Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Let me start off by saying your priorities are a little askew. If you value drugs, prostitution, and gambling more than democracy then I think you ought to refocus abit. Let me say a few simple things in response to your numbers:I never said the wealthy have 100% of the power, I said that they are the most influential. The public does have a say, but their opinion is heavily influenced by mass media controlled by the wealthy, their political choices are given by the wealthy, and almost all high offices are held by wealth individuals.You noted this before and I agreed that there are competing interests in ideology and economic goals amongst the wealthy. The war between George Soros and Rupert Murdoch is an example. Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are complicated issues. The history behind them is complex and the contemporary battles surrounding them are difficult to explain quickly. "definitely not what this country was built on. it was created to make sure that no matter how insane something might seem, it should still be legal cause it involves what we do with our own property."The nation was never built on that principle, property rights weren't even mentioned in the constitution beyond the inability of the government to house soldiers on it without payment or the seizure of it without a warrant. The nation was far less economically and socially liberal in its past; if anything is was founded on very strict principles and has gradually gotten more liberal over the years. You have no grasp of history, you have no idea what you are talking about.As for the stop sign example, that was just an example. You are supposed to know that it was a simple concept put forth to represent a very complex and large problem. You know exactly what the government does and the power it has, I just felt like keeping it simple and light to make it easier. You, however, decided to misunderstand it to the point of absurdity."not freely elected if the citizens are limited on campaign contributions, and government shouldn't censor the media. we have two major parties for this reason, because they are their own watch dogs. sites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters constantly attack any right wing statement, and shows like the O'reilly Factor constantly attack Far left media for inaccuracies."What you are telling me is that politicians are not freely elected if the general public has an equal say in who gets elected? Once again you have sided against democracy in favor of plutocracy, the rule by the wealthy. While this country wasn't founded on wealth I'd like to think it was founded with democratic principles in mind (even though it never lived up to them). What's the difference between the government censoring the media and wealthy interests censoring the media? If the government is a representative one where free and fair elections are held the people actually have a say in the censorship. I don't agree that the government should be able to censor the media, I also don't agree that the rich should be able to either. But, again, you've decided to make up my arguments. I never said the government should censor the media, you are presenting false-choices once again. What's funny is that while you are angry at beliefs I never said I held you put forth ones that are completely ridiculous on their face. The best part about all of this is that you are demonstrating the very problems I am talking about. The only political options you know about are the ones given to you by the wealthy. You think the choice is between either a country controlled by the wealthy or a nation controlled by a despotic government. Your whole slew of ridiculous opinions and uninspiring rhetoric are exhibit A, you are the result of the problem I am describing."it kind of actually sucks that corporations don't have more power. i'm really waiting for flat tax and drugs to be legal."I rest my case.