: Gee, are you not in favor of democracy?Not in an unlimited form, where a majority can vote upon a minority some coercion.
: Suppose you live in a country where resources can be devoted to education or to guns. Let's assume that you believe schools are better than guns.
: How do you make your preference felt?
By paying for your childs schooling - the school is built by many parents choices, it doesnt require one persons either/or choice.
: In a capitalist society, you would ahve to make a lot of money and then use this money to buy schools instead of guns.
If I was the only one building them, but not If I got together with onther to build it - which is how companies started out.
: Now, in a socialist society, you are guaranteed taht your preference will be noted, although it may easily be outweighed by the "majority".
The notedness is of little value then.
: In a capitalist society, if you succeed in becoming wealthy, your preference can easily be put into effect- but first you ahve to become rich.
Not necessarily, as I explained above. It sint really either/or, nor is it dependant upon the actions of one, but of many ones.
: 1)In which case do you think you have a better chance of your preferences getting registered?
In a society where you can go after your goals, alone or with others - without being subject to the approval of uninvolved 3rd parties.
2)If you do become rich, do you think taht the process of becoming wealthy might possibly compromise or constrain you in some way so as to prevent you from supporting schools instead of guns? E.g. if you made computers and your major buyer was the military, etc.
If I was the only person able to choose schools/guns then yes.
: This is an honest question, if you still think that you would have a better chance of getting your views effected under capitalsim, then you are entitled to that opinion.
I genuinely think I do, even though I accept the reality of advantage and privilige (I have to, im not rich) of wealth I would still place greater trust in myself than in the enforcable opinions of others.
: As an aside, I think your criticisms of socialism are based on teh princiuples of sociualism rather than on the "effects". You seem to be arguing not that socialism is impractical but that it is undesirable in rpinciple. I respect that, because I'm sick and tired of hearing about socialism not working., If it's allowed to work, then it works, history shows that. the real question, which you addrress, is whether socialism is the ideal form- e.g. does something else woirk better.
Thankyou, I do try to stay with principle most of the time. I think it fails in practice because it fails in pronciple. That the crux is property and that socialising property leads to a centralising of the property right into the wrong hands (ie away from the people that made it possible) except in the unlikely scenario painted by Red Deathy, where an ovwerwhelming proportion of people have characteristics I dont believe they have.
The key issue is, if you dont have private property who does? The danger is in who gets control whether by statism, by popular support or sheer force of numbers
None.
