Statism covers such political systems (for example) as socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism; they all rely on the same philosophic principles - they do vary in degree of brutality and violation of individual rights.
And capitalism doesn't
have any underlying philosophical principles?
A 'statist' is someone that believes some individuals have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder other individuals.
That's hyperbola, Shingen. You're sounding like one of those militia guys again. You'd be paranoid if you think that "statist" governments set out to coerce and enslave their citizens. In fact, the thinking behind these governments is to try and make life for the average citizen (and yes, that can be taken in the mathematical sense here) better. Naturally an average is higher than the low numbers, and lower than the high ones in a distribution.
The Berlin Wall, for example. It is never necessary for a capitalistic country to build walls to keep people in.
That is correct. But just because the countries that do build walls are "statist", doesn't mean that all "statist" (argh I hate
this word!) governments build walls. It is not all black and white. And a strong government doesn't imply it imprisons its citizens, either.
Yes, I dare call *most* of Europe stagnant, it mostly is and has been (from nearly every standpoint, in terms of producing new technology, in terms of expanding economically, etc.).
You will have to back that up with some hard evidence. Even economically (as if that was all that mattered?? are all capitalists that one-dimensional?) Europe leads in some, though of course not all, fields.
You say "Its's probably statements like this," is it or isn't it?
It is (statements like these that reinforces people's stereotypes of Americans). Me saying "probably" must've been my whacky British humour.
You mention the scenario of someone working all their life, and never making it out of poverty; how do you think Henry Ford made his money? Or Andrew Carnegie
For each Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie success story, there are hundreds, maybe thousands who are never able to break free from their long hard low-wage job, and who remain hot dog sellers on the streets of Manhattan all their lives.
Europe doesn't have many billionaires or millionaires
That is true; at the same time though, we have less people living under the existence minimum. You know, those drug-users who are too lazy to get a job and just steal your hard-earned bucks instead.
Check out how much is given to education each year by the wealthy, who donate to universities, to medical facilities, etc. The sum is likely greater than the GDP of some of the smaller nations in Europe. I can get you specific figures if you would like.
You don't need to. It is not much of a surprise given that the USA is a so much larger country than your "smaller nations in Europe".
You're thinking in terms of "where is your provision for robbing people?". That is, "where is your provision for forcing people to give their money away?".
No, only you libertarians see it as robbing. I see it as, "where is your provision for ensuring everyone is able to live at a certain standard of existence? How can we ENSURE [note voluntary donations are not the way to do this] that if people fall on hard times and need help, there will be means to help them get back on their feet again?"
Shingen, suppose you lost your leg in an accident or something, God forbid, and were no longer be able to go out to work. Under your "capitalist" system, you would be left to your own devices, hoping some kind-hearted millionaire would give you some of his money. Have you ever considered that?
it is only necessary to protect an individual from having his/her right to speech removed by the initiation of force (if force isn't used to do such, then freedom of speech exists). This same concept applies to every other individual right.
So you think there should be no limits to freedom of speech?
Stuff like defamation laws should be abolished?