Can Capitalists win any debate with Socialists ?

Answer 1

Absolutely not. Most people do not understand the definitions of these two words. Every country on the planet has a mixture of these two ideas including the U.S.

Capitalism as we see it today in the U.S. is a million miles away from the ideas of Adam Smith. The government has created numerous advantages and subsides for big business which is the exact of opposite of the basic premise of laissez-faire which is for the government not to interfere with capitalism. It's a stacked deck in which true competition really doesn't exist.

Most people don't realize that most democracies in the world are socialist. Any public social program, be it public education or universal emergency health care (i.e. you get hit by a bus we don't leave you to die on the sidewalk), is socialist. We have government owned utilities. The only difference between a country like the U.S. and Canada or Sweden is the amount of social programs and government owned programs there are. Capitalism needs socialism in order to care for those who are disadvantaged. It is the heart of the economic system and really a much more ethically and moral system. The huge problem with it of course is the consistent problem of government corruption and inefficiency.

Answer 2

To the socialist no way; and to the capitalist of course. Capitalism has a great track record of accomplishments; but socialist will always point out to the "evil" of the corporation. Its a never ending debate - the socialist will never accept the accomplishments of capitalism.

Answer 3

Sure, come on down.

I live in Germany and let me tell you, Socialism is killing the EU.

Why is it that Germans must pay 50% of their pay checks to the government? That is because socialism is a misnomer. Try welfare state.

Don't want to work? here's a check.
No skills and no desire for skills? Here's a check.

Socialism is just a fancy word for Nanny state.

Ever go to the DMV? Imagine if you would a hospital like that.
How about this.

Look at the folks that preach this. Look at how well they take care of the little guy. Then imagine if you will them in charge.

It's like letting michael jackson run a child care service.

Answer 4

They have won all the debates, and history shows us that socialism, particularly the left wing variety, never succeeds, except in destroying the human spirit. Socialists, simply won't accept this, however, and so they go on persevering with failed ideology like demented woodpeckers.

Answer 5

Why don't you state some Socialist argument and I'll tear its a s s up. I am a pure capitalist and I'll take you on any day commie.

Answer 6

very almost each united states of america has some style of national wellness care - even the backwards Islamic ones!! the U. S. is the final united states of america to incorporate this theory, and various of alternative of the folk who oppose it particularly don't comprehend what it is. they only oppose it because of fact suitable-wing radio idiots attempt to make a controversy out of it. the main socialistic international places interior the civilized international contain lots of the international places in Western and important Europe. yet issues are no longer as rosy as you fantasize: those international places are going bankrupt, and below the welfare state, too few human beings have any incentives attempt to artwork demanding and those international places have extreme unemployment figures (certainly worse than interior the U. S.). Why is wellness care high priced interior the U. S.? - maximum US MD's are grossly overpaid in assessment to different international places. - all of us choose all varieties of scientific bells and whistles, as nicely as pointless scientific strategies AND we would like them NOW, despite in the event that they are medically non-obligatory. - We sue, sue, sue each and all of the time; so wellness care carriers would desire to insulate themselves with extreme priced coverage - we don't motivate scientific therapy possibilities, like nurse practitioners and midwifes. - style call drugs are greater extreme priced interior the U. S. - in spite of the actual undeniable fact that generics cost much less interior the U. S. - There are people who choose to maintain Grandpa "alive," even although he's hopeless. The grass continuously seems to be greener on the different part. you will possibly be an idealist, yet maximum people who stay in welfare states lose their motivation to advance their lives, and that they anticipate somebody else to assist them.

Answer 7

They can easily win any argument against socialists, but the worst thing for a cause is not to be skillfully attacked but ineptly defended. So the capitalist must first thoroughly understand the philosophy and epistemology of liberty. Which I do. So though the argument would not occur in brevity, some basic points can be explained. Such as: I do not possess the right to rob you so I cannot delegate that right to another, society is an abstraction, it does not exist in itself but is merely a collection of individuals, rights do not depend on numbers. Since i cannot rightfully rob you, I cannot gather three buddies and then assign the responsibility of robbing to one of them on the others behalf, the scale of this analogy is irrelevent, maybe i don't gather three buddies but three million, it does not make the robbery any more correct. Socialism is simply a system of institutionalized slavery, where the means of production are left under the operational control of private individuals while the state remains superior to all, Communism is a system where the means of production are entirely under state control, marx defined it as "the abolition of private property". Capitalism is a system where the means of production are under private hands and the governments sole responsibility is to defend the property rights of its populous. A socialist who truly grasps his philosphy understands this and realizes that to convince people that their theivery is correct they need to put a benevolent spin on it, they feed off peoples envy, and try to make it seem like they are trying to help the less fortunate, when in all reality they just want to control mans productive capacity, not help the impoverished. Socialism has existed for millenia, most of which was spent in squalor, for any high level of production was seized and "redistributed" ( as if it were distributed in the first place) hence removing the product of the productive to give it to the rulers prerogatives. But to consume something it must first be produced, and when you rob the productive you inevitably end up on aggregate with less product, and hence are unable to provide for greater consumption. For the sole purpose of all production is consumption, prior to the industrial revolution there was barely enough "stuff" for people to survive. But with the realization of property rights or rather once the state began partially protecting peoples property, production flourished and all benefitted, yes those who produced benefitted most, but all benefited the poor of today live better than most lords of the past. if you transported the politicians of today back to medievil europe, would they be able to provide you with refrigeration, the internal combustion engine, television, superconductors, when one realizes that they could not, they should think about what made these things possible... it was freedom. Something which socialism wishes to destroy. Socialist to try to talk of freedom because they realize its importance but they twist it, they speak of freedom from hunger implicitly enslaving those who produce the food, or freedom from cold implicitly enslaving those who produce the clothes and shelters. Capitalism is a system where freedom means the absence of of coercion by other human beings, where if someone wishes to spend their lives saving for retirement, or a mansion, or world travells they may do so, others may not wish this lifestyle perhaps they are minimalists who wish to indulge in their hobbies and work as little as they can this is their preogative, but neither can claim the fruits of the others labor. Capitalism cannot lose a reasoned argument against socialism and the socialists know it which is why the present governments of earth (all socialist) spend so much time and effort trying to convince their populaces that they are free, that capitalism is here and causing these inequities, capitalism is not here, socialism has suffused the globe, and yet there is greater starvation and war, then ever. But in order to battle the ideology of liberty they have decided to redefine it out of existence, to claim that socialism is the rebel cause which must fight the evil status quo, bull, socialism is the staus quo, and yes it must be fought. For we are all slaves now, a slave is simply one who produces while another disposes of that product, and we all live in systems where the disposal of others product has been institutionalized, and to very high degrees, think of: income tax, state tax, property tax, municipal tax, luxury tax, resources taxes, estate tax, manufacturing taxes, duties, subsidies, quotas, tariffs, inflation....etc. So if your intelligent i'd start learning how to produce for yourself not how to rob others, because I will bring down statism in all its forms, John Galt lives!!!

Answer 8

Never, because the evidence is there for all to see. Capitalism servers the needs of the ruling class.

Answer 9

No-one wins as it is a matter of polar opposites.
There has to be compromise and there is no potential for a meeting of minds

Answer 10

They won every war in history and that is all that counts.