Moved from D1 forum

[eppie]

As Deebye so wisely pointed out early into the debate, there is the middle road. Allow maximum freedom through Capitalism and Democracy, but establish protections for services or the "frail" in our society such that the "State" broadly taxes the populace to provide (where needed) basic needs, such as food, housing, clothing, education, and even a maintenance level of health care. But, again, it is easily corrupted by representatives tweaking the formulas. You end up with a system where not enough people contribute enough tax to pay for too many people consuming too many benefits. Important questions are "Who should be taxed and at what rate?" And, "Who should qualify for what services, and for how long?" Just consider education. It shows how the whole system goes off track quickly. How can we expect to give away a "world class" education to every child through a State bureaucracy? The best we can expect is that it be adequate. And, the same applies toward the other things the State hands out. Everyone wants(expects) a steak, but through a central bureaucracy we can guarantee that everyone gets warm oatmeal.

You know where I stand. I don't want central planners with too much power, and I fear in the US we've strayed too far in allowing our federal commissars control over our economy. No, I don't trust Tim Geitner, or our central banking system. We are probably at a point where we need to peg the value of a dollar to commodity index.

And I agreed with Deebye's point. But your explanation has shown that the system we are running today doesn't work. People's hearts are not good enough to end poverty. On a single country level it works fine in some western european countries, but on an international level it doesn't.
Again, I am not saying that I know how to solve all the problems but I am saying that it is premature and arrogant to think capitalism is the answer to all our questions.