First let's make that lurqer, not lurger.<g>
I specifically asked about socialism, because there is little to be gained by discussing such an obvious target as communism. When you say "Capitalism produces wealth, jobs, innovation and opportunities for the ambitious and motivated. Socialist systems do not.", I could counter that unfettered regressive capitalism (Corporatism) produces benefits only for a tiny oligarchy, and the bulk of the populace is left in squalor - from which there is little chance of escape.
OTOH, you are right that socialism, carried to the extreme, is stultifying. So for discussion purposes, let's establish a spectrum of Communism, Socialism, B, Corporatism, Fascism - where B stands for that elusive balance point in the middle. Then, we could try to define what the characteristics of that balance point should be. One way to consider these characteristics is through the concept of opportunity. Too far toward Corporatism and too small of a fraction of society will ever have the chance to grow; too far towards Socialism, and too much of the society has its growth stunted. Neither Socialism nor Corporatism will produce the sort of vibrant, healthy society that can win in an increasingly competitive world.
I'll leave the Iraqi discussion for another post.
All, JMO.
lurqer
P.S. An example of that quest for B. |
