Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

In capitalism large corporations are free to economically engage in whatever practices they see fit in order to make profit often to the detriment of the individual. Of course the capitalists forgets about the economic liberty of the individual who find themselves at the mercy of the coroporations and subject to their economic tyrrany.
 
Like shipping jobs off to be done in slave labor conditions and skimming the profits off to the Cayman Islands?
 
Well we are talking the extremes of either system, yes?

In which case, I think "freer" is a lie. The monopolies of yesterday are no different than the Politburos of yesterday, and both should be fought to the death equally. The concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats versus the wealthy... really, what is the difference? Maybe if each industry has multiple heads competing... but if there's cooperation, they may as well be one. It would, in the end, make it no different than a Commie command economy, except the rulers are de facto rather than de jure. Socialist policies - or just interventionism in general - help keep a market competitive and efficient, through small business loans to create more competition, and through education grants to help people who wish to learn realise their full potential. Charity can only go so far.

I'm of the opinion socialism and (free market) capitalism, mixed together, produce the greatest results morally and economically. By mixing them, we ensure that everybody gets richer, that the highest earners pull everyone up with them. We mix the innovation and inventions of a competitive capitalist market with the equality of opportunity and access to services of a socialist society.

In such a perfected model, anybody can make it rich if you wish to seize the opportunities provided by the state and market, but in the end, you control your own destiny. Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism, I feel, do not give that choice, de jure or de facto controlling your life and shutting the doors of opportunity.
 
Since when? I pay a lot more percentage wise working my ass off than the lazy rich sitting around the pool all day waiting for the dividend check. Plus if you think the rich get the same "quality" of anything that I do, you are delusional...

:lol:

No, the rich pay more in taxes percentage wise and in real dollars. For the ultra rich this is the case as we have an upper tax limit, but you are usually paying hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions a year before this happens. This understandably affects very few individuals.

In reality if you are in the lower 15-20 percent range you are actually paying nothing in taxes income wise, and probably getting your sales tax and whatnot back in spades from government handouts the middle and upper class do not get.
 
My mother pays 30% of her income in taxes. My dad - who makes about twice her salary gross-taxes - pays 50-60%.

(Sweden)
 
I wish I could turn the US into a giant version of Sweden or Norway. All the Republicans would die of aneurysm's or flee to Canada and then the next stage could begin.
 
I wish I could turn the US into a giant version of Sweden or Norway. All the Republicans would die of aneurysm's or flee to Canada and then the next stage could begin.

I call shenanigans.
 
I call shenanigans.

communist_party.jpg
 
Warren Buffett’s claimed that his $46 million annual income is taxed at 17.7 percent whereas his employees pay an average of 32.9 percent. Plus the tax breaks and loop holes he got...
 
Warren Buffett’s claimed that his $46 million annual income is taxed at 17.7 percent whereas his employees pay an average of 32.9 percent. Plus the tax breaks and loop holes he got...

Warren Buffett is American, right? I thought we were talking about taxes in socialist countries :confused:

Edit:

NVM, saw you were replying to Patrokolos.
 
Corporations and Governments are both threats to individual liberty. The trick for individuals is to get corporations and governments to check the power of each other rather than combine forces.
 
Coprorations and Governments are both threats to individual liberty. The trick for individuals is to get corporations and governments to check the power of each other rather than combine forces.
:yup:
The only freedom for the common people is when the powerful are fighting among themselves. Once the centers of power combine interests, freedom for everyone else is the first casualty.
 
Socialism requires authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism over the market maybe(and that's if we aren't talking about libertarian socialism) but not over the person. As far as I'm concerned socialism just means that workplaces are run by the community instead of a few guys at the top. No?
 
Authoritarianism over the market maybe(and that's if we aren't talking about libertarian socialism) but not over the person. As far as I'm concerned socialism just means that workplaces are run by the community instead of a few guys at the top. No?

Union democracy and co-operatives are aspects of both socialism and syndaclisim.
 
If corps are a threat to individual liberty, WTH are soles and limiteds?!

Corps are the "individual/public ownership" ANSWER to business models; not the antithesis. It makes no sense that socialists oppose the most public and worker-friendly model of private business ownership. It's like they HATE the compromise.
 
If corps are a threat to individual liberty, WTH are soles and limiteds?!

Corps are the "individual/public ownership" ANSWER to business models; not the antithesis. It makes no sense that socialist oppose the most public model of business ownership.

Public as in ALL the public. Not just a select few of the wealthiest members of the public, that is just economic aristocracy.
 
If corps are a threat to individual liberty, WTH are soles and limiteds?!

Corps are the "individual/public ownership" ANSWER to business models; not the antithesis. It makes no sense that socialists oppose the most public and worker-friendly model of private business ownership. It's like they HATE the compromise.
You are saying a sole proprieter will treat his labor force worse than a collective group of mainly institutional shareholders?
 
Public as in ALL the public. Not just a select few of the wealthiest members of the public, that is just economic aristocracy.

economic oligarchy. I'm sure you know of the difference. of course the actual form they take is different in reality, but the exact meaning of the term is spot on. :lol:
 
Capitalism grants to those with capital the freedom to exploit those without.

In reality if you are in the lower 15-20 percent range

I am.

you are actually paying nothing in taxes income wise, and probably getting your sales tax and whatnot back in spades from government handouts the middle and upper class do not get.

I'm not.
 
If corps are a threat to individual liberty, WTH are soles and limiteds?!

Corps are the "individual/public ownership" ANSWER to business models; not the antithesis. It makes no sense that socialists oppose the most public and worker-friendly model of private business ownership. It's like they HATE the compromise.
This argument might make sense if shareholders had even an ounce of control over their corporations.
 
Back
Top Bottom