Capitalism

Thank you for being so polite in your argument. I will try to do the same. Now, let's get down to it. "Capitalism also supports the idea that actions and transactions between multiple parties do not need the use of coercion and/or violence. " Exchanges should exist, but only with superfluous comforts. Basic things such as food, water, clothes, and living spaces should be provided by the government. Otherwise, in the event of a monopoly, the suppliers can drive the consumers bankrupt simply by charging essentials as high as they possibly can in order to make a greater profit margin. You proposal of anarchism could also potentially increase violence, as a lack of regulation would create a large grey area in business practices. "The government grants special treatment to the rich through tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, and so on. This shows that the government can inevitable favor the rich and that you cannot have control on the rich, and favor to it at the same time. The government we have now supports the ruling class and will always favor the ruling class. " The government will always grant special treatment to the rich in Capitalism because the rich are the ones who supply the money for the campaigns. The average voters are influenced by advertising and advertising requires the money which the rich have in abundance. Naturally, due to the inherent greed of humanity (different argument) which allowed these people to rise to the top of the economic system in the first place, the rich will wish to become wealthier. To do this they will pay campaigning money towards candidates in exchange for promoting policies which favor the wealthy. Consequently, the wealthy become wealthier and gain even more influence over government. "They are born into it. If they are born into it, why should I be mad at them? They didn't choose to be born into wealth. Nobody has the right to impose regulations onto them. " This may be so, but it impinges upon equal opportunity. A rich man does not choose to be born rich nor does a poor man choose to be poor, but the result is that the rich man lives a life of success and comfort regardless of how much or how little he contributes to labor whereas the poor man can contribute as much as he possibly can yet still remain at the bottom due to trickle-down economics, which frankly, do not and were never intended to work. Putting money in the hands of the rich allows them to use to manipulate the poor further through increased lobbying efforts, which can in turn allow them to decrease minimum wage all to increase profit, with none of that extra money ever finding its way into poor hands. "They create businesses and organizations. This is beneficial to society. It creates jobs, it creates wealth, it pulls people out of poverty, it raises our standard of living, it helps improve our economy, and so much more. " While you are correct that SMALL businesses are beneficial, big ones simply drive the small ones out. The large corporations are then able to unite with each other through different means and increase their influence even further. Take the Bohemian Grove as an example. A two-week getaway for the rich and powerful. Basically like summer camp for the upper class. The only difference is that the relationships formed at THIS summer camp can lead to relationships back in the corporate world. Once again, when this happens and the upper class is able to control the conditions of their workers, it only leads to increased poverty. "The Federal Reserve created an unsustainable boom in the 1920s by lowering interest rates. Economists estimated that the money supply had increased by 61.8 percent between 1921 and 1929. The inevitable stock market crash was a symptom of the inflationary boom. This is currently happening today and is what is going to crash our economy because the value of the dollar will collapse. " These interest rates and level of economy control would not be necessary if Capitalism were to simply be discarded. If people were to simply be offered jobs of equal work for necessities and some comforts interest and the stock market would not exist and our economy would not be so flimsily tipped over. "Onto the class issue, I do not see what is wrong with classes. Capitalism is not about creating classes and class warfare. Capitalism offers the opportunity for everyone to move into whatever class they work their way into. " While it would be nice for it to simply be so easy as to say "I'm going to the upper class today! " and move into that zone, reality is not so ideal. The link you shared was one of income distribution, and not wealth distribution. Due to inheritance and net worth, income becomes rather insignificant in comparison: . http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu... As the link shows, the wealthiest of Americans control an overwhelming 85% of the nation's wealth despite only accounting for 20% of the overall population. With the elimination of Capitalism, those numbers would balance out. "When there is little economic freedom there is little political freedom as well. " I would beg to differ. The class divisions which economic freedom results in causes government corruption by the rich which you yourself said was present and I previously pointed out to be almost inevitable in an uncontrolled Capitalist society. The lack of classes would increase freedom by giving the people the ability to make what they wish of their lives without them having to pick their occupations based on how much money it would bring in. "There is anarchist communist (as proposed by intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky) and Marxism. Anarchist communism in my opinion is in fact a good idea with great intentions, for a world filled with saints. Marxism on the other hand is atrocious as it sees the state to be the controller over the economy and that it must impose equality on all. Nearly every example of this ideology has proven itself to be a failure. " Interesting that you mention Noam Chomsky. My father, Warren S. Goldstein, is also a Marxist writer (although he focuses on sociology and in particular religion). And although my father would be sure to know loads on anarchistic communism as opposed to Marxism, I unfortunately do not. Nor do I need to. I am setting out to prove that Capitalism is negative, not that Marxism is positive. That would be a different debate. I agree with you in your statement that almost every example of this ideology has proved to be a failure as I specifically mentioned earlier that I do not feel that direct Communism can be implemented properly as a system in the modern world, yet I still feel the Marxist perspective is an important and very valid one especially for the modern world. I await your counterargument.