Most active channels

Most discussed users

Most supported premises

Proponents of Socialism or Communism will predominantly argue under bad faith - because there are no compelling arguments but the end goal of access to free money/value subsidizes them in trying to demonize Capitalism relative to Socialism.

With capitalism, the potential for working and lower class citizens to be exploited is high. Currently in America, the capital gains of the economy are being hoarded by the top 1% of the population. Ultimately, this translates to the lower and working classes being drastically under-compensated.
5 supporter.

Proponents of Socialism or Communism will predominantly argue under bad faith - because there are no compelling arguments but the end goal of access to free money/value subsidizes them in trying to demonize Capitalism relative to Socialism.

Under capitalism in America, the current level of income and wealth inequality is similar to the proportion of wealth owned by a slave compared to a slave owner in the times of slavery. The poor get just what they need to survive, while the upper class capitalizes off of the poor man's labor.
4 supporter.

One can not "own" a person, place, thing, or idea.

The concept of "ownership" is a human perception that is imposed upon a noun. Ex. This is an apple vs. This is my apple. The transition from the apple being simply "an apple" to being "my apple" indicates that a subjective change of the human mind has occurred, not an objective change of the apple.
3 supporter.

One can not "own" a person, place, thing, or idea.

Just because an object has unique characteristics does not imply that said object "owns" said characteristics. The characteristics of an object simply represent how said object exists in nature. I understand your point, but I believe there is a distinction between "property" and "characteristic".
3 supporter.

One can not "own" a person, place, thing, or idea.

The terms that imply ownership (my, mine, yours, theirs, etc.) are subjective representations. The statement "this is my apple" is an opinion. In order for the above statement to be objectively true, it would have to read as "this is an apple that I use". "To own" = opinion, "to use" = fact.
2 supporter.

Socialism is more effective at poverty reduction and ensuring the meeting of basic needs than capitalism

No, one does not need to have more control in the form of property rights for wealth to be meaningful. People can have an equal amount of wealth and still be able to exchange various forms of property in a productive manner. Capitalism is allowing for wealth to be used as influence (SuperPACs).
2 supporter.

Socialism is more effective at poverty reduction and ensuring the meeting of basic needs than capitalism

The free market allows for monopolies to exist. Once a business becomes established within a market, that business can use the profit that it had accumulated to buy out their competitors. More wealth, more lawyers, more lobbyists, more loopholes, etc. Small businesses have little to no chance.
2 supporter.

There should be a market for organs (both organs of deceased and extra organs of living, like kidney)

Then those who have more wealth could purchase vast amounts of organs and retain them in storage. Therefore, those with more wealth would have control over the supply and demand of organs. The poor man's survival would ultimately be at the discretion of the wealthy. Sounds like a horror film.
2 supporter.

Socialism is more effective at poverty reduction and ensuring the meeting of basic needs than capitalism

Incentive is not merely determined by monetary gains. Incentive can also be the satisfaction one may receive through helping others. The incentive for becoming more efficient at something is to create a better quality of life for those around you, which is an honorable public service. Love > Luxury.
2 supporter.

There should be a market for organs (both organs of deceased and extra organs of living, like kidney)

Severe violation of human rights.
1 supporter.