Y'all are completely off base:
Communists hold that State ownership of the means of production is the sole means of guaranteeing the liberty and equality that is superficially promised by other political/economic systems, but generally enjoyed by only a few plutocrats.
Socialism holds that the State must have a free hand to regulate private property & liberty to assure that one person's exercise of liberty and property rights doesn't come at the expense their neighbor's equal right to the pursuit of happiness. Thus trading off some liberty for equality.
Capitalism is best defended by noting that growing the entire economic pie generally succeeds in improving the lot of the poor more assuredly than can be expected from those systems that pursue equality first. Even though there may be egregious inequity in distribution of welfare among citizens and, therefore, privileges of citizens, still the welfare of the state as a whole will be better. So, the less regulation of private property, the better. People are best motivated by self interest.
So, none of these has much to do with whether the State is authoritarian, representative republic or pure democracy. They all have to do with the function of govt as it relates to private property rights.
The trick for capitalists and libertarians is how to enforce allocation of costs for negative externalities of production? That is, if you wish to farm or fish on your property, but your neighbor wishes to have a tire fire/landfill, then who's liberty is to be constrained if they are unwilling to sell or cease at anything like a reasonable price?
[Hint: if the State does nothing, tire fire always wins.]
Oh...doubleteaming works fine. I tend to prefer to DT poor passers on the theory that it should generate more turnovers. Some success on that score. I've never felt that it was very effective at providing "help" defense to a poor defender that might otherwise be targeted in man.
9/10/2016 10:49 AM (edited)