My interests are in that we always argue extremes in here, when factually there is a huge spectrum of debate; which imo is much more rational. It's like an issue that's brought to court, where specifics count, and arguements are particular. Many supporters of capitalism have a general amount of regulation in mind, and I don't think small degrees of regulation can be called socialism.
If a government is given the power to decide what is right and wrong in trade then it will use it to it's fullest extent. The ammount of regulation to take place has very, very, very specific in order to work but it I may agree with it taking place.
For white males, yes; but for everyone at once, no. The basic tenet of individual/property rights would account for my answer.
Well, they've tried to do so. The feds take their 'economic' authority as far as the courts will allow them; but sincerly it's cultural phenemona, based on the rather limited view of the public on the Constitution and it's history. The did similiar things with drugs...etc...etc. The system is: Do it in an odd lawful manner, then once people are used to it, just do it outright.
Capitalism like Socialism is a matter of how it's implemented, as either idealogy can be abused gravely. I'd say in Capitalism it's bit harder, depending on the levels and degree of power which are engrained in the government e.g monetary control. Even elections and democracy go a bit rough with capitalism, because there tends to be conflicts in interests,..especially in how special rights are handed out. It's not that these actions are capitalist (in nature), it's just inherent in man to have alpha males seeking such powers....capitalism produce people these kinds of people like any other system and sometimes better. Socialism is set-up in a way that implies more centric power, which is basically in my mind-set a version of monopolistic capitalism. It concretes interests and is often easily corrupted. It sets cushions up for those of lesser means, but it's argueable that these programs actually improves things. It is said to take the initiative away, since profit is no-longer viable under such a system, thus socialist governments due tend to produce less intellectual assets. Side note:My friend argues that patents need to be protect. I believe they should be, but they should be highly limited in time. I suppose there's a lot to both systems, and I'm very close to a libertarian, but the arguements on both sides tend to derive points. I think the best arguement should be how does one limit power...I believe it's competition for most part.
I think the main reason why the immigration into the US is high is because of it's public image and your poor neighbour in the south. Anyway, the immigration into Norway is more than the country is clearly overloaded. http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/20/innvutv_en/
Neither work well in their purest form, goverment has to be be flexible to react to differences in domestic affairs and foreign policy. Sticking rigidly to one doctrine or the other doesn't allow for that flexibility.
Yes, I believe idealogy has to weight-in with praticality....but I think it suffices that I lean towards capitalism (as many people do as well).
Socialism would deem that everyone should get a red rep for this thread, but instead I get one. Socialism means that no one of us can be criticized, we must all share in the blame.