Socialism & Capitalism could both solve poverty......They just never do...

__________________
It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford

Life is inherently destructive to the Human spirit.

__________________
It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford

To my way of thinking, anyone who wants to be rich automatically doesn't deserve to be, since his motivations are selfish and ignoble, while the only ones who deserve to be poor, are those who think other people deserve that.

Reagan presided over a mixed economy. Thats why he was so against government, he wouldnt have been if it was actually a pure capitalism he presided over.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

How would you solve a "natural" unemployment rate with capitalism?

A truer form of anarcho-capitalism would have no market-based basis to solve anything external to its individual and several markets.

This wasn't intended to be a thread about the merits of socialism, but it was destined to go there. Since you asked, I think socialism rewards jealousy, penalizes achievement, and is fundamentally immoral.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Surely if it rewarded jealousy and penalised achievement then it wouldn't be working. So lets leave aside.

So why is it immoral?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

You can leave that aside if you'd like, but I see nothing inconsistent with the evidence. We can't argue that however, as I'm sure that we won't agree on the definition of "working".

Regarding your question; forced wealth redistribution is stealing. Dress it up any way you like, but fundamentally you are taking from one person to give to another just because you've found a large enough consensus that says it's ok.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Then, what would it be doing if it was "working"? Seriously, that's what I have to know before I can even begin to answer the question posed in the OP.

The question is if it definitely worked...

If it worked I would be for it. I would like to help my fellow man, if I knew there was no leeching off the system.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

We have to surely leave that aside as no one is for socialism on the basis that it rewards jealousy and penalises achievement.

I would have to say the ends of socialism are the most good for the most people under the notion that property is not solely belonging to the individual but instead the individual is custodian to it for an amount of time. If socialism provides for that then its working to that extent.

As such a rich man may be clever enough to buy up every piece of land in America, or all the water, or all the coal. Would the American people allow that? Well...it would be quit foolish of them to put their futures under the hegemony of one man and his decendants.

Indeed wealth redistribution is stealing, however, it is legitimised by the will of the people and therefore it is not. As are taxes themselves an imposition of the government for a services that you may not want or need.

We get around that moral problem by making it a choice of the people as a whole to do this, as such taxation is legalised confiscation of property for a purpose that serves the whole of the nation.

As long as the taxation purpose is served to some extent, rather than simply being held for the personal consumption of the political leaders, we can take it as a legitimate and necessary burden that we bear.

Moreover, socialism, like taxation, is not an immoral government confiscation, as long as it has enough of the people supporting that policy to make a majority..which it has long had both in the USA and the EU.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I'm not against socialism in any kind of reflexive way. I've heard some descriptions of socialism that seem reasonable enough. It might be really cool.

But I find the kind of reasoning you present here frightening. The idea that something that would be immoral for an individual to do, is OK if it's the "will of the people" is completely unnacceptable to me, and it's my principal problem with they way most people see "democracy". Simply put, I don't believe in "might makes right".

I think it is fine to believe in, and even participate in voluntary socialism, in fact, it may be the highest expression of personal virtue. However, what we should oppose reflexively is the imposition of that system on anyone against their will. Then it goes from being a personal expression of virtue to an immoral act of impinging on another's freedom.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I think it depends on implementation and the type of social contract. Our US social contract and Constitution provides for sufficient socialism to enable our modern and more developed political-economy. From my perspective, we only achieved a first world or more developed economy, due to advances in socialism.

However, even the concepts of equality and social justice are socialist, not capitalist. A truer form of capitalist economy would necessitate privileges and immunities being "purchased" through forms of Capitalism in any given political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

How is wanting to be rich selfish and ignoble? Rich is a subjective term, and by some definitions you are rich, does that make you selfish and ignoble for not sharing everything you have with those who literally have a fraction of the wealth you possess?

The second part of your statement is sorta a catch-22, and a pretty stupid one at that. By your "logic", you deserve to be poor for thinking I deserve to be poor for thinking some people deserve to be poor.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay