Lord Kalthorn said:The point was Economists say it works nicely. Economists saying it works nicely does not mean it works. Haha; we've been over the Computer thing... using something created in a system does not mean you agree with that system; you agree with that something.
It works nicely for the people living under the system, at least in the United States and in the developed world. Even Sweden is a capitalist state. I'll bring up the computer thing until you concede total defeat to me in your illogical beliefs. If you use something created in capitalism, and you do not like capitalism, you're a hypocrite.
Efficiency is not a requisite of Voting - Voting is not efficient in the first place if you really want efficiency have a Oligarchy or a Dictatorship. Which is half way to what America is. The President is a Dictator who is voted in; one of only two. As in the Simpsons; which is often quick; if Kang and Kodos are both running - what do the people do? Generally the less efficient, the more Democratic the Election - what about the Communists in America? Or more likely, the Nationalists, or Fascists - it's their democratic right to vote for their Party - they can't do that in America.
This is generally a stupid statement to make. Why? Because each of the two parties are very diverse. Or would you rather want a country like 1970s era Italy where the government was very unstable? There has to be a balance struck. You cannot defeat me in this argument and you will not. You never do it. I am right in this regard. The United States is a democratic republic that has strong democratic traditions. In this country, there isn't nationalists or fascists that are strong enough.
You can critise you Party in Britain! We do it all the time; the difference being that in Britain you can move your vote - in America, to move your vote you have to vote for somebody completely the opposite generally of who you would have before - its harder in American to change your vote therefore. Politicians in Britain also change their party, and critise their party without changing. Because they can here
You as a people can criticize the party. But party members cannot do it, without being kicked out of the party. I know how the system works. I typed up numerous essays on it. In the United States, in fighting in the party is allowed to happen, and politicans can change their party (Senator Jeffords).
60% is a dreadful turnout! I don't know what part of you thinks that 60% is a reasonable turn out but that missing 40% could have easily changed the election - how can George Bush say he has 51% support in his country when that's from a poll of only 60%! Its crazy.
Considering that's 5-10% above what the turn-out is in many other developed nations, I do not think it is a dreadful turn-out. You are speaking foolishly. Additionally, many countries throughout Europe have minority governments. Gee, that's very democratic. Take Sweden I believe, the government only got 20% of the vote! That was the largest portion of the vote and it had to form a coalition government. If we had to use coalition governments we would be in serious trouble.
Not really... you can have Freedom without Capitalism. What part of not having Capitalism means you don't have Freedom? You live in your own house for free, like with Capitalism but better, you go to Work, like in Capitalism, you get Free Health care, like in few Capitalist Countries, you get a free transport system, like in few Capitalist Countries indeed if any, you pay no Taxes, money is made for the government through your work and through your custom, no Capitalist Country does that.
This is mostly uneducated blabber.. and it doesn't make much sense either. You can't live in a house for free. You have to pay for the goods you get. Capitalism is the only system that works and you will not dispute that fact. You will not win this debate. Free health care? Lets see where that leads. In Europe for example, the health system is so bad, I often see many reports of Europeans going to the United States for healthcare. We must pay our doctors well, because they take care of us. If we give out free healthcare on a huge scale, we will risk driving down the wages of doctors. This is seen in Sweden. A free transport system? Again, you have to pay for what you get. The $1.25 I pay per ride for the MTA is paying for what I get. Not the best service. In a few countries indeed if any you pay no taxes? That's not possible. The government needs to collect revenue to sustain itself. It can do it in sales tax, income tax or different forms of taxation. Capitalism is the freest form of economic belief.
If you want to create a shop; its only a trip to the Local Office, a few forms and if you can you've got the permits to create your own Shop; you get free goods for your shop from a choice of everything the Government makes, you sell it and the set price, you get 10% of that and the rest the government gets. If you don't make money - you're closed down, if you do you're rewarded. You invent things on Government resources at Universities; Colleges; Schools; Labs and in your own home if you work too. If you don't find a job and are not in Education, you are set a job; you can't be Unemployed - there's always something to do.
Okay here is the error in your beliefs. In capitalism, government (the IRS here in the US) collects income tax from the business. What you are stating is what happens in capitalism. If you don't make money, you can't pay for your workers or property and you have to file for bankruptcy and close down. If you do make a lot of sales in capitalism, you get more money. This is done in the private sector every single day. You just don't understand the facts.
Where does the lack of Capitalism in that inhibit Freedom?
The lack of economic freedom kills freedom as a whole idea.
I win.
Also the Iraqi election has been an overwhelming success. Now you people who thought I was wrong... it turns out my prediction is totally, utterly true. Now apologize to me and concede defeat.