[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you feel that, for example, the adult literacy rate was higher in 1800 than 2000? Would you care to wager on that?

Literacy rate was less (due to alot of factors), but the quality of education was much much higher. If your talking about quality of education, I'll take that wager, absolutely.

EDIT: Take a look at privatized vs. public education today for a more accurate comparison.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So I need to find if a greater percentage of socialist countries or capitalist countries failed? That's easy, considering nearly 100% of capitalist economies have failed (as nearly 100% of all economies have failed, and socialism is relatively new).

I'm talking about comparing the two systems (against eachother), you have to compare them relatively. If your asking me to come up with a system that would never fail, I couldn't, nobody could.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Do you feel that some services should be controled by the government as opposed to capitalized? (such as fire, police, millitary, etc)? If you do, then your critique of socialism is false... the discussion is "how much" and "what", not "wheather".

I'm not sure what your saying. Are you saying that everything is or should be socialized, to an extent?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I did not say that. I said that the major communist countries are democracies. Communism is an economic model, while democracy is a governmental one... though, to be accurate, I believe they are [like the US] democratic republics.

They would like you to think they're democratic, but they're only democratic in image. A republic would describe them much better. The conflict between communism and democracy lies mainly with communism's characteristic denial of individual freedom where democracy generally doesn't infringe on individual freedom. (in context of course)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

They are both socialist and capitalist, as is essentially every country on the planet. They are more socialist than us, but less socialist than [say] Sweeden.

I think your overall point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that both socialism and capitalism are prevalent in all forms of government, and the question is not so much "whether or not" to socialize, but "how much". I would have to agree with that, but I stand by the belief that less socialization and more capitalization is the better way to go.

[JerryLove]

Literacy rate was less (due to alot of factors), but the quality of education was much much higher. If your talking about quality of education, I'll take that wager, absolutely.

How would you judge "quality"? Would you like to compare the accuracy of the data? Would you like to compare the literacy rates of the people (obviously not)?

EDIT: Take a look at privatized vs. public education today for a more accurate comparison.

OK. Let's compare UCLA to "The Academy for Mechandizing and Design"

I'm talking about comparing the two systems (against eachother), you have to compare them relatively. If your asking me to come up with a system that would never fail, I couldn't, nobody could.

I'm asking how you want to determine "failure". More capitalist economies (and a greater percentage of them) have failed under the critera you set.

I'm not sure what your saying. Are you saying that everything is or should be socialized, to an extent?

I'm saying that essentially all governements are, to some extent, socialist.

They would like you to think they're democratic, but they're only democratic in image. A republic would describe them much better.

In the interest of accuracy, I referred to them as democratic republics... there are no democracies on the Earth.

The conflict between communism and democracy lies mainly with communism's characteristic denial of individual freedom where democracy generally doesn't infringe on individual freedom. (in context of course)

That is not an accurate statement for either ideology... and you are comparing apples and oranges.

Democracy is a gvernment where power is derived by the will of the majority.
Communism is an economic system where the laborers share equally in the fruits of their labors, and where everyone works for the common good.

The opposite of democracy is totalitarinism, the opposite of communism is capitalism. The level of freedom is entirely seperate from both (I could have a democracy that voted that everyone be confined to their houses, I could have a dictator that said "do whatever you want").

I think your overall point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that both socialism and capitalism are prevalent in all forms of government, and the question is not so much "whether or not" to socialize, but "how much". I would have to agree with that, but I stand by the belief that less socialization and more capitalization is the better way to go.

Which is rediculiously simplistic. Are you advocating that we disband the police and simply let people hire security? Should we dispand the public army? Remove the public roads? Leave public land to whomever has the power and ability to take it?

100% capitalism = anarchy. You can have laws, but no means of enforcement; and not that many laws at that. (you end up with a republican ideal where we video-tape you in the bedroom to make sure that the woman isn't on top, but we don't stop the dumping of toxic waste in your kids playground because "it saves businesses money".

[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

How would you judge "quality"? Would you like to compare the accuracy of the data? Would you like to compare the literacy rates of the people (obviously not)?

I'm not sure what your saying. Quality would be a 12 year old sent to school in the 1800's scoring a higher grade in English, English Literature, and Mathematics (etc.) than a 12 year old from 2004.

Turned around, can you honestly say that our public education system today is superior to any privatized education? Just out of curiosity. I'm not going to reply since education is really a subject deserving a thread of its own.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. Let's compare UCLA to "The Academy for Mechandizing and Design"

Which I can't since I know almost nothing about either one. My views are general, they have to be, in my opinion, since in any single instance there are numerous factors working in conjunction to form a result.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm asking how you want to determine "failure". More capitalist economies (and a greater percentage of them) have failed under the critera you set.

