dreadbeef

Do you think democratic socialism fundamentally, foundationally, has a stance on what is and isnt property, and who can or cannot own it, and what is or is not ownership of property, and what level of violence is or is not tolerable in defense of property? If socialism does have quantifiable stances on these things, is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest socialism makes an attempt to address the issue of the original post?

Democratic Capitalism says anyone can own property, anything and anyone can be property (slavery is state sponsored and is allowed within democratic capitalism), and it allows murder in defense of any property. Can a cop kill someone looting a grocery store? Do you believe such a thing be allowed fundamentally allowed in a democratic socialist economic system? Which system do you think would logically lead to a more peaceful planet—the status quo or democratic socialism?

Let's try out democratic socialism instead of democratic capitalism, why not? I love America and my neighbors of all races and religions and creeds, let's make it great with socialism.

The real fantasy is believing capitalism will usher in a semblance of peace across this Earth, yes even for those brown and black people in the americas, Middle East, pacific islands, and Africa. I'm not so sure why you believe it's the only way to make it happen.

Any economic system that has no safeguard to the "can someone own the Earth in your system?" problem is not a valid one in my opinion.

Socialism attempts to solve the problem by stating "the Earth isn't ownable under socialism, and anyone who tries to own a piece of it is met with resistance. Anyone who tries to own a piece of land by violent means is resisted by violent means". This is the nature of socialism and its theory on ownership. Is this not something that would benefit the Earth compared to the existing capitalist system that is only limited by democracy, which has historically used, and is currently using, systemic state-sponsored violence and regime change to achieve its goals?

Anti-trust laws prevented the violence that capitalism caused in the middle east the past 30 years? When did they prevent it? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are preventing this from happening in the modern era? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are more effective in creating a peaceful world compared to just trying democratic socialism (as opposed to the status quo of democratic capitalism prevalent in the west)?

These are literally critical questions. I'm asking "what prevents it". If "nothing" prevents it then nothing prevents it and maybe we should try to figure out ways to prevent it before it becomes a reality because "nothing prevents it".

No doubt, but I'm talking to people who care about the term capitalism so much that they'll be considered "pro capitalism." That's fine if you're not a capitalist, but I'm not trying to argue that people who are already not pro capitalism should be against it, I'm trying to argue that people who are pro capitalism should be against it.

What law prevents a nation from expanding its borders to include the entire earth as long as "might is right" remains unchecked in this world?

It's simply asking "what are the safeguards of capitalism that prevents a terrible person from doing terrible things with its seeming limitless ability to affect the Earth and its inhabitants?"

So far the answer has been: Western Democracy

"Is western democracy is enough to keep capitalism from doing terrible things to Earth and its inhabitants" is my question. The framing obviously alludes to the argument:

Western democracy is either complicit in allowing genocide and conflict across the middle east over the past three decades, or it has been too powerless and ineffective to prevent it. Maybe we should give the opposition to capitalism (any form of anti-capitalism) a try to maintain peace across this beautiful world we all inhabit and need to live.

literally happened to me man. I was 22. She was 24. I asked if she wanted me to massage her back so I did and then I fell asleep. And people say I'm not allowed to diagnose myself autistic...

Same, but I feel like a steward of the web, I've been using it for so long lol

Not interested in that other stuff, but are there any sites you recommend that are closer to the old qa?

Yeah that's new 2014+ Reddit technology, back in the early days of the internet sarcasm was a lot harder to detect and you were expected to figure it out with context haha

lots of us don't know people expect /s and still try to be sarcastic without /s

instead we used clues like emojis to denote it's not serious like "lol" or "haha" when it's sarcastic and funny or ;-; or T-T when it's sarcasm and expressing frustration