Thanks for the down vote, now I truly know I'm speaking to a child.
You should find the following useful:
Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor.
Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.
Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.
Where is your proof? I can tell you have a thing for the government. Remember that socialism and capitalism are principals in economics. Don't forget why government was even created.
I can't agree with you. Dark evil place, was that necessary? No I've actually lived in a socialistic country and guess what? They're getting along just fine. This is just a typical argument from the "entitled view" from the US. You are a very typical common sense using ignorant fool.
CEO's wages are done fairly?! I can't agree with you on that either. Some are and some are not. You just have to face the truth. It being based off of what's fair is the part that is absurd. I've worked in large corporations it is just another joke. Some of the worst decisions, loss of quality, and mundane tasks are just a few things you can look forward to.
Let me add that SOME people are motivated by the ability to make a shitload of money. There are also people that are also non-monetarily motivated. When you base everything off of money you get is just that; A system run off of greed. There is more to life than the accumulation of money.
Actually Communism is not the militant force to push socialism onto a country. Communism deals with politics and socialism deals with economics. Looks like McCarthyism runs true in your blood. Why else would you assign militant force to communism? Where do you read this?
That choice is not as easy to come by. You obviously have a very entitled point of view.
I'm seriously tired of this ridiculous misinformation. Stop confusing socialism with communism!
Second, the money that is payed to some CEO's is absurd. Your argument is incredibly weak and should I say...stupid. If you haven't noticed your money, right now, is being distributed to social programs. Your assumption of a classless society that will result in a decrease in technology progression is old and it sounds repeated right out of a McCarthyistict point of view.
I advise you to check this out. You must not confuse socialism with communism. http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html
So what you're saying is that one world government will suddenly have the power to redistribute wealth and resources... I highly doubt that one world government would solve this issue just as easily as many governments would.
You sound very passionate about this subject and because you do, I'm providing you with 2 sources to bring to your local library and that should start you on your journey to find the truth to this argument.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ces/
something else to look into: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
And if not, well at least I tried!
Cheers
You make a very good point. There are just so many things to consider. It sounds nice, like marx does on paper, but in reality will it work? Think of one world currency, one world bank, etc, etc. It almost sounds too good to be true. If we were able to move into this direction it would have to happen in about 20 to 30 years. I feel that right now the world is moving to develop to a state where every country runs autonomously.
Of course I agree with better government... Who wouldn't? Your assumption is wrong. Let me add...if you believe that the bureaucracy of one world government would be no different than our current government status, then why make one world government? And supporting the UN intentionally is fine and dandy but that isn't the debate that was created. That's why I pointed it out. No libertarian here. If I missed something let me know.
I agree, very bad wording on my part. I wanted to say Without war there is no concept of peace. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
Look at the first definition. Regulate certain things? Then what the hell is the point of one world government? Aren't you guys just reinforcing the concept of the UN?
