Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Economic Left/Right 5Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -6.77I've taken the test a few times before. I like some of it, but it asks questions about art and such, which have more to do with culture. Plus, I could have sworn there was a culture and foreign policy scale along with it, but that may have been another test from another site. I do not find art more or less important than business, for it is all relative. To some, business is more important, to others, art is. The test if flawed, but it puts me in the correct general area. I am not far-right because I do not believe that a thriving corporation always means the best for the people. That is impossible to tell. Such a statement of affirmation is intellectually dishonest. That goes for other questions regarding "what's good for business is good for society". No, what's good for business depends on the business, that is merely it. It just usually means that society will thrive, but once again, my philosophy is on relativism and objectivism... not the worship of business.Wikipedia is neutral on all subjects. And the website is controlled by the moderators... the people who run it in the first place. The moderators are given power by the creator of the site, and it is, ultimately, up to him on what is controlled on that site or not. It goes very well with my ideals because there is no legislation over it, sure. 1. Second hand smoke - By this logic, me existing effects your freedom to choose to not have to read someone else's argument. You still don't. Just because my arguments are around does not mean that you have lost your liberty. But even if you live with someone who smokes, it is up to you to leave that conveyance. If a child lives with someone who smokes, they could bring it up in a civil case if it truly bothered them. This would entitle the child to either find new custody or be legally emancipated, depending on the circumstances.2. Drunk Driving - I never said that, but even so, the police should be looking for impairment, not intoxication. 3. And absolutely. Murder is proven to be depriving of someone's life. In general, I do not agree with Capital Punishment. In order for Capital Punishment to be utilized, there would have to be undeniable evidence proving that the person did it (like footage ALONG side DNA, witnesses, etc.). In my world, Capital Punishment would be used, possibly, once a decade. But, as well, even a person's freedom should not be deprived unless the prosecution can provide more than just circumstantial evidence (which is not always the case these days). But go ahead, call me ridiculous. And I see your point on Randianism... I didn't know that you were such a defender of it, though. I do not know much of Rand's work, so I avoid associating my beliefs with hers. I've heard from an objectivst video blog site about "extreme Randians saying don't save a baby because of natural order" or what not, but I suppose that is why it's extreme... But even so, I agree with Objectivism, and that's the only thing I agree with Rand on. I believed in Objectivism even before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. But that is out of Philosophy rather than lifestyle (if I added the lifestyle, I would be a Nihilist... which I do not find myself to truly be).And China is more about Fascism than Corporatism. Now, in these days, Corporatism and Socialism tend to get mixed up because of Fascist "Third Way" components, so I can see how Authoritarian Capitalism can refer to China's system... I thought you were referring to Corporatism itself (and how it is utilized in the States, but I see).The Civil War was not an example of the problem with Freedom of Choice. The Union chose to force the South to preserve the Union, which resulted in the War. And the secession of the South was a result of the North not complying with their part of the Compromise. Freedom of Choice, in the end, was not an issue. If you wish to bring up slavery, slavery is a clear example of the Opposite of Freedom of Choice. Free individuals being forced into labor without any say. If they did object, they were beaten, sometimes to death. As well, they were taken from their homes. But even so, the secession wasn't only about slavery. Slavery was merely an issue in the Compromise.Economic crisis - blame the fed, if you want to know what actually causes any major recession. I am not saying to end the fed (which may be the best thing to do, but that is a different debate) mainly because I have not studied enough about economics in order to make such an affirmative statement. My problem is when people treat it like it's absurd, even if they know just as much or even less about economics than I do. I accept that I am not an economist, so I will not put all my money into ending the Fed. But at the same time, I will not accept the statement of others that the Fed is good.Anarchy. Anarchy implies allowing people to rape and murder without any police force. Sure, that would be ultimate freedom and liberty, but you seem to be getting something wrong. Why is it that people who have no intention on murdering and raping (which are the mass majority of people) will all of a sudden go on a crime spree if government just disappeared? It's funny, because the only example I see of anarchy is tribalism, and those are uncivilized people who have no knowledge, science or business. Yet, they live in a mainly peaceful manner. In today's world, if government disappeared, we would have crime, sure. But would good people just let that happen? Or will they form militias (as they did during the Revolution)? I do not believe in taking away the military and police force because not everyone can defend themselves, and we shouldn't expect them to. Being a trained marksmen takes time and practice, and many can't even get to that level no matter how much they train. This idea that social libertarians (and even economic libertarians) want Anarchy when they refer to Freedom of Choice and Civil Liberties is kind of just a cop-out when it comes to debate. Of course I don't mean to let people just murder others. As stated, earlier in the post, murder is proven to be a direct reason for the depriving of someone's life. Rape is proven to be directly involved with forcing someone into sex. Doing drugs is not. Paying for sex is not. These are things that most people refer to when it comes to Civil Liberties or Freedom of choice. The ability to choose what we wish to do with our own lives and bodies. If you want, I can say "Freedom of Personal choice" so that you don't have to read anything else I say to know what I'm talking about.