Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"can you limit power from the rich without having the government get involved at all? the business men are just going to let everyone run things? they're not gonna work hard to make more money? what's stopping them? if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."Here is the thing, no matter what government is going to have to get involved in either a capitalist media system or a public media system. In one case the government is used by the wealthy to enforce what they want and in the other case it is used by the public to get what they want. "if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."What on earth do you mean "need a way to enforce that". If the media outlet is a cooperative there would be an internal voting system. If those rules are disrespected, if a group of people storms the media outlet and tries to take over, if there is fraud involved, if there is embezzlement..etc..etc...the government, same as now, would enforce the law and the policies of the organization.This is no different then now; when the managers of a station say something it is done because they have the institutional power to have their employees do what they are told. If the employee refuses they can be fired, if they refuse the building they can be escorted from the premises, if they resist they can be arrested (by the government). If they are arrested they are tried in a court, a government court. In other words, the government would have about the same power as now over content, they would have the power of law and to enforce contracts, but they would have the added responsibility to fund the outlets where necessary.At any rate, even if the government had direct control over the media; in a democracy that isn't as bad as corporations. The government is directly answerable to us, if we don't like what they are doing with the media we can fire them through elections and put people in place that we do think are using their positions properly and in our best interest. I don't, of course, advocate for direct government control, but it's certainly better than control by the wealthy. "Democracy in a way does limit the people's freedom."You aren't for freedom either, you've made it abundantly clear that you want the rich to rule us."with a full on democracy, the people have the ability to vote in commie laws that hurt our freedoms."And you call me authoritarian. You complain that we can't have democracy because people will vote for policies you don't personally like. How authoritarian is that? "it's very obvious that you're more authoritarian, and i can see why, because you wish to level the playing field."Generally speaking, Authoritarianism decreases the power of the majority in favor of the government-controlling minority. But oh well, you'd rather slander me then listen or understand the meaning of the words you're using. "i believe the government's role is to make sure that we don't kill eachother or cheat our way through. i do understand why you want but you want, but i hold a principle that no one (no matter how many) has the right to control my life or tell me what to do."That's very nice; I'll order a Bart Simpson bumper sticker for you in celebration of your well-thought out, non-simplistic opinion. Whatever your opinion may be, you are not entitled to make up my opinion. Now, you know what, perhaps my point of view is authoritarian compared to yours. Although, your opinion is authoritarian compared to a true-anarchists. As far as a real spectrum of opinion goes, I am more for freedom than you are. Ya see, I understand that freedom cannot be taken or given by the government. The only thing that can be taken or given is economic power; resources, jobs, land, real estate, money, food..etc..etc. Whoever has control over these has the power, over you, over me, over everyone. In the Soviet Union the government had economic power; it therefor had all other power as well. In the United States, the wealthy have the most economic power, so they have the most political power. I, however, want to give economic power to everyone equally, thereby giving everyone political power; freedom. You want to live in la-la land where the government is the only institution that can have power over you. A realistic assessment, however, shows that far more power is held by your employer, by property owners, by the rich than the government. In other words, if you want to live as free as possible your way only gives away your freedom to the rich; the Soviet way gave power to the government, but my way gives power to everyone, including you. But, again, I am authoritarian. If I am an authoritarian you are a transvestite. I'll start calling you Sarah-Sue from now on if you'd like. Perhaps I am just realistic? No? Well, if that's the case I'll shop for a wig alongside that bumper sticker, would you like platinum blond or red-head? Curls or straight? "the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?"That sentence doesn't even make any sense. You are, again, using flat out lies to pretend that there are only two choices. Although, you keep making up these choices as you go along. Before it was, what, government power or corporate power? Now it is "authoritarian power" or "corporate growth", what on earth is that even supposed to mean?Am I giving power to the concept of authoritarianism? Are you saying we have the choice between despotism and Disney building a new theme park? Could you be more ridiculous, really?