My name is Ted

[Tiberius]

Ever heard of the Levellers? ( not the band, although they are lefties ). They were early socialists who saw the evil of wealth being held by the minority, whilst the poor people starved. Their name means what it says on the can, to spread the wealth more evenly. Thus, under socialism, the mega-rich would disappear, as would the starving. The mass of people would enjoy the same standard of living, guaranteeing the necessities of life to all.

I think people would object to this system. I think that the people who could afford it would pay for better conditions (I certainly would). Does socialism deny the top-end earners their right to pay for better accommodation? If it does, then I don't think many would accept socialism. If it doesn't, then socialism tends towards capitalism, simple as that. I just don't see people living in a pale grey society, where everyone is pretty much a drone, living the same lifestyle. The difference of lifestyles is what makes people so great, and if someone wants a better lifestyle, they have the encouragement to work for it.

Don't make me laugh with your examples of the " local boy made good ". Do you not acept that millions of people work very hard all their lives for a modest income whilst making the boss rich? And what about inherited wealth? What about the idle rich? What about the royal family?

You may laugh, but it's a valid point. Your quick rejection of it shows you don't consider there to be a difference between self-made men and people who inherit money. I do see a striking difference between the two. Yes, millions of people work very hard for a modest income, but there is no stopping any of those people from advancing through the ranks like people have done before. Many lack the drive, many simply like where they are. There are a multitude of reasons why people like having a modest income. I'm not against inherited wealth. If you have worked your ass off to ensure your children have a better future, I think that is a great accomplishment. The idle rich I don't necessarily like, but I cannot simply prevent them from doing nothing when they have the money to do nothing. They are feeding money back into the system themselves by using services provided to them by the lower classes. I doubt the barbers and valets of the idle rich are unhappy with their situation.

As for the royal family, I'm against them as a installation of power, and against them getting money from the state. I'm not against Prince Charles having legitimate businesses though, and as long as they have no governmental power and are not tax supported, I don't see any reason why they cannot continue with their way of life.

I am not naieve about accountants at all, just scathing about their worth to humanity. They exist to help other capitalists avoid paying their dues. A doctor, nurse, dentist,garbageman,joiner,plumber is more valuable to me.
And talking of naievity, you put your faith in regulation of business? You gotta be joking!

No, they exist to provide a service to help people handle their taxes. You are bunching a few dishonest accountants with the rest of them, who provide a legitimate service to people. It's like saying all doctors are corrupt because a few doctors murder their patients.

If you have a point about regulation of business, bring it up. Don't use snide comments like "You gotta be joking" and expect me to let it slide. You obviously object to my point, so debate it properly please.

Your last para says it all really. You are aspirational and see capitalism as being able to satisfy that. So be it, socialism is not for you. The rat-race is, it seems.

Capitalism has satisfied my needs so far, and I think it is far easier to work with a system already in place than to gamble everything with a system that doesn't appear to work, especially when its proponents cannot even explain how eliminating mega-rich and the poverty-striken will not just lead to mega-rich and poverty-striken yet again further down the line.