For one thing, America established a government. The very point of a government is to maintain order in society. Order, itself, is the opposite of freedom. The Founding Fathers created a democratic republic, because it seemed like the best way to maintain order (which you consider “slavery”), while at the same time, reaping freedom. Even today, America attempts to find out how much freedom they can attain within the limitations of the government created by this nations founders. Complete freedom is anarchy, and not the good kind (i.e. it’s not a socialist utopia, it’s craziness)

Also, a big part of what I disagree with is that the founding fathers believed in capitalism only. Many of the founding fathers supported capitalism, it’s true. Many of them were conservative, in a sense. Many others, however, were much more liberal. I don’t want to squash your sense of patriotism, I just think it’s offensive to generalize the founders like that. Thomas Paine, in particular, is often misrepresented; he was definitely a founding father, but at the same time, in the economic sense, he was insanely left wing. He believed in giving all citizens a certain quantity of free land, handing out money to seniors, and giving benefits to women and children. If Thomas Paine were here today, I suspect he’d be close to Hugo Chavez.

Plus, that remark about Obama is unfair. Obama certainly comes off as an idealist, but he is really dedicated to compromise. Obama is not planning on turning our country into the Soviet Union, on the contrary, he has often sided with the right wing, much to the irritation of his own party. Whether you are conservative or democrat, either way, I’d still hold a level of respect for Obama, because even though he alienates members of both parties, he always tries to get a compromise. In that sense, he ought to be the conservative’s favorite democratic president. Imagine how things would’ve turned out it Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, in comparison to Obama. I could understand you saying that comment about her, but Obama? A democrat wouldn’t even believe he deserved a comment like that. He didn’t even pass that bill on the debt ceiling without bending backwards for the right. I mean, I know that he’s a democrat and all, but I really don’t get where that comment is coming from. o_O

I agree with much of what you say, but I still believe a balance exists between freedom and slavery. Capitalist allows you to rise and fall through classes freely. Communism allows no rising and falling at all. In all the middle territory, you still retain the right to rise and fall (aka the American Dream, or something), but it is restricted. Freedom can exist within limitations. Freedom without limitations is insanity, but with too many limitations is suffocating and unrealistic. And I know you need individuals in a society, but I don’t understand how making those individuals sacrifice their freedom in order to live with each other betrays the idea of a society. Isn’t that the definition of a society? o_O

It seems we have different definitions of rights. You believe that a “right” is removed when it destroys the rights of others. I believe that a “right” is anything that you are capable of doing. I don’t entirely understand your definition, because logically, having the “right” to operate economically with complete freedom leads to capitalism. Capitalism leads to upper classes dominating the lower class, which impedes on the lower classes right to become upper class, or to operate with the same level of economic power as the upper class. In other words, the upper class possessing that right leads to the lower class losing their right to “happiness.” Okay, this is getting confusing. I’m just attempting to say that I believe that rights are inherent. You cannot relinquish your right to live when you kill somebody. You have a right to live as long as you are living. I don’t get how hurting another person’s rights would drive your own rights to become obsolete. We have rights, and we choose to exercise only some of those rights. And, we have to give up some rights in order to live in society. The success of the society (in my own opinion, which I hope you refute, because this is getting fun) is defined by the moderation in which those rights are held and relinquished.

Man, this was long.

“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man.”

The Law – http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Second, I don’t think you or @gil and I are using the same definitions for socialism or capitalism, since you view them as the same. Capitalism is not a social system, like socialism. It has no planners, no central control, or rules other than being predicated on outlawing the use of Force in human interaction (in contrast, collectivism, in it’s various forms, requires the use of Force). However, you ARE correct that, in America, we have a mixed economy that is far more socialistic than capitalistic. But that’s exactly the problem. There is no ‘balance’ between freedom or slavery. All forms of collectivism, which includes socialism, are slavery – slavery to other men, “society”, the “common good” – whatever you wish to call it. At their core – collectivist ideas are a regression into tribalism. Essentially, the belief is one that man exists for the sake of the tribe – rather than for himself.

And all forms of collectivism: Communism, Fascism, Socialism — reject or sacrifice the three pillars of man (above) in some way or another for a relativistic fiction called “the common good.” You have no “society” without individuals – so you have to start with individuals rights, property, what is man? – before you can even propose concepts like “society”.

And we are not giving up the “right” to murder someone else – because it cannot be a right. Rights by definition are inherent to a man – therefore, there cannot be a right which destroys rights. Any initiation of Force against another person violates their basic right to life — to use their logical abilities (liberty) to produce property — that property used to sustain life. Therefore “murder” and “rape” cannot be rights because they violate the right to life. We don’t give them up to live in society. We cannot employ them without warranting the only destruction we have the right to — our own.

Also, socialism is a recent concept. Before then, capitalism was the common form of economy in nearly all countries, and there has been oppression and detriment in all of those societies.

Also, what is “the very fabric” of a human being? Giving up one’s right to earn money for the sake of the government? Unlike communism, socialism still leaves people with property rights. And if you’re saying that giving up rights in itself (like submitting to taxation) is immoral, then look at it socially: Murder, rape, and maiming people should be a right, because we generally all have those abilities. However, those activities are harmful to the victims (AKA society), so we have to give them up if we want to live in society. In order to maintain a good society, we need a balance between complete freedom (capitalism) and complete slavery (communism). Socialism is that balance. It is giving up our personal freedoms to such a degree that it is beneficial to the rest of society without being completely detrimental to ourselves.

Somebody ought to create a counterargument somewhere for all of this. Then we could have a debate. That would be fun :D