Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Which would you rather live in?

Communism, as in government(which in turn is controlled by the people of the nation) has complete control over the market, entrepreneurship is not allowed, everybody has the same standards if living.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism, as in their is no regulation in the private sector at all, monopolies and trusts are allowed, no safety/environmental guidelines.

Capitalism as there is a greater chance of success imo.

Capitalism. I would rather have an in-between though.

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

This question is like asking a woman which way she prefers to be raped: anally or vaginally....neither of which is pleasant.True_Gamer_

A capitalist society. All major communist countries from the 20th century have adopted capitalism while retaining the ruling style that accompanied the communist system. savetehhaloz

I'm sure TC meant extreme capitalism as in "laissez-faire", which isn't exactly the same as the common capitalism we find right now.

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

In other words Free For All ;)

I don't mind the status quo.

I don't mind the status quo.

jetpower3

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I don't mind the status quo.

Ace_WondersX

I know ;). I'm not making a choice of the two you asked. Laissez-Faire capitalism leaves too much room for excessive exploitation, and communism as it is practiced often has both that and eventual stagnation and instability. Marxism as envisioned by Marx and Engels seems much too unrealistic to me.

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

They both are extreme to no end, but if I was forced to choose from those two I would choose Capitalism.

Communism if run by men doesn't work

Capitalism when run by men doesn't work

Time for Women to run our societies me thinks :D

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

HomicidalCherry

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

HomicidalCherry

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

T_P_O

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

Exactly, I don't wanna be stuck supporting bums like you.:P

Laissez-faire capitalism. No contest.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

HomicidalCherry

Exactly, I don't wanna be stuck supporting bums like you.:P

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.

HomicidalCherry

Exactly, I don't wanna be stuck supporting bums like you.:P

I'm kind of torn between the options though, expect my answer soon.

Laissez-faire capitalism. No contest.

coolbeans90

Ironically, laissez-faire capitalism would likely result into a communist revolution if it remains as "laissez-faire".

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

TaCoDuDe

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

TaCoDuDe

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

Seconded. Monopolization of an industry isn't necessarily inevitable. If an industry is monopolized, it has to be concerned with the possibility of a rising competitor.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

TaCoDuDe

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

Capitalism over Communism any day. Even in theory, communism would never work as man will always want more than the other.

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

True_Gamer_

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

Actually companies would try their best to provide the best service possible, so getting a deadly food poison is unlikely. Businesses naturally try to provide the best service they can, in order to make the most money. While it's not always the health of consumers they have in mind, businesses know that consumers will buy the best product. Competition pushes companies to improve. You act like unregulated businesses would go out and try to kill their customers. They're only in it to make money, and that definitely would not make them money.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Laissez-faire capitalism. No contest.

True_Gamer_

No, not every industry would be monopolized. Those that would be would have to do a decent enough job to prevent a new entry to the industry from stealing their business. If a company wants repeat business, it won't poison me. If the company gives a warranty to the appliance, then they would be obligated to replace a faulty one.

Capitalism over Communism any day. Even in theory, communism would never work as man will always want more than the other.

leviathan91

Also, I'm choosing communism because it's always one constant party.

You have no idea what REAL capitalism is like....True_Gamer_

Ah, what a naive fool I am. I'm sure you have lived through the pure, laissez-faire capitalism that hasn't existed anywhere for over a century.:roll:

"That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault." WOuld you still risk it? What you gonna eat?True_Gamer_

American business was completely unregulated until the late 1800's. Quality goods could still be found. Yours is a worst-case scenario that may happen if the market is left to its own devices. It does not have to happen. If a food distributor has food that is constantly contaminated with e coli, people will buy from another distributor or (if somehow, this company managed to create a complete monopoly without any competition whatsoever), someone will probably form a competing distributor. It is far from ideal, but I prefer it to collective farms that inevitably underproduce and cause mass starvation.

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

I think for the most part industries would not be monopolized. Why would a successful company like Pepsi sell themselves out?

