There's too much I disagree with here. You say capitalism is the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system? Says who? What proof do you have of this and on what grounds can you make that value judgement?
On the basis that a free market capitalist system is completely voluntary and mutual. No one is forced to participate, every transaction is voluntary, price is determined by laws of supply and demand as well as free market competition. A typical free market transaction goes like this: I have something you want more than the money in your pocket. I want the money in your pocket more than what I have. We mutually agree to an exchange and free market capitalism happens. We both got what we wanted, so how is that unfair? How is that selfish? If I am there with something you want and you're there with something I want, how is that not empathetic?
I"m going to disregard your tedious value judgement of my "low confidence to compete"...
It's obvious you're going to disregard it. People generally don't like to hear what's wrong with them. I will tell you, I have no intention of debating War and Peace every time you post. You've made your point, you disagree with the OP.
I fail to see how my examples were "hand picked", as it's clear that you've demonstrated way more "hand picking" than I did and do, considering how most of your argument rests on the fantasy that most rich people got where they are because they worked their way up from "nothing."
No, that is actually a fact. Only 33% of wealth is inherited. Two-thirds is created from people who come from moderate or low income childhoods.
"Before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers." That sounds exactly like what happened in the financial crisis.
Except that is not what happened. The financial and housing crisis was the result of corporatism. Big government collusion with crony corporatists to leverage advantages over the competition. This is NOT free market capitalism.
Overall, you say you believe in capitalism as opposed to corporatism which makes your entire argument a little clearer. But I have to disagree with you on the relative distinctions between the two. A "pure" capitalist system would inevitably lead to corporatism.
We've already discussed how "purity" is a non sequitur. I've already illustrated the difference and distinction between corporatism and free market capitalism. I see no point in continuing to repeat myself in this conversation. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway. We're discussing why some people are attracted to Socialism while others aren't.
It's obvious to me that you are going to continue to deny the underlying reasons I pointed out in the OP and lobby for why it's "okay" for you to support your views.
Well, a government that provides healthcare and quality education doesn't seem to me to be overreaching its bounds and is, in fact, perfectly capable of going those lengths without "infringing" anyone's freedom. In fact, I argue that it would create more freedom because there would be a greater population who didn't have to worry about finding education and healthcare and instead focus on working, "competing", or doing whatever else they think fulfills them.
No, any time you grant government more power and authority it comes at the expense of your freedom.
...a greater population who didn't have to worry about...
Again, dovetailing nicely with the point in the OP. You lack confidence in your ability to compete, therefore, you embrace Socialism as a means to make your path easier... so you don't have to "worry" about things. If you had confidence, you wouldn't be worried.
On the basis that a free market capitalist system is completely voluntary and mutual. No one is forced to participate, every transaction is voluntary, price is determined by laws of supply and demand as well as free market competition. A typical free market transaction goes like this: I have something you want more than the money in your pocket. I want the money in your pocket more than what I have. We mutually agree to an exchange and free market capitalism happens. We both got what we wanted, so how is that unfair? How is that selfish? If I am there with something you want and you're there with something I want, how is that not empathetic?
Once again, you fail to provide any real life or historic examples as to how capitalism is the most humane empathetic system. You simply paint a nice picture of a Capitalist utopia. In Chile during the Pinochet regime for example, "free market" was implemented, with the direct endorsement of the United States business community, to open up the natural resource industry to direct foreign investment. Pinochet and the other Chilean oligarchs, many of whom were trained by Milton Friedman and others in Chicago, decided to open up their national industries to "foreign trade", meaning that 3rd world farming industries in Rural Chile would have to compete with farming corporations in the United States which led to disastrous humanitiarian results. Namely, the complete allocation of national wealth to a small sector of the business community.
Furthermore, complete free market capitalism is ahistorical. As I've repeated above, and which you've completely failed to address, the United States gained its wealth, and its economic power, through government intervention programs, not free market capitalism in your sense. If you can't face this simple historic fact, then you either are deliberately neglecting these facts or you fail to understand it.'
No, that is actually a fact. Only 33% of wealth is inherited. Two-thirds is created from people who come from moderate or low income childhoods.
Wrong. According to a study conducted by the United for Fair Economy group, 22 percent of those on the Forbes list of billionaires came from comfortable (but not rich background) and might have received start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.
Eleven percent came from families which they inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.
Seven percent were born inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. T
21 percent were born inheriting enough money to make the billionaire list.
The financial and housing crisis was the result of corporatism. Big government collusion with crony corporatists to leverage advantages over the competition. This is NOT free market capitalism.
What's your definition of corporatism? In other posts, I see you going on rants about the merits of CEOs, yet CEOs play a vital role in corporatism.
We've already discussed how "purity" is a non sequitur. I've already illustrated the difference and distinction between corporatism and free market capitalism. I see no point in continuing to repeat myself in this conversation. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway. We're discussing why some people are attracted to Socialism while others aren't.
No you haven't illustrated anything. You've just been evasive. You neglected the fact that a system of wealth hoarding inevitably allocates power to a select few individuals thus disenfranchising the majority of the population from deciding policy. You neglected the fact that wealth inequality is increasing,as well as childhood poverty, and is continuing to increase, brushing it off as if it wasn't "your problem" and that those who point it out are simply revealing their own inadequacies or lack of self confidence.
If you truly believe in a complete capitalist system devoid of socialist policies to complement it, then you are not for freedom and democracy. I've already discussed the reasons why this i so and you've evaded it choosing to revert, like a lot of your fellow conservatives on this board, to name calling and ad hominem.
We both discussed that there is no pure system. So I again ask you why you then champion for a strict capitalist system if you know just as well as I do that there can be no such thing.
It's obvious to me that you are going to continue to deny the underlying reasons I pointed out in the OP and lobby for why it's "okay" for you to support your views.
Since this is a free country, it's completely "okay" that I hold my views. Especially since you haven't, in any way, disproven them or proved them to be detrimental to civilization.
Any time you grant government more power and authority it comes at the expense of your freedom.
This again supports my suspicion that you are not really for democracy since most of the population thinks there should be a form of universal healthcare (Healthcare System)
You, and others like you, say you are for freedom and democracy yet you refuse to listen to the a very large portion of the population who believe the system is inherently broken. Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by abstract capital accumulation and the meaningless acquisition of power, you would take the suffering of those who are not as fortunate as you/have less than you at face value.
So once again, as I stated a few posts above, as history has shown, those in power continue to exploit those less fortunate than them (this extends way outside America also as U.S "trade" policies have enslaved a good deal of the third world population, which we can discuss in further detail if you care about "third worlders"), and then continue to pat themselves on the back for "working hard."
"This disposition to admire and almost worship the powerful and to despise, or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments'-- Adam Smith.