As I have been roaming around the message boards here and elsewhere, I cannot help but notice the increasing courage of the statist. They use different names like liberal, conservative, and independent. They come from all walks of life. They have one thing in common. They aim for less and less personal responsibility. They aim to redistribute wealth based on need rather than ability. They seldom consider who pays, only who receives. They refuse to acknowledge a man's labor as his own. These people have been around forever. What scares me is their increasing efforts to blend in by using the art of compromise. Take health care. The cry of the statist demands health care for all. They don't want to actually nationalize healthcare (yet), they simply want the government to provide it (they call it a single payer plan). It is a compromise. They want it totally for free and they want their choice of the best that there is to offer. I believe if we give in to this compromise, we have lost. Take any statist effort and you will notice a trend. Once the road is divided, it almost never leads back to personal responsibility. Welfare, social security, minimum wage, worker's compensation, healthcare, state disability, education, and on and on.

At the core of this debate, I believe that if we continue to compromise with statist beliefs, capitalism will die.

Statism v Capitalism v Socialism v Communism all pale in comparison to the importance of Democracy.

Have you considered the possibility that Capitalism isn't perfect either? That some goals are best met through cooperation rather than competition?

Capitalism seems to be growing throughout the world, not statism. Likewise, I think you'd find that libertarians are well represented on these boards.

Unregulated laissez-faire economics is an open loop system. The only possible outcome is massively unbalanced accumulation of wealth and depletion of natural resources, followed by violent revolution. Conversely state controlled markets have been shown to fail in their own spectacular ways.

There are no doubts in my mind that market forces are powerful tools, but they are not the only tools for increasing the quality of life on this planet, or in this country.

Given a choice between capitalism and a dozen of children without health insurance, I would gladly chose capitalism to die.

Any system is good as long as it serves people well. Uncontrolled capitalism is just as bad as pure socialism because both don't take into account basic human flaws - human greed and "Apres moi, le deluge" attitude towards environment.

By definition in society there're more and less successful people... and the ratio will always be approximately the same (as long as someone climbs up the ladder, he takes someone else's place). There're no place on top for the entire population. What "pure capitalists" on top don't seem to realize is that

• healthy population on the bottom is in their own best interests.
• the system is very far from perfect and someone's best efforts sometimes not nearly enough to get on top (meaning that "personal responsibility" is irrelevant: there're many people on AD who work their tails off and they still don't have health insurance)
• it's much easier to get from top to bottom than vice versa so they themselves may end up in situation they'll need help
• health of the nation is more important that maintaining the system just for the purity of it

We're here.... Duh duh duh!! Of course we compromise and you are right bit-by-bit we are coming for the capitalist...duh, duh, duh (distant maniacal laugh in the background) Seriously, I welcome this debate. I call my self very liberal because those on the right are so much more successful at demonizing everything else. But if you take a look liberal is slowly moving to a demonized area. I can't explain it, but hey. What kind of person doesn't want to know that their children and their families will be taken care of on health issues. That there will always be food and shelter. The capitalist always paints a picture where most people will have to have less in a society that promote more economic equality or whatever else is on the statist agenda, yet I never understood how??
It has never been about Government. The government is not some ominous being above us, it is a tool for us(us being society) When people say "big government" what are they talking about? What is scary about it?? I truly want to understand. A government that has the interest of many against a few?? A tool that is used by more of society, rather than less?? The capitalist in his illogical greed can only think of how he may one day be wealthy, never realizing the chance are more that he will be middle class.
One last thing in my incoherent ramblings(I'm hopeful some on will latch on to something I say and we can get more specific) Money is power, if you allow unfettered capitalism you are inevitably headed to some sort of oligarchy.
O.K. I have another question out of the blue...would we need Welfare if there was a middle class job available for everyone.

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br />- Starting New Topics<br />- Survival Guide<br />- The Rules<br />- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>