Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Ok?I will try to be succinct in my response because I fear our comments will lengthen into a thesis of postmodern(?) debate...First point:I never said democracy should be 100%, I just suggested democracy is generally a good thing, and capitalism is generally a bad thing, Due to its dynamic and logic which I spelled out to some degree.Ohh corporatism? Isn't that a product of capitalism? You have given no explanation of capitalism that is different to what I suggested capitalism to be so I assume your version of True Capitalism is be something along the lines of this:http://www.american-consensus.org/resources/econ/sustainable_capitalism.html This presents a well thought out argument with one or two flaws, essentially a capitalist environment solution made up of small semi-socialist businesses. I could have read it wrong(? or replace "wrong" with "subjectively"). I am not sure if this is your idea of True Capitalism, so I won't argue any flaws/benefits, But its relevance to this debate over Capitalism vs Democracy it sits quite fairly in the middle as it relies on "effective regulation" to put it into place, and unless democracy is replaced, it is the current way to put regulations into place, so both capitalism and democracy are needed..Plus, another perspective debate, I live in New Zealand, and you live in USA(do you?) so our subjective experience of democracy comes from different examples.Second:Wow. So what you are saying is Portugal decriminalized all narcotics (in 2001) and that resulted in lower substance abuse? I never knew that! It sounded like a compelling argument against me. So I checked. When did you last check? Did you ever check? Or, like most pro-drug statistics people stumble across online, the date was never a factor?Should we look at this topic together?http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/portugal.pdf 1)Personal use is decriminalized yes, but "Trafficking and cultivation of illicit substances, as well as possession of quantities exceeding a ten days’ supply, remain criminal offenses."2)The Cato Institute report 2009 is probably the one you read, but it seems very biased because: "sometimes focusing on prevalence rate changes as small as 0.8 percent", "decline in drug-related deaths that began prior to decriminalization", "the increase in drug-related deaths in Portugal between 2004 and 2006 – is sometimes ignored", "trumpets a decline in the rate of illicit drug usage among 15- to 19year-olds from 2001 to 2007, while ignoring increased rates in the 15-24 age group and an even greater increase in the 20-24 population over the same period"(more examples of this see link), "Cato’s analysis relies heavily on lifetime prevalence data, which can be problematic when analyzing the impact of policy changes over time periods as short as the 5-6 years"3) Other studies contradict Cato report: "(EMCDDA) indicate that between 2001 and 2007, lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD have risen for the Portuguese general population (ages 15-64) and for the 15-34 age group", "Past-month prevalence figures show increases from 2001 to 2007 in cocaine and LSD use in the Portuguese general population as well as increases in cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamine use in the 15-34 age group."The EMCDDA report for Portugal (and others to compare) can be seen here:http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt 4) I suggest that each country has different cultural capital, and so even IF decriminalization DID work in Portugal that is no where near proof that it would work in any other country!I admit that these studies could be biased in the opposite direction to the Cato study, and my research was (as yours or anyone else's would be) subjective. At least I did research. You say: "As for this idea of the legalization of drugs leading to more people doing them... that has never happened" I throw Portugal right back at you, and suggest you take "never" out as an invalid argument.Should I look up statistics for the Netherlands/Holland as I am sure there are higher rates of crime and drug use there.. But I could be wrong? Where else are there decriminalization of drugs, any or "all"?My arguments in no way disprove your view on the problem of the US war on drugs and negative effects on the economy and human liberties, But I suggest that doing what Portugal has done is not the solution. The US culture, geography and social structure is completely different, and you cannot say objectively that something that worked in one society (it didn't) will work in another society!I agree with you that liberties should be upheld. I disagree, again, that capitalism can do this all on its own. As stated in that "sustainable capitalism" link I gave you way back at the beginning of this essay, "We must understand that capitalism completely unchecked (meaning without proper incentives and effective guidelines providing disincentives to cheating) will always lead to corruption, and eventually to revolt. This has occurred all throughout human history and will continue to occur because it is part of human nature."HM. I failed on the "succinct" idea didn't I?Oh and when I look back I see you do say that this debate is illogical (or something like that) as capitalism and democracy can work together..I support this statement of yours. I don't think that it is the "best" solution, but I'm not sure if you think it is so I cannot really debate.