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Laissez-faire capitalism. No contest.

coolbeans90

No, not every industry would be monopolized. Those that would be would have to do a decent enough job to prevent a new entry to the industry from stealing their business. If a company wants repeat business, it won't poison me. If the company gives a warranty to the appliance, then they would be obligated to replace a faulty one.

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

Thats not really true. An unregulated market does not necessarily lead to a monopoly. And in the two examples you mentioned, while not punishable by law, those companies would still have to face the economic consequences of provided an inferior/faulty product, meaning they would go out of business.

coolbeans90

I think for the most part industries would not be monopolized. Why would a successful company like Pepsi sell themselves out?

I prefer a Mixed economy

One that incorporates a balance of capitalism and socialism. Where each citizen gets a degree of economic freedom, yet still conform to government regulations for our own social welfare. For this thread, a Laissez-Faire environment, if severe enough will eventually lead to a mixed economy. So I'd stick with that one.

I prefer a Mixed economy

One that incorporates a balance of capitalism and socialism. Where each citizen gets a degree of economic freedom, yet still conform to government regulations for our own social welfare. For this thread, a Laissez-Faire environment, if severe enough will eventually lead to a mixed economy. So I'd stick with that one.

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

I prefer a Mixed economy

One that incorporates a balance of capitalism and socialism. Where each citizen gets a degree of economic freedom, yet still conform to government regulations for our own social welfare. For this thread, a Laissez-Faire environment, if severe enough will eventually lead to a mixed economy. So I'd stick with that one.

Ace_WondersX

I agree with you that mixed is best, although I prefer as little government regulation as possible. I was simply pointing how that laissez-faire is hardly as apocalyptic as you made it out to be. And given the choice between it and communism, I would choose laissez-faire any day. It's really not one of the worst two.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"] "That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault." WOuld you still risk it? What you gonna eat?Ace_WondersX

No, not every industry would be monopolized. Those that would be would have to do a decent enough job to prevent a new entry to the industry from stealing their business. If a company wants repeat business, it won't poison me. If the company gives a warranty to the appliance, then they would be obligated to replace a faulty one.

If you look at that point in history which you mentioned, there were extremely competitive markets. It would be very, very difficult to bring down competition in a Laissez-faire system, the same way it is currently. The only way a business could monopolize an industry is by beating out its opponents. Buying competitors out isn't as simple as you seem to believe. It has to be worth losing the business for one side, monetarily speaking. This alone makes monopolization seem like a preposterous idea. The other has to be certain of increased profits by acquiring the company exceeding the losses initially made by purchasing the other company. I wonder why you think that monopolization of industries is inevitable?

It would be very, very difficult to bring down competition in a Laissez-faire system, the same way it is currently. The only way a business could monopolize an industry is by beating out its opponents.

coolbeans90

John D. Rockefeller might have something to say about that.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] They're is a high chance that most industries will become monopolized. Honestly if we removed regulation right now, you think Coca-Cola wouldn't buy out Pepsi, Microsoft wouldn't buy out Adobe,and etc.? It's a smart business decision, companies will monopolize their industries if possible.Ace_WondersX

I think for the most part industries would not be monopolized. Why would a successful company like Pepsi sell themselves out?

What is to say that the other side wouldn't do the same? Also, there are plenty of other manufacturers which could gain significant market share if Pepsi/Coca Cola merged and tried to jack prices. Long story short, market supply and demand forces would likely prevent major abuse.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It would be very, very difficult to bring down competition in a Laissez-faire system, the same way it is currently. The only way a business could monopolize an industry is by beating out its opponents.

HomicidalCherry

John D. Rockefeller might have something to say about that.

Eh, the system wasn't perfect. Well played sir.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I think for the most part industries would not be monopolized. Why would a successful company like Pepsi sell themselves out?

coolbeans90

What is to say that the other side wouldn't do the same? Also, there are plenty of other manufacturers which could gain significant market share if Pepsi/Coca Cola merged and tried to jack prices. Long story short, market supply and demand forces would likely prevent major abuse.

It's a pretty much safe bet that money spent to maintain a monopoly will eventually make it's way back to you in profit.