>>[Choppity chop]
> > Capitalism is not "making a buck at any cost." Capitalism is doing one's best to bring to fruit the greatest personal, and thereby total, gain possible.
> >
> > gab"didn't proofread = weird writing"by
>
> That is all well and good, but like Marx's Maneffesto it lacks in one importnat detail. It assumes peopel on a whole are smart, reasonable, not selfish, and can see the big picture.

A good point, and here is a difference of personal philosophy. I don't think the government should be making laws about what people should learn and think, nor about people's attitudes towards others. I accept public education as a noble attempt to start everyone off on an equal basis. I think each person should be allowed to take it from there, however.

> A good view of what unfettered Captialism can lead to is the condition of Industrial Revolution England. There was no control set on factory owners and they abused their power, it wasn't good for their economy, but it was good for their personal bank account on a short term baises and that is what they were interested it. Child labor, 20 hr days, no retierment plan (most workers didn't live that long). Unfettered Captialism leades to selfishness, because those that rise to the top gain great power, and power has an unhappy habbit of corrupting those who have it.

That's not capitalism, that's anarchy.

> Self-Intrest may not be a bad thing, but their must be balances to protect those who can't rise, for Captialism is still competative, and in competitions there are lossers. Darwinism in action in an economic setting, the strong corrportations trive, the weak perish.

In my opinion, a good thing. The losers are those who can't compete. Why should every business flourish? I'm confident that even extreme liberals don't search out the lowest quality, highest priced products, in order to make sure no one loses. The losers aren't chained to the business, either. They can go get new jobs.

BTW "Survival of the fittest" is fairly meaningless. Of course the fit survive when fitness is defined as survival. Yes, that tenet of Darwinism can be interpreted non-tautologically, but it rarely is.

> Unfettered Communism and Socialism are just a dangerous mind you. Either direction leads to opression, but a balance must be found, Controlled Capitalism.
>
> Well, now that I said that can just agree to dissagree, I don't want this to degereate into a flame war. I've said my peice.
>
> Speed'Liberal and Proud of it'ball

But discussing this stuff is fun!

gab"all for competition of ideas, too"by