Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Lol. My "full of shit" statement got you angry didn't it? It was said to get you to react and I enjoyed the reaction immensely.Forgive my slow response. Lots of assignments to do meant I neglected createdebate since my last post.OK. Evidence?First up, I have mentioned problems with 'evidence' already. So you can hear Roy Bhaskar's take."Society, as an object of inquiry, is necessarily 'theoretical' in the sense that... it is necessarily unperceivable; so that it cannot be empirically identified independently of its effects... only be known not shown, to exist""Practically all the theories of orthodox philosophy of science... presuppose closed systems. Because of this, they are totally inapplicable to the social sciences." "The social sciences are denied, in principle, decisive test situations for their theories."So there lies problems with any 'evidence' that anyone can provide about society.What I am trying to say (as distinct from what you say I am trying to say) is that democracy is better than capitalism because democracy is regulated and restricted by society and capitalism is regulated and restricted by itself. Both have faults and benefits, but if I were to pick one, it would Definitely be Democracy.What the argument has become is thus: Freedom of civil liberties vs Nanny state government (or corporate democracy or something?)As you ask for evidence I will simply comment on those fronts.Anarchy: Fundamental Anarchy may not be possible, because human beings are followers or leaders. Re:Sudan, Any event that could possibly be anarchy I'm sure is possible to argue that it is not. Whether a country has a government or not there will be rape, murder. This is not weird, because some people do these things regardless of consequences, but is it not better to discourage? Why is it when there are large natural disasters (Haiti, Christchurch, Japan, San Francisco) do people loot stores while authorities are otherwise engaged? Once 'every man for himself' happens, the bastards appear. While there are cases that this doesn't happen there are predominantly cases it where it does. Given the opportunity to do something 'bad', some people will. Not everyone, but some, and it ruins it for everyone. Its my perspective.Kids fucking parents: I showed concerns? I brought up Freud and sarcastically overstated things because we were talking about human nature. The point was to suggest that human nature is not all hugs and peace. But no, you missed the point and decided to accuse me of whatever served your argument best.Prostitution: I don't agree with prostitution. I have seen people fucked over by the industry, and so I struggle to believe, legal or illegal, the good outweighs the bad regardless of whether its capitalism's fault or whatever. I see it from my friends perspectives, and maybe that clouds my vision. Prostitution cannot be justified by the freedom of civil liberties of the customer. It's my perspective.Personal choice being regulated: It is okay to regulate people's personal choices because with no regulation it is simply up to each persons perspective of social norms to dictate what they do. Society is diverse, and these norms are diverse. When angry, I could justify bashing the car of a man who is sleeping with my lover. Does it make it ok? The answer is problematic.Regardless, You yourself think there should be regulations on personal choice. If I personally chose to murder someone, in your ideal world, I am murdered by the state. That is a regulation.The jump from 'personal choice' to 'civil liberties' is a big one. Having civil liberties in place relies on regulations. You simply cannot have one without the other. Now democracy leading to removal of civil liberties. Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. If I stand up and make use of this, and I talk on a street corner about my views on something, this is fine. If lots of people agree with me they are practicing their freedom of assembly and association. We continue practicing this, and we make a government, and are voted into leadership and we now get to put into practice the ideas that I spoke of to begin with that got me here.But civil liberties often rub each other the wrong way. The right to security, the right to be able to defend oneself and the right to privacy, could see someone using their right to bear arms shooting at a press reporter who is using his freedom of press and freedom of speech to knock on the door and ask questions and shoot film. That was simply an illustration, not evidence. So Civil liberties must necessarily be regulated where they conflict, and what better way than by the government that is there in the first place as a result of our civil liberties?I am not calling for removal of ALL civil liberties, but I think that democracy is the way to regulate civil liberties and if needs be, remove problematic ones. There should, of course, be checks and balances on this government. This is my perspective. Don't you have a constitution in America?