Again, I'm not sure where your coming from. You say yourself that all governments are to some extent socialist, from your own point of view an entirely capitalist economy can't exist so how can they fail? My point becomes irrelavant

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That is not an accurate statement for either ideology... and you are comparing apples and oranges.

It is not an absolute statement of idealogies, no, but it is how things tend to work out when put into practice.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Democracy is a gvernment where power is derived by the will of the majority.
Communism is an economic system where the laborers share equally in the fruits of their labors, and where everyone works for the common good.

I never said that Communism and Democracy are opposites, or even directly related, but there are aspects of both that conflict with eachother. Ideally your definitions are correct, but in reality it doesn't work out that way, for democracy OR communism.

Under the ideal definition, if a democracy voted that everyone be confined to thier houses, that would be a result of thier freedom (ie. if I choose to restrain myself I do that of my own free will). If a dictator said "do whatever you want", I'm still exercising my illusion of "freedom" under the bondage of the dictator's will (ie. if someone gives me permission to walk outside, I'm still subject to another's will.)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which is rediculiously simplistic. Are you advocating that we disband the police and simply let people hire security? Should we dispand the public army? Remove the public roads? Leave public land to whomever has the power and ability to take it?

100% capitalism = anarchy. You can have laws, but no means of enforcement; and not that many laws at that. (you end up with a republican ideal where we video-tape you in the bedroom to make sure that the woman isn't on top, but we don't stop the dumping of toxic waste in your kids playground because "it saves businesses money".

I think you misunderstood, let me rephrase.

Socialization does serve a needed function, as does capitalism, but a balance must be found. I stand by the belief that preserving individual freedom through cautiously and carefully (redundant?) implementing socialization only where deemed absolutely necessary is the better way to go.

I'd still like to hear you summarize your views on this. (for curiosities' sake)

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure what your saying. Quality would be a 12 year old sent to school in the 1800's scoring a higher grade in English, English Literature, and Mathematics (etc.) than a 12 year old from 2004.

Scoring in what evaluation?

Turned around, can you honestly say that our public education system today is superior to any privatized education? Just out of curiosity. I'm not going to reply since education is really a subject deserving a thread of its own.

I'm not sure wheather by "any" you mean "at least one" or "all". In the former case "yes", in the latter case "no".

Which I can't since I know almost nothing about either one. My views are general, they have to be, in my opinion, since in any single instance there are numerous factors working in conjunction to form a result.

Since you are not working from anticdote, I'd like to see the statistics you are using to assert your point.

Again, I'm not sure where your coming from. You say yourself that all governments are to some extent socialist, from your own point of view an entirely capitalist economy can't exist so how can they fail? My point becomes irrelavant

Yes.

It is not an absolute statement of idealogies, no, but it is how things tend to work out when put into practice.

Which works better, counteirs with control smog emissions or countries with freedom of speech? It's apples-and-oranges. (as I addressed in more detail).

I never said that Communism and Democracy are opposites, or even directly related, but there are aspects of both that conflict with eachother. Ideally your definitions are correct, but in reality it doesn't work out that way, for democracy OR communism.

I believe that several communist countries, including Russia, are democratic republics.

Under the ideal definition, if a democracy voted that everyone be confined to thier houses, that would be a result of thier freedom (ie. if I choose to restrain myself I do that of my own free will). If a dictator said "do whatever you want", I'm still exercising my illusion of "freedom" under the bondage of the dictator's will (ie. if someone gives me permission to walk outside, I'm still subject to another's will.)

In either case, it's the freedom of the power to enforce upon everyone. Wheather the power is an individual or "the majority" is a seperate issue.

Socialization does serve a needed function, as does capitalism, but a balance must be found. I stand by the belief that preserving individual freedom through cautiously and carefully (redundant?) implementing socialization only where deemed absolutely necessary is the better way to go.

That is a step from "capitlism is always better"... but not far enough.

I think I agree with the general sentement ("by default, go capitalist"), but I think that we need to (and do) look at "where is a service better provided socially". I think medical insurance is an example where more socialization would be good.

Heck, I'd like to see it in disaster insurance. Here in FL, we had a lot of people who lost mobile homes and hte like and were paid my tax dollars, through FEMA, for their loss.

This is fine and dandy, except that I (who helped pay their costs), must also bear my own costs alone as I am required by law to have private insurance.

Either we need public assistance for everyone in disasters, or everyone should be required to have private... not half-and-half... considering that it is in my interest to requild and repair, and considering that insurance companies are famous for rediculiously over-charging, I'm for socialized disaster insurance.