Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism

Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." This is the definition for socialism you get when you type socialism into the Google search bar. The soviet union was the Union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. In socialism there is no private property, everything is owned publicly (which is a kind way of saying the government owns it). It was the same with the soviet union. Now, when I was talking about the pen and the bottle of water, I wasn't saying barter is the way to go. I'm pretty surprised that was how you took it. I wasn't talking about barter per say. I was talking about trade. The whole reason we have moved from barter to a money based economy is because of the inefficiency of barter. For example, you can't save chickens for college. Well you can, but you'd need some pretty healthy chickens and a lot of grain. But barter is only one example of trade. I think that the best definition of trade is a voluntary exchange of goods and services to mutual benefit. For example, I went to the Apple store and bought an ipad for 300 dollars (I don't actually know how much they cost) because I value my 300 dollars less than the ipod, and Apple values the ipod less than the 300 dollars. We make the exchange, and we both leave better off. Neither of us would have made that exchange unless each of us thought we would be better off, or we were coerced into doing it *(cough *cough government). When I go to the store to buy oranges, if the price isn't worth it to me I won't purchase them. But, if I find the price worth it, or if i'm starving then I will trade with the store my say 5 dollars in exchange for a few oranges. Now i'm not necessarily sure that I needed to say all of this because what you said about barter was probably a misinterpretation of what I meant. "There's a slight difference between Ed and the government here. The difference is that people want the government doing things for them." Ummmm.... Not everybody. Here's a problem: even if I wanted to, if I opted out it would make no difference to the government. In the same way that if I opted out of giving the mafia protection money, they wouldn't be like " okay that's swell!", they'd drive over too my house, beat me within an inch of my life and take the money anyway. Maybe shoot a member of my family to send a message. My wanting or not wanting my money taken makes no difference to the foot of the CRS agent ( Canada revenue service, since i'm Canadian) which is kicking my door in because I didn't pay my taxes. And here is another scenario: " Hi, my name is Ed, and I am pointing this Gun at you because "the people have spoken", and X number of people have voted for me to take money from you because we need roads. Hey, stop resisting, don't you believe in DEMOCRACY!?" And let me ask you this: is a slave that gets to choose his masters really any less of a slave? And yes, many people are on food stamps. But the claim that they would otherwise be starving in the streets is ridiculous. It's called soup kitchens. It's called charitable acts. It's called human decency. And without the Government, there would likely be many more charities than exist today. Also, without government taxes and red tape there would be far more jobs so that less people would need such a service anyway. Roads? Like I said, for the species that has discovered the Higgs Boson, E=MC squared and Quantum Mechanics, roads are NOTHING. Did the government invent asphalt? Of course I don't know EXACTLY who will build the roads. I'm not an oracle, although my friends say I have a creepy voice sometimes. There are plenty of examples of private roads in the U.S, here are some examples http://en.wikipedia.org... . There are plenty of toll roads, and there is no reason why private companies could not take them over. The same goes for buses, subways, taxis, trains, planes etc. Communities could get together voluntarily and build roads, there are plenty of examples of that in my town. Companies want customers, so chain stores could contribute funds for roads that will lead traffic into communities where they are set up. Also, carrier drones will soon be a thing, which is awesome. And in the 1800s during the industrial revolution we saw an ENORMOUS spike in wages and the standard of living. Low compared to now, but compared to the previous centuries? There had never been such a dramatic increase in wages before or since. We saw the invention of the steam engine, and later the internal combustion engine, the real harnessing of electricity which lead to many labor saving devices. It's perfectly easy to compare our privileged lives to those back then, but understand that up to that point people had never had it that good. Labor union: an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions http://www.merriam-webster.com... . There is nothing in that definition that is inherently Socialist. As a Capitalist, I have no problems WHATSOEVER with unions. I have no problems with workers getting together and negotiating with their employer, or even going on strike for wages, working conditions etc. What I object to is when the unions get special grants from governments, are able to ban workers from working and force them to join the strike, and help create laws that don't allow employers to fire the employees while on strike. As for the military? Before I get into it, I will link a video below that explains it pretty well: this does not count as an argument, but I highly recommend you watch it for educational purposes because I can't really do it justice. Basically, there would likely be competing private militias. Now keep in mind that these militias would not have the benefits of crony capitalism or government handouts and subsidies or bailouts, and it would not have the FED to print money for them. These companies could potentially be funded by advertising. "A&W: protecting america since(insert random year)". Now the obvious question is what if one militia got a bunch of weapons and people and try to take over? Well the fact is that is a TERRIBLE business decision. Why would a company be so stupid? Firstly, where would they get the funds? Advertisers and investors would withdraw immediately. War is expensive, and without Ben Bernanke's magical printing press of destiny they simply would have no way of funding such an endeavor. The costs would be directly imposed on the company. Secondly, if there was a growing sense that something like that was going to happen, then the water company would stop supplying the militia with water, and the same thing with electrical companies and so on. Many of the employees would likely quit in protest, and there would be public pressure as well as pressure from other militias to back down. It simply wouldn't happen. Looking forward to your response. "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged".