Capitalism vs. Socialism - In which system would you rather live?

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.

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.