Where Would You Draw The Line For Capitalism

How do you win in capitalism?

TL;DR - you win by providing genuine value. Assumptions:By "capitalism" you refer to the economic or academic definition and not the various examples of crony-capitalist or corporatist systems masquerading as free-market capitalism around the world. By "win" you mean "become wealthy."In a capitalist system, absent externalities - like receiving inheritance, or winning the lottery - you only gain wealth by providing a product or service that creates genuine value for others. People who perceive this value to be in excess of the value of the cost will, all things being equal, be motivated to trade their money for the product or service. If you've operated well, your cost to produce the product or service is less than the value such that, with each transaction, your wealth increases. This is the very definition of a good trade. You want the money more than the goods you produce, and others want the value of your goods more than their money. At the end of the exchange, all parties walk away feeling as if they gained something. Every single person involved in the exchange is free to make their own calculation on the value and act accordingly - without duress or compulsion or interference. If you do that only once, you've actually "won." If you do it many, many times you become truly wealthy. You've "won" all the same, just in a much bigger league.Welcome to the NFL

How do I decide between socialism and capitalism?

I think the issue is largely settled.  You want a mix of both capitalism and democratic socialism.  Mostly the arguments are around how much of each.You must have some capitalism to drive economic output and growth.  Profit motive must exist.  You need incentives and rewards for hard work.  Capitalism provides it.  But it has to have limits.  Without a regulatory structure around it, capitalism will result in extreme concentrations of wealth, lots of poverty and environmental degradation.  There are limits to pollution.  And there is progressive taxation to ensure some measure of economic justice.  And there are some goods and services that the private sector isn't going to provide or can't provide efficiently.  In those cases, the government must provide them if we are to have them at all.You must have some socialism, too.  Without it, most elderly people would live in poverty as an example.  When they are too old to work, only the wealthiest among them could afford to live comfortably in retirement.  Likewise, many workers would quickly lose their homes and go hungry if they lost their job.  During economic downturns we can't have entire communities to be homeless and starving in the street because there are no jobs.  These things happen and there must be a way to cushion the blow.  That's why we have Social Security and unemployment insurance.  All wealthy democracies operate this way, with a  mixed economy.  There's differences on exactly what mix they're using.  France is certainly using a different mix than the United States, for example.  But the basic idea is the same.

Where do you draw the line between racism and preference?

Where do you draw the line between racism and preference?The answers given at the time of my writing could be compared to a group of blindfolded people with plugged ears blasting forth in all directions with blunderbusses – all over the place except on target.There is a big difference between racism and preference.Racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”Preference is “liking, partiality, predilection, proclivity, fondness, taste, inclination, leaning, bias, bent, penchant and predisposition.”People tend to be more comfortable with people of their own ‘type’. That is not racist or unusual.That is an inborn preprogramed trait that we all have and was necessary for the survival of our ancestors millennia ago.When the tribe over the river came calling the first time they were welcomed with open arms.They looted, killed the males, took the woman into slavery and burned the village down.Those who managed to survive and rebuild their lives learned that those people were bad news and their preference was to kill them at best or avoid them at all costs at worst.It is natural, for example, to have a preference for something that a person grew up with.My mother’s cooking. My brother’s girlfriends. I prefer brunettes to blonds and always have.I have had a preference for dark brown haired women since my birth who look more-or-less like this:I don’t care if they are moderately over-weight or skinny.The point I am laboriously making is that we all have preferences and if anyone else does not like them – tough luck.People are too focused on keeping racism alive by endlessly posting questions trying to stir up resentment.If anything I have posted here is considered Politically Incorrect or offends anyone I request you to kindly ponder on the fact that it is my preference and intention not to be cowed or intimidated by Politically Correct acolytes torturing the world with their mindless nonsense.

Libertarians, where do you draw the line between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism?

Basically libertarianism is not an "ism", but rather a political movement with a foundation in market economics. Parties divide on the foundation and substrate for their beliefs, namely:A. Political foundationAnarchocapitalism - competing private authority with no jurisdictional monopoly or indentured custodianship. I.e. you don't have to change countries to get difference authority, and you cease to be a subject of British or US empire.Minarchism - small govt with arbitrarily defined limits to what govt can do.B. Substrate for libertarianism - providing people with differing justifications for their values.Randian "rational egoism"Utilitarianism/pragmatismChristian natural rightsClassical economicsPraxeology (Austrian school/continental rationalism)Of course, you can choose your own path, as I do. Rand is a minarchist, however I reject some of her views, and support anarchocapitalism on the premises:We were minarchists before we ended up with big govt.Electoral democracy is inherently utilitarian/collectivistNatural choice to choose the authority you sanction, and possess the opportunity to withdrawal that sanction.

I'm curious about libertarian views on anarcho-capitalism. Are there any who are anarcho-capitalist, and if so, what draws you to it?

I’ve never seen any scientific survey of libertarians to determine which subcategories of libertarian philosophy are the most popular. I find this surprising because libertarians, in general, are some of the most ardent and outspoken bunch you are likely to encounter. So my answer is based mostly on anecdotal evidence.A significant portion of the Libertarian Party are self-described anarchists/voluntaryists. They are certainly a minority within the party but they have been a part of the party since it’s inception. Murray Rothbard, the inventor of the term anarcho-capitalism, was one of the most influential members of the LP. The LP has had numerous “radical” caucuses over the years.Outside the LP among the more “philosophic” libertarians, anarchism has an even stronger influence. I’d even go so far as to say it is the dominant strain of libertarianism. You’ll probably be surprised to learn that quite a few of the more prominent libertarians in politics and the media hold anarchist/voluntaryist views.“Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you.” - Ron Paul“Even when Lew Rockwell and you, and I, are dining together, I am the most libertarian person in the room.““The long answer is that I am the quintessential Rothbardian. I believe that you have the right to avoid the state, to avoid the government, the absolute moral right to do so.“-Judge Andrew Napolitano“There’s only two ways to do things in life. Voluntarily, that’s the best or by force.” - John StosselOk, maybe Stossel is a bit of a stretch. He has long advocated for less government but there is a seed of voluntaryism in there even if he’s unwilling to express it publicly.What I find most appealing about anarcho-capitalism is it’s consistency. It makes no exceptions for “authority”. The only legitimate use of force is in defense of life, liberty or property. Period. The left, the right, the objectivists, the minarchists all qualify their positions giving the state a pass.