Like I said earlier, people came to this country from war torn countries in the 1970's not knowing a word of English and without money, and they've largely been very successful. People win all the time.

For whom are you claiming it is impossible to "win?"

It follows from your claim (1)

Logic isn't your strong point. What claim? How does it follow?

I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you, since I numbered the claims above.

If it's impossible for everyone to succeed, that means there's a set of people for whom it's impossible to succeed.

That's right. If I may, Rasczak's strategy makes that group strictly based on ability (theoretically anyway, although we all know that Paris Hilton, e.g., didn't succeed on her own ability).

The American economy is based on the notion that there is a shortage of resources and there is only enough for a handful to be comfortable. That may have been true once, but it no longer is. I see no reason why a larger portion can't benefit from the resources that this country controls. A majority of the wealth of the nation is concentrated on a few people. Why? Why should it be that way?

If there's only one burger, and neither of us has eaten in weeks, then we'll fight over it. Well and good. But if there are a dozen, and we've both eaten recently, then why can't we share the food? Why do we honor those who hoard large amounts of wealth to themselves?

While Hilton has money, I wouldn't call her successful. She has taken a lot of opportunity and flushed it as far as I can tell.

That "group" isn't based on ability, its based more on decisions and also what a person considers success. There are people with ability - smarts, stable family background, etc, that piss it all away on bad decisions. There are also people with challenges that overcome them and succeed.

I think that is comparing it with a rather low standard. Frankly i think it is better to have the poorest poorer, but with more equal chances then with them fixed into their classes but richer.
Why should a bright guy/girl with some problems not be able get educated and get a job more suitable for him. I mean, does it not suck that this guy would be doing a mind-numbing job much below what he is capable of, just because society did not bother in giving him the education? (basically because of greed)
That is probably the hollowest guarantee in the constitution. The pursuit of happiness can still be there in the torture chamber.

I agree. However, she does in fact have the things that many people associate with success.
Sure. I was using a broad definition of "ability" that would include good decision making rather than only raw ability.

... but Communism doesn't work.

I guess you ran out of logical arguments.

There has always been some amount of forced sharing, i.e. taxes for public services. Short of anarchy, something other than pure capitalism will be in effect. The key decision is how far to go.

Do taxes only pay for the roads that we share, or should it set minimum standards for nourishment and health? We should be honest about these decisions, and not pretend that it's a choice between pure market forces or not. We should honestly say, "okay, I'm willing to share roads and the military with you, but not food or medicine. It would be allowed, and it would be honest. I wouldn't necessarily want to be part of that society myself, but then it becomes a personal preference.

Just saying it's either capitalism or communism doesn't cut it, with me at least.

Pure capitalism is not anarchy.

But it doesn't exist, and probably can't.

Sure it is.

Explain

Pure capitalism means no restrictions on anything that has to do with money. I'm allowed to do anything that benefits me financially. Including violence and theft. We usually don't think about those things. Because we all agree that these things shouldn't be allowed to occur. But it is a restriction on what we can do to improve our business. That means it isn't quite pure capitalism.

Your definition of capitalism is wrong. Theft is not "free trade" it is robbery - it is the exact opposite of capitalism. When someone is forced by threat of violence to give something up, or even by deceit, that is not capitalism. So under capitalism, no, you aren't allowed to do anything you want.

@Rasczak, and what is to prevent theft in 'pure capitalism', then? There has to be some justice and enforcement system that is not bound by free market.(If it were in the free market too, that would be rather bribable.) Hence it would not be 'pure capitalism'.

Wow, wait, what?

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard part 1

Go learn something about free markets and try again later.