No reason why it should offend me and it doesnt. But your post did seem to have a hint of sarcasm along with it, which gave it a negative vibe. You know, one of those, "well if you like it so much over there then why don't you take your techno and just get outta here then!!" hard to judge how what sounds through the internet. heh, but anywho.

no harm no foul... :)

Those are pretty lofty, not to mention, biased statements. Have you ever heard of the concept of laissez faire capitalism? That is capitalism in its extremity. History is rife with examples of how the market cannot regulate itself and of many profit driven injustices that were well within the confines of the law. Some form of government regulation will always be necessary. Sorry, no matter how much you fantasize it, pure capitalism is not infallible.

Abject nonsense. First, "social ills" do not necessarily come from socialism. In fact, many "social ills" come from capitalism and socialism is the simply the mechanism to manage said ills. Heck, socialism can be defined by anything that is not privatized. A very simple example; Public roads are a form of socialism. Do you drive on those? Pinko?:D

Seriously, there is no way that you will learn the flaws in your overly simplified black and white views from a thread on a message board. The mods would certainly delete any extensive attempts at such. That said, it is simply sophomoric to state that capitalism is benevolent and socialism is evil....which is, essentially, what you're doing.

I admitted earlier that there are some social programs that are pretty much necessary. I even think I said roads were one of them. Either way, I do agree that there are some social programs that are necessary like infrastructure and military. Probably police, also. Beyond that, I believe that most things are better off privatized. Even in the case of the ones just mentioned, they are much less efficient when run by government, but we cannot afford to let them fail in a free market, so we put up with it.

I am not so naive as to think that there will never be government regulation. We are not ever in fear of a laissez faire economy. But, you will be hard pressed to find an example of government intervention that does not have adverse affects that could have been prevented by leaving intervention out of it.

You didn't list a single social program that had good come out of it. 'Socialized' roads have actually caused many ills even though many would consider it worthwhile. Because of the unlimited 'free' supply of roads to drive on (at least in most cases, there are not tolls directly priced in relationship to demand), there is a huge demand for the roads. They become overcrowded, and we end up with huge traffic jams in many urban areas. If the cost to drive on the roads were directly in line with the demand on the roads, the people that used the roads the most during peak times would pay more than the people that use public transportation. These market forces would force changes in the use of the roads because the cost would continue to increase as over-demand occurred (unless supply changed by building more roads/lanes/etc). Either way, supply and demand would equalize as alternatives were sought (build more or more efficient roads/ carpooling/ public transportation).

Bottom line, there is nothing out there that is run more efficiently by the government, but I will agree with you that there are things we choose to have the government run.

Some people want to let this government that just had a hand in the banking industry run their health care. There should be public outrage and rioting in the streets anytime government wants to have a hand in any of our industries. We can definitely afford less regulation. We have more than enough. And that is not naivete, that is the truth.

I would encourage you to spend some time in a previously, truly, socialist country. Socialism springs from those who find intrinsic rights in otherwise labor due items. I spent a lengthy time in Eastern Europe and I can tell you firsthand, the corruption of socialist/communist countries very far outweigh capitalist corruption in terms of the poor and most affected.

I would also implore you to find examples of pure free markets that cannot regulate themselves. That is asinine to propose. Most every free market has been intruded upon by the governments which sought to "help it" (i.e. the great depression). Other free markets have had depressions/recessions and by such have been regulating themselves folding the house of cards that have been set up previously.

Socialism is debased by the very human nature it seeks to equal. Socialism insidiously appeals to our basic needs and to what we are made to believe are our rights (health care, jobs, etc), however like everything in the world, nothing is void of price. The bottom line is that the very presupposition of socialism is a fallacy. It propogates itself by promising things for an undisclosed price.

The, and any, government has the absolute right to avenge evil, and protect its people.

While I understand that you base your argument on the extremes of each system, I would contend that not very many social programs have benefited anyone in the long term. Capitalism, and in some cases even imperialism, have given great advances in infrastructure and other things.