Socialist or immature

[Lead Head]

An anti-cheat system ... where rich cocksuckers cannot exist. Basically some system that does not try to make all people equal like Communism, but prevents people from cheating (Bill Gates is a perfect example of a cheater). That way a natural balance is established, rather than forcing people to give up their possesions in order to equate them.

So basically eliminate all possibilities of exploitation and monopolization or even oligopolization. Similar to Communism in that all people will be equal (possesion and money-wise), but removing the ruling class, and preventing people from becoming too rich and powerful ... this includes everyone. Maybe some type of multi-council sytstem, where power is divided among many regional councils, who make decisions for their region. Once in a while elected members of each council meet to decide on the national level. All governmental meetings anywhere must be televised, unedited to the public.

Taxes should be applied exponentially based on income, with absolutely no way to bypass them. The richer you are the more taxes you pay (a lot more). 50 % of all tax income will be re-distributed to the public in a reverse exponential curve ... poor getting most ... rich least. Everyone is requred to work, as slackers would really fuck up the system.

Unlike Communism, you are allowed out of the state, not a prisoner.

You dont want girls to exist :p

[Aloone_Jonez]

No, just whores.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

You dont want girls to exist :p

Hahaha .. ok call 'em rich, white, male, cocksucking faggots ... is that better ?

[WMD]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with capitalism.  The problem is with the "corporate welfare" system we have in the United States.  Ever hear of "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich"?  Yeah.  If we could eliminate all government lobbying by corporations, we'd have proper capitalism.

And communism is in fact evil.  Rights come from property.  Communism = no property = no rights.  Quite simple, really.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Rights come from property ? How is that ?

[cymon]

Rights don't come from property, and that's for a good reason. Having more property inevitabily gives you more rights, making it unfair for the poorer citizens who would end up with less rights. The poor can't do anything to improve, and get fucked over by 1800's capitilism. Rights come from citizenship, and that's how it should be.

[WMD]

Rights don't come from property, and that's for a good reason. Having more property inevitabily gives you more rights, making it unfair for the poorer citizens who would end up with less rights.

Incorrect.  You're taking it too literally.  If I go out and buy 10,000 of something expensive, I don't suddenly have the right to do stuff like kill people.  I merely obtain rights to whatever that stuff is.  You own your body, hence you have the right to do...um...we'll say "stuff" to it.  And so on in that direction.  Otherwise, you have people dictating what I can do with my stuff...which is what happens in communism.

Rights come from citizenship, and that's how it should be.

Also incorrect.  If rights came from citizenship, it sounds like the government gave you your rights.  But that's not possible - you can't be given a right by somebody, that would be a privilege.  You simply have rights.  In fact, even people in countries where they don't have rights actually have them, they are just being violated by the government.

[Pathos]

Nothing wrong with capitalism?

I assume most people associate their arguments with the USA.

Capitalism is only a economic system, Government intervention on behalf of the people is required to keep society in check. Especially to make sure that rights/social power are not dependent on assets.

In the USA this is definitely not happening. Partly due to government and partly society.

[Dark_Me]

Capitalism is only a economic system, Government intervention on behalf of the people is required to keep society in check. Especially to make sure that rights/social power are not dependent on assets.

If there is government intervention then it's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on a "free" market model. Essentally the theory (which has been proven not to work) is that the government does't interfear except in the case of a monopoly and the maket just basically sorts everything else out.

[Pathos]

If there is government intervention then it's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on a "free" market model. Essentally the theory (which has been proven not to work) is that the government does't interfear except in the case of a monopoly and the maket just basically sorts everything else out.

thats sought of what I was inferring. Government intervention is required because capital theory does not work on its own.