Ahhh, something interesting. Lets break this down shall we...

>- I think that every human
>being deserves a living wage
>so that he or she
>can feed him or herself,
>capitalism does not allow for
>that.

"Deserves" does not equal "right". Noone "deserves" to go hungry, yet that doesn't mean that the ones that do have a right to simply take someone else's food, or their means to get it.

>- Competition being the disposition of
>man is a "theory" not
>a truth. Man is
>selfish according to Hobbes and
>Smith. But many philosophies
>of Asia, Africa, and Latin
>America contend that man is
>actually dependent on the community,
>not simply for selfish gains,
>but for his foresight that
>an overall healthy community is
>better for everyone.

That doesn't mean that the "community" can lay claim to what the man has earned, or has been given. The man still should be given the CHOICE on whether or not to invest in his community/environment. Anything less than that is simply taking by force.

Not to mention, who is the "community", and how does it speak and give opinion? The problem with collectivist politics is that it doesn't allow individuals to live free; instead, everything is for the "best of the community". The truth is, only community leaders, which consists of only a few people, claim to represent everyone's interest, as if they can speak for each and every individual, and/or the community thinks 100% monolisticly.

>- Socialism v. Communism. Socialism
>because I advocate equality of
>opportunity over equality of outcome.
> Capitalism, by its nature
>can never allow for equal
>opportunity, it never has.

How does socialism equate opportunity? I don't see how a collectivist system allows anyone to gain an opportunity to move out of the same class, whether economically or socially....that is, unless you are part of the leadership within the system.

>- The fact that Bill Gates
>has enough money to buy
>and sell most of the
>Western hemisphere makes me want
>to vomit. Especially when
>I know that his gross
>wealth necessitates someone else's gross
>poverty. Capitalism demands that
>it does.

And who are you to tell Bill Gates, or anyone for that matter, how much he can make and how much he can't? Also, Capitalism doesn't demand that Bill Gates keeps any of his money. It is his own choice whether to keep it, volunteer it, or give it up completely.

However, in socialism you are not allowed to even reach the potential of a Bill Gates because the "community" has this authoritarian intellect that tells them you dont need it as much as they do. Therefore, an argument can be made that under a socialist state the high-tech inventions and discoveries that were made today would have at least been postponed, due to lack of motivation and competition.

>- Every child deserves a decent
>education.

Once again, "deserve" does not mean "right". And who is to judge what is a decent education? Some people think anything less than Ivy League is a waste of time, yet some people feel comfortable with an associate degree from community college. Oops, there I go with the contention that people have individualistic thought.

A capitalist model
>(i.e. vouchers) denies that and
>states that the best schools
>should only be for the
>best students, and the children
>who are left behind are
>SOL.

Meanwhile, socialist schools should be "community"-controlled, in which the "community" decides on the ciriculumn along with what is best for the child to help out the "community".

I also believe
>that college and vocational training
>shoulc be a part of
>the free public school system,
>because the same social Darwinian
>model that I denounce is
>applied to college. There
>is very little individual can
>do with only a diploma.

But if everyone can get a degree, how is it going to change things? All you are doing is changing the level of the glass ceiling. Not to mention that in a socialist state everyone is practically living in the same type of community making practically the same wages, hence what's the use? *shrugs*

> Basically, our current system
>assures that there will always
>be a service class, which
>is disproportionately occupied by people
>of color. Capitalism demands
>this injustice.

Right. Because socialism will demand everyone to be part of a service class for the "community".

>- Teachers should be valued as
>much a doctors, and more
>valued than multimillion-dollar actors, actresses,
>and professional sports figures.

should, could, and would. If teachers were valued as much as doctors, then they would get paid more. It's kinda funny how you mention show business and athletic sports with the education field, since both get paid off of revenue based on support by fans that pay to see them. It's quite possible that they could have used that same money to support public education just as easily as they went to watch that movie. However, that idea would be implying that individuals should have a choice on how they should spend their money, which goes against socialism ideals, so never mind.

>Everyone should be valued for
>contributing to the society period,
>whether a janitor or a
>CEO. If we percieved contributions
>to the society in a
>less stratified, less hierarchical manner,
>this would make perfect sense.

But what if I didn't want to contribute to society? What if I went up to Montana or Wyoming, and decided to live on my own in the wilderness (People indeed do this, yanno)? Should I still be compensated by the "community"?

Or, what if I just dont give a damn, and say "I'mma sit around the house, and not work (people do this too, yanno.)." Should I still be compensated?

>- Currently, CEOs make 40 times
>as much as their average
>employee. In the 80s,
>it was only 5 times
>as much. The disparity
>between rich and poor is
>increasing, and as such, the
>urgency for some type of
>equalization is apparent, because history
>have shown us what happens
>when that disparity becomes too
>great.

I've made this argument before. The rich get richer because they continue to do the things that made them rich. The poor get poorer because they continue to do the things that made them poor. However, that doesn't mean that there is no opportunity whatsoever for a poor person to change his ways, and become rich. The contrary is vice-versa also.

>- Capitalism has failed Africans around
>the world. In fact,
>the primitive accumulation acquired by
>the Western world (as capitalism
>requires according to Adam Smith)
>was the result of using
>African as capital themselves.

An economic system doesn't have anything to do with morality. Can capitalistic measures have something to do with the institution of slavery? Sure. But socialistic measures just as well could be included with genocide, triage, and the harrassment of political opponents.

The truth is, that if you have immoral tendencies within you then it doesn't matter what economic system you are in, it will always be tainted.

>Capitalism continues to marginalize individuals,
>and what's worse is that
>it wears the guise of
>providing opportunities for all.
>Capitalism is a lie to
>anyone who isn't white, male,
>and/or rich, because any one
>of these qualities gives one
>an unearned advantage..."unearned" is something
>that capitalism forgets to take
>into consideration.

Yet, socialism wouldn't give anyone an opportunity to rise to their fullest potentials economically or socially whatsoever. In fact, the virtual caste system that capitalism has would turn into a real caste system under socialism, in which your status at birth determines the status you will keep until death.

>I know there are probably many
>flaws in my analysis, I'm
>still trying to work all
>this out. I just
>don't know how a system
>that purposely causes division for
>the sake of "progress" can
>ever be beneficial to those
>who are not equipped, who
>can never be fully equipped
>to compete with unearned privilege.

And you think socialism will "equip" people? With the limited number of resources on this earth in comparison to the growing population as the days go by, there will never be an equal amount of anything for everyone. At least with pure capitalism, you get the opportunity to rise ahead of the pack, given that you are willing to do what it takes to get there. Status at birth is a major factor, I agree, but it isn't the only factor. You can ask people throughout history that have lost fortune and power, along with the ones that had fortune and power only to live and die miserable.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.