing failed policies and backing demonic dictators who want to destroy the U.S.

Other than that, roll right on.

(no message)

(no message)

Almost all of his posts are political. All of his logic is DNC
talking points. He is fooling absolutely no one.

created a Faux Fraternity in order to get into a "Greeks Only" Beach Party in Ft. Lauderdale during Spring Break...even Jake participated with his larcenous escapade of stealing Bookstore prize numbers...and getting caught. Then there was the Memorial Day post honoring the last surviving member of my Dad's WWII B-17 crew, "Joe" who happened to have actually caddied for Babe Ruth...a story that was corroborated by his family and friends when I later flew across country to represent my Dad and our family at JOe's Military Funeral Honors Ceremony...the story that you tried to use in order to vent your political disagreements by trashing Joe's memory. Fortunately, several other OF members weren't so crass.

Dream on, guys...I'll be here to clean up after you.

Aragoto exposed the nonsense in your storytelling.

Your Fort Lauderdale story proves you enjoy lying.

(no message)

(no message)

...in front of all of us here...and God...tell me I'm wrong...should be the easiest response you've ever made.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

We’re witnessing a veritable “5th Amendment” ploy on your part. Must be disconcerting to live like that.

Indict means "to formally charge someone with a serious crime."

Do you realize it is: "An accusation. Not a conviction. It does not mean the person is guilty."

Give it a rest. Nobody cares. It's just another of your mental break dances on a wet refrigerator box.

for anyone with a clear conscience. Btw, it's also an easy way to turn the tables on me...and the many others on the OF who view you the same way as I do. All you have to do is answer the question...

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.

When Socialism is not social it can become what I consider to be more Individualized and Problematic.

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but I am thankful for your thoughtful response.

When it comes to managing public utilities, I would rather trust the private work force than government workers and officials. The government is already involved enough. Regulations and government constraints and renewable mandates already place enough strain on service provision. There is a case to be made that this hybrid approach can help when your power is out after a storm because the fear of public outcries and the constant Damocles sword threats of further regulations and/or outright takeovers provide incentives for profit driven companies to work swiftly. The capitalistic profit motive can also increase incentives not only for innovation but to create further efficiencies.

Unfettered monopolies—and unfettered AI—can be evil, but when you say, “Adapt or die is the name of the game for civilizations” we should be careful about turning all decisions over to one of our least adaptable entities: government.

US Socialism seems to work best when it is social. As you suggest, our view of socialism in the US is Public Services and Infrastructure; Police; the Military; Fire; roads and bridges; water; waste; garbage collection. These services are social and the resulting benefits redound to the public good. On a continuum these services are more social and less individualized. They benefit more of society as a whole rather than the individual. For example, it is more difficult to subdivide a road and give it to an individual. Therefore, such tasks seem properly placed within the purview of government—limited government.

Other forms of government social construction—interventions targeting individual concerns—are more problematic, and they are—as you point out—more susceptible to fraud.

As you state, “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”. You can also include the Department of Education and Section 8 housing, etcetera … in your list.

I am not saying all social safety nets are bad, but when they are designed and implemented to supposedly assist individuals—rather than create dependency—they should take into account human nature.

Rather than go though each of the services you cited, I will just use one example that you happened to highlighted.

You say that you are, “not against Medicare for all”. This seems laudable, but you also call for less fraud, more efficiency, and sustainable funding. In my view, expanding Medicare will do none of those things. Medicare for all is Health Insurance for all. Health Insurance for all is not the same thing as Health Care for all. Insurance companies do not have a reputation of taking less money than you want to give them.

I believe we would be better off just paying doctors directly to do what they were trained to do and that is to take care of patients and not paperwork. If possible, I would rather give the money directly to citizens, we would probably pay more to actual health care than the fraud we are paying for now. I am not saying just give citizens the money per se, I am saying provide something like an incentivized account that they have access to. The account can only be accessed with their personal code that they provide to a licensed physician/medical professional when then has to enter their own code and upload a receipt for services rendered before funds are transferred to the physician’s account. Of course, the codes could be set up to change after each transaction and expire within a few days if unused. To further incentivize those who pay into the fund—working taxpayers—a portion of the fund should be given to citizens—or transferred to savings accounts if they so choose—for each year of continuous work if no funds were withdrawn for 3 to 5 years, and it is confirmed they paid their minimum contribution. It does not prevent those who cannot work from receiving help, but it incentivizes more people to work and pay into the system they know may be providing more benefits and funds to them in the long run. Individuals may also keep a stricter watch over their accounts to prevent fraud if they know their own balances will benefit them personally. They should also be allowed to share their funds with other to help pay medical bills. I am not saying this is a process everyone will agree with, but I believe something like this takes into account human nature.

Private nongovernment funded charities would also be an option for stricter oversight although that would be difficult to establish on a national scale, and I believe that does not have the greatest potential for oversight at the most granular individualized level.

With regards to the need for a UBI due to AI, I believe that would be a grave error and possibly the end of the human race. Humans are meant to work and produce, after the Fall this is our lot. If the Fall means nothing to you and you are completely amoral or atheistic consider the 1968 Universe 25 experiment made famous by scientist John B. Calhoun and where the end stages of utopia will lead.

"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.

Pot holes, public education, data centers...examples of socialism. Interesting.

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.

But... I also believe that raising the minimum standard of living in a society is the easiest way to improve a society for all of its members. In Adam Smith's day people weren't being saddled with medical or education debt that is impossible to pay back. There is no capitalist solution I see to solve these problems and AI is only going to make it worse.

Socialism (to the extent socialism is an attempt to get equity [equality of status] as opposed to equality [equality of opportunity]) is driving the prices up.

(no message)

(no message)