"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Minionman]

This still results in the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

you were arguing over a word usage:

1) "socialism" is an economic system where means of production are either owned or run by the government, and decisions regarding the economy are largely (or entirely) run by the same

And in fact in these economies most of the decisions are made and econimic property is owned by the actual buyers and sellers, with the government having some control. capitalism was said to be market forces only, so according to these definitions, some systems are mixtures. And if we're going to use these words to describe things, better to use "mixed economy" and/or "some socialism" to get the point across gets it across much clearer than just saying "socialism" or "capitalism" and hoping the rest of the writing is clear enough for people to get how far in either direction.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

Works great in theory, except history seems to suggest that monopolies and unions, for example, naturally form as people realize that they can get advantages from grouping up (see 1800's U.S. for example). To keep other forces under control, the government gets brought in to keep other forces under control, and there's some regulation. And of course there are other issues like pollution that have to do with economic growth that market forces don't really deal with, so some regulation comes in for that.