This is a bad poll because this isn't a binary decision but a sliding scale between two extremes. Neither system can exist in a pure state for very long.
I don't think I would like to live in a pure capitalist system or a pure socialist system. The thing I don't like about capitalism is that it's too stratified. If you're born into wealth you have a much better chance of staying wealthy whether you're talented or not and whether you're hard working or not. I could go to Harvard or Yale without being a top drawer student if my daddy is rich and he went to Harvard or Yale before me, making me a legacy candidate. While there, I could network with smart people who know what they're doing and at the very least find good people with whom to invest daddy's money once I inherit it.
If I'm born into poverty on the other hand, I could have a lot of native ability and be a very diligent student, but I will only be able to do so much with the crappy public education I receive at a school with few resources. Even if I manage to compensate for what's lacking in my school by finding the right books to read in the public library, my odds of putting together enough money to go to college or to start my own business are pretty low. I could be way more talented and hard-working than the Harvard legacy student, and still not be able to climb out of poverty, much less be rich.
The middle class is probably the most fair life to be born into, insofar as you can move up or down or remain stagnant based on your own ability. You can receive an adequate education if you pay attention in school, and if you're willing to work and sweat hard enough, you might make it into the upper class. If you're a slacker, you might end up sliding into poverty, and with an average effort, you can probably stay in the middle class. But for the upper class there needs to be more downward mobility for stupid people and in the lower class there needs to be more upward mobility for the smart and ambitious.
I've never lived in a predominantly socialist society, but from what I understand, it doesn't seem to reward ambition and ability so much. If I work hard to become wealthy in a socialist society, I will be taxed heavily to pay for so-called "free" education, health care, day care, etc. for the lower and middle classes, thus taking away my incentive to make money insofar as I don't get to keep much of it. That may sound selfish, but imagine you worked your butt off all year and made $100,000, but the government took $52,000 and you only got to keep $48,000. How motivated would you be to work that hard the next year? By the way, 52% isn't just a random figure. That was the highest tax bracket in the Netherlands in 2014. The bracket just below it is also pretty hefty at 42%. I guess if you believe that your government is more efficient in providing for your needs and the needs of others than the free market system, you might like socialism. If your government seems to be bureaucratic, inefficient, and maybe even corrupt, socialism may not sound so good to you.
Anarco- capitalism paired with the non-agression principle does not require a state or governing body of any kind.
Regardlesss from 1776 until about the 1970s we were more capitalist than ever and the country grew faster than the rest of the world because of it. 200 years of capitalism is a pretty strong number especially when you put it up against every single communist, socialist and fascist system to date.
Not only has capitalism proven to last in a relatively pure form but it also has provided the fastest and most successful raise in quality of life in all of history.
Socialism or any other society that centrally controls the means of production distribution and consumption simply can't come close to the benefits individuals see from capitalism.
Central control of production, distribution, and consumption isn't what socialism is at all. That's just state capitalism, which as you may have guessed, is a type of capitalism.
I also feel that it's disingenuous to claim capitalism has provided the "fastest most successful raise in quality of life in history" when Cuba has established arguably the most impressive medical system in the whole world while also being embargoed by the biggest economy in the world.
And anarcho-capitalism seems like a such a contradictory "libertarian" position to me. You get rid of the government because it's based on relations of force, and replace it with a market system that's based on even MORE relations of force? "If you don't pay me you could be murdered and our privatized lawyers and police officers won't do anything."
Last I checked into the situation in Cuba, their system crashed hard core once the cash subsidies from the Soviet Union ended - I believe Cuba today is as much of corrupt mess as it was before Fidel took over.
Anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream - and a pretty wicked pipe substance at that.
How is a market based on force? Assuming the society keeps in place basic notions of free exchange and social pressures against the use of threats and intimidations (which granted would be impossible to enforce w/o some form of government) then there can be no force in a real free market.
The idea that one would be able to extort others w/o penalty is a straw man argument at best.
Why did you choose 1970s as the cutoff of "pure" capitalism?
I can't think of any major economist who would take the position that our capitalism was even remotely "pure" after (at the latest) the Great Depression. What we saw prior to the Great Depression, when we were more or less a pure capitalist society, was what is predicted as a short-coming of capitalism, ever increasing boom and bust cycles which arguably culminated in the Great Depression. . .and was the final blow for pure capitalism in the US. There were 25 recessions between 1836 (when they started tracking the numbers) and the great depression. This is when the federal government stepped in an took measures to regulate the economy a bit and keep things a little more stable. There have been 12 recessions since then, almost all much more mild than the bulk of them prior to the great depression.
While I am a firm believer of Capitalism as the base for a financial system, the idea that we were purely capitalist till the 1970s is not a position I believe many economists would agree with. On top of that, it appears that the period of best growth and stability in this country was during the period right after we started to really regulate the economy (1930s) and the deregulation that took place under reagan (1980s).
After the 1930s, we saw the wealth gap in the country shrink as the middle class was raised up, and then after the 80s, that gap regrew and was eventually capped by the great recession.
While I am certainly not suggesting a full socialist system, I think we both saw the benefits of moderate socialization of the economy (after the great depression) and the risks of undoing that (post 1980s).
Exactly, except that if there is a slider it's still binary... socialism can be a form of capitalist system: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy