>>14
>That's a pretty flawed argument, neither system works in the real world.
We sure know socialism and any variation of it (Communism, Fascism..etc.) doesn't work. Both in theory and in practice it falls miserably. In theory it evades crucial facts such as man is selfish by nature. And in practice we have Communist Russia and East/West Berlin as latest examples.
Now, on pure Laissez-faire Capitalism. It works in theory (includes all known facts) and in practice (Founding years of US). So, what's your argument that somehow "doesn't work"?
And even though you say you admit socialism is a failure in the beginning, the rest of your post seems to be an argument for socialism, kinda funny no?
In a society of pure Laissez-faire Capitalism:
>What happens to the man who's poured his life into the family farm only to have it fail due to drought?
YOU can help him, and no one will stop you.
>What happens to the small business owner driven out of business by the near monopolies some companies have.
L2economy. monopolies can never be established in a free market. The only way for monopoly to develop is through the baring of entry on new competitors through use of force, i.e. government intervention. Today's monopolies are the exact result of government intervention with socialist policies in this mixed economy that either prevents or makes it difficult for new competitors to enter certain markets.
>What about the highly skilled machinist that's suddenly become obsolete due to advances in technology?
He will use his talent and motivation that made him into a highly skilled machinist in the first place to make profit in other more interesting endeavors. And he will be able to enjoy the fruit of the new technology that's awesome enough to make his old work obsolete.
>The sad fact of the world is that most people who are poor aren't like that because they're lazy or stupid.
Half true, consider how many poors support socialism, the very thing that's increasing their poverty.
>They're poor because they lack education and opportunities,
100% true, education in philosophy and politics, lack of opportunity caused by government intervention on the economy.
>because of bad luck
99% false, only apply to those that lost their fortune by natural disasters. Employment, invention, entrepreneurship, are not guided by luck.
>Without the money that government takes from you, all the safety nets that have been built into the fabric of society would not exist.
The very safety nets that are there to prevent troubles caused by government intervention in the first place that does nothing but create more troubles, how ironic no?
>without public schooling most of the people who have posted in this thread would be illiterate unskilled laborers.
Not in a society of pure Laissez-faire Capitalism. With free competition, private schools will offer much better service and cost lot less than public schools. Why? Because everyone wants to make a profit, and the only way to do so in LFC is by offering better service and lower cost through innovation. If you are still not satisfied, YOU can start a school and join the market
>Without Medicare and Medicaid millions would die of easily treated ailments that they simply cannot afford on what they make.
Same shit as previous.
>Without unemployment 10% of America would currently be living entirely on what they have saved for the future or would simply be starving in the streets.
There wouldn't be unemployment in a society of LFC, unless of course, you are truely lazy.
>Every single service that the government provides or guarantees that YOU use daily, public libraries, safety or health inspections and codes, fire departments, postal service, an almost completely honest system of laws police and courts not to mention court appointed attorneys to defend those who cannot otherwise get representation, road and highway construction and maintenance, even trash pickup.
With the exception of laws, police, courts, which are strictly government domain in LFC, every other service you mentioned a free market can and will do better.
>None of that would exist without the money that YOU believe THEY are stealing from you.
And they shouldn't exist, as inferior public entities that everyone has to support financially whether they use them or not when the superior private entities of LFC that are only supported financially by their clients can exist. And as for stealing, stealing is defined as the forceful taking of one's property without the owner's voluntary consent by another individual or group of individuals. Income tax is a direct example of that.