To avoid quibbles about the meaning of words, let me first make the following definitions. 100% Capitalism is an economic system in which all property and means of production are privately owned. 100% Communism is a system in which all property and means of production are owned by no one at all; in other words, they are simply commonly shared. I maintain that neither system is feasible.
Imagine a 100% Capitalist system. Someone owns every stretch of road and every stretch of sidewalk. Every time you enter another "landlord's" stretch of street or sidewalk, you may well have to pay a toll. Is this tenable? Of course not.
And every time you want to take a jog on a running track that currently exists because of park service efforts, you would have to pay something. Your fat friends would be richer than you are.
But if no one owned anything, no one would be motivated to improve the quality of anything. When a street light burns out, who would replace it? No one.
2006-10-05 06:27:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
I settle for 50-50, as long as they stay in hollywood
2006-10-05 06:31:18 · answer #1 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would go the Capitalist route, any day. You say, "Of course not," to the idea that paying tolls on "every stretch of street or sidewalk." I'd like to know why that's untenable.
We've already got electronic cards that automatically pay tolls, without causing cars to stop as they enter and leave the toll roads. Why couldn't we do this, everywhere? It would probably be cheaper than paying the taxes that we pay, to Governments, for the construction and maintenance of sidewalks and roads.
Capitalism (and I include pure Capitalism in this estimation) is the best system ever devised for human living. It raises the maximum number of people possible out of poverty. It challenges the maximum number of minds to come up with the most-creative possible solutions to their problems. In short, Capitalism is conducive to life and living.
Read anything by Ayn Rand, if you're in doubt. I especially recommend "Atlas Shrugged".
2006-10-06 17:02:13 · answer #2 · answered by Larry Powers 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The feasibility of any 100% system would be dicey at best, and very dangerous at most. It is my thinking that it would probably be best to use a system of combinations. Taking the best from what we know works and expanding upon that. Always with the understand that changes occur with time, and making the necessary adjustments to allow for that change. However, I do not believe this will happen until we get away from the stigmas already implyed by our government on those idioms they deem unfit, or not in the national interest (and we know what that means.) Until we get away from the good/bad mentality of ism's and ist's it will be impossible to grow into a social structure that is truly for the common good, and not just for the wealthy few.
2006-10-05 13:42:41 · answer #3 · answered by Tom H 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Capitalism every time..and having to pay for every thing i touch and every step i take and pay for every thing i do in life to better my self.. I would rather pay my way in life and be in a position of knowing that you can pay and be free to run your own life than ....
Give my self up to a communist state and have no say about my future and my family's future ..all ways have my arm stretch out my hand open begging for food ..waiting for hours behind queues to have your daily rushen of food
if you can find what you like ..or having to take what you find..while those who control you live like kings ..I could never live under a Communism ..
2006-10-05 14:28:08 · answer #4 · answered by JJ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In communism the means of production are owned and operated by the government.
Having corrected that in your question, communism cannot nor has not ever worked, and capitalism can and does work.
In capitalism you get what you work for, what you have you have been personally responsible for. In communism there is no personal responsibility.
2006-10-06 10:49:39 · answer #5 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pure communism would be like everyone using the same checking account. It wouldn't take long for it to be overdrawn for everyone.
Pure Capitalism would be a lot like what we have now, except without all the waste of taxes and government agencies that do things that are not profitable, which means that they are not worth the cost of doing them.
2006-10-05 19:45:49 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
prob with caplism is someone has more capital,to hire accuntants,etc. they hold the WIZ.mostly.
prob with comism is noone wants to bust *** 4 common good. mostly.
mostly,mostlymostlymostlymostlymostlymostly
2006-10-10 17:13:49 · answer #7 · answered by enord 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. But a more communistic way of living is for the better.
2006-10-05 13:35:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