So, the UN finally admits it's Capitalism not welfare that is ending poverty!

[theVOID]

I am genuinely ignorant of your political philosophy.

I was talking to Jaysn

I am aware of how badly the government can interfere with supply/demand signals (that is, how badly the government can interfere with business). I am also aware of how badly the government can interfere with individual liberty (TSA, Homeland Security, warrantless wiretapping, ad nauseum).

One possible solution: let the lions and tigers go after each others' throats in the government and in business, and destroy the survivors. Whoever is left from such a fight is too dangerous to allow to govern, or run a business.

Or have a separation of state and enterprise so there is a genuinely impartial police force to prosecute crime, both in the markets and in social life. As long as a business has not used force, fraud or neglected their contractual obligations they have done nothing wrong, regardless of how successful they are. If someone can out-compete the competition ethically they're entitled to the spoils that come from market dominance, just like the successful sporting team who doesn't cheat gets all the trophies and pussy.

Quote from Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha: "My class is winning. But it shouldn't be."

It does seem very strange how those who basically support the interests of corporations can rally the voters, especially the right-wing, the mostly uneducated, and the very definitely Fundamentalist Christians to go along with giving corporate welfare to oil companies and call unemployment benefits and a minimum wage "evil socialism." But when you only get your news from Rupert Murdoch controlled media like Faux News and the Chicago Tribune. . . .

The same folk seem to knock "socialism," while telling the government to keep its hands off Social Security benefits (especially if they are elderly). Social Security is apparently not socialism.

According to many if you're not a liberal you're automatically working for the interests of corporations, regardless of stating specifically that no special interests should receive a cent of taxpayer money for any agenda.

And socialism is a broader political approach, there is no contradiction between Capitalism in general and social programs... Socialism is the idea that the means of production should be owned by all those who work in a given organisation, Capitalism in general is the idea that the means of production should be treated like any other kind of private property, the owner of the business owns the business, not the people he employs for an agreed wage. All the specifics, whether or not to regulate, whether or not to have a social safety net etc simply lead to different flavours of Capitalism.

Neither are public roads, public schools, the military, the courts, the prison system, police, fire, rescue services, etc. etc.

Again, not necessarily. Socialism is completely the wrong word to describe those services. Even Free-market capitalism at it's bare minimum advocates Police, Courts, prisons and a military - These are necessary functions of government and the rule of law - Having publicly owned schools, hospitals, roads etc lead to 'social capitalism' or 'democratic capitalism' depending on the extent to which these things are pursued and even then there is no clear distinction between them, more like a blurry line that you have to cross significantly before you can tell where you are.

In the interest of throwing out all the evil socialist ideas, lets throw those socialist programs out too, for they are indeed socialist (taking money from everyone to finance a military service, or a public school, &c.) Let's have corporations do what government fails at, because they are so much better at it (Cash for Kids scandal in the Pennsylvania court system, selling the Chicago Skyway to a Spanish company, &c.)

I don't think anyone credible considers socialism evil, it's merely a scare tactic used by those with a vested interest in various positions, much like the more socialist leaning folk and their "evil capitalism", both caricaturisations of the opposing position are petty and unproductive, both miss the real heart of the disagreement by focusing on worst-case scenarios and then delivering ad-homnimens based on that scenario.

The Republicrats (that would be the Republicans and the Democrats) are actually two sides of the same wooden nickel. It was once argued in a political campaign "it's the economy, stupid," and neither party cares about that. And yet one party seems to keep harping on the idea of a "partnership between business and government for the good of the nation." That is the definition of fascism, a method of government which has always proven to protect the liberties and interests of citizens in the past.
James.

That I entirely agree with, which is why I advocate the impartial state with no power over or vested interest in the goals of industry. That's the only kind of state we can truly trust to work towards upholding the rights of the people when they are lied to, coerced, have their property damaged or their contracts betrayed.