The common argument against capitalism is that the greedy rich hog everything for themselves and they don't leave anything for the poor. I think I have a pretty simple argument why this is not true. It should be pretty obvious that if you leave the producers alone (capitalism) you get more stuff. The more you burden them with taxes and regulations (socialism), the less stuff you are going to get. So if there's more stuff to go around, isn't it more likely that the poor are going to get more stuff also? Suppose under capitalism farmers grow 2 million tons of food, but under socialism and the resulting reduced incentive, farmers only grow 1 million tons of food. Isn't it more likely that most people will get fed with twice as much food to go around? Even if you don't force it to happen?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us