Have you ever considered moving to Ethiopia? I hear they employ 100% laissez-faire capitalism and have no regulations, so it must be a true utopia.

ps: none of the countries you mentioned are communist.

This whole discussion has been a long string of pseudo-profundity and logical fallacies. "We survived an ice age with primitive tools, so don't worry about global warming." "The gambling that goes on at Wall Street doesn't affect anyone except the traders themselves." "Rich people are a force for good, just look at Bill Gates's charity work." "People don't want socialism because they don't spontaneously begin collectives inside of a capitalist system." "You're just sloganeering, so I don't have to reply to you." "Socialism is about putting Tesla to work in a factory."

You wouldn't say any of these things if you had done even the most rudimentary research, assuming you're serious about learning things.

You're using the exact same excuse!

Remember when we were talking about the banks bailouts? That "wasn't capitalism." And actually, I agree! Under capitalism, all those banks would die. We both know that has nothing to do with capitalism.
Yet when people misuse the name of communism to carry out killings or totalitarianism or propagandistic catechisms, we're not allowed to make the case that it has nothing to do with communism. Then it's suddenly a "no true Scotsman".

You're being completely hypocritical. And again, you're refraining from actually analyzing things properly. If you were serious, you'd look at what Karl Marx actually said and compare it to what actually happened. You can't do that because you probably haven't read a single word of it.

Let's say for a moment that I agree with you that people working for others work for others because they lack the education to either work for themselves or pull themselves higher in some systemic framework of management. From here we can take a few paths of argument and rationale.

Argument 1: So is the Group, as is the Individual
The first path of argument is that the "stuff" that workers would decide is stuff that pertains to basic human life. I say this because that is what a government decides in a system where a state exists, unlike communism, which has no state. So in a system where there is no state and there are "workers deciding stuff", the collective fills the void of power. Let's then say all of the workers are uneducated - which is unlikely because even if humans are inherently selfish, as you believe, a collective would then be a group of people with the desire to improve themselves, which means education provided for group members - then it still doesn't matter.

Regardless of education, each person knows what he or she needs to survive and pursue happiness. A person also knows who or what can provide those items. In a situation where a person is a member of a group that must provide those things, a person supports the group at the expense of his or her own extensions of what we might call freedom. This is a Hobbesian argument which has nothing to do with Marxism and is, in fact, usually a good argument for the existence of a state, but which I am using it to argue against - I am sure, being a libertarian, that you have read Leviathan and if you have not, then I would consider you to be a person who hasn't attained the intellectual sophistication to argue for libertarianism. So in a situation where there is a group made up of people who will support the group in defiance of their own personal selfishness for freedom, you have compulsion to work without a gun, without a blatant work-or-starve system - because you know the group will help you if you can't work and if that is the case you will reciprocate when you can based on the same values you hold that makes you support the group in the first place. Each member helps the group because it is "the right thing to do" and that has nothing to do with some objective moral good, it is simply a desire to help the group out because at the end of the day, everyone is better off and because each individual knows the value of the things they receive by supporting the group. This allows a collective to function by the same mentality as an individual seeks wealth in capitalism except with less inequality. It is the difference between "work hard and you will succeed" and "work hard and we will all succeed", but because we tell ourselves that only we will succeed for hard work, we, by deduction, are oblivious when others need help. Because we discard the concept of a group being good, we can never have the benefits it provides because it requires the buy in of all of its members to provide them and each person's resolve to buy in is reinforced by others' resolve to buy in. Collectivist mentality works because it is a self sustaining system of motivation that begins as collective selfishness and ends as collective advancement (something better) as opposed to capitalism that begins as individual selfishness and ends at individual vindictiveness (something worse). But they both begin with the same motivation: desire to live and prosper (selfishness). The difference is in the social conditioning, not in natural instinct.

Argument 2: Scarcity of the Rights to Progression
So you've blown past my first argument and don't buy into my selfishness = collectivism argument. That's alright, I still have some flaws to point out. In the way that you made your statement, you said not that workers are inherently stupid, but that they have yet to attain intelligence. That is a good statement, one that you have to make for the basic tenants of capitalism to apply: that people can become better than what they are. I agree with you on that. So let's discuss the question of access. For this argument (and thus the proper functioning of capitalism, then objectivism, your school of thought) each person can be unequal (your Tesla argument) to others, but they must be provided with equal opportunity. If this is the case, under capitalism each person will rise to their own level of ability or motivation and those with higher ability or better work ethic will rise higher than those without based on taking advantage of the same opportunity. Okay, I accept that too. The problem with your argument is that, when you accept those things, you see that there is not equal access in capitalism ever. It necessitates that there not be simply because the entire point of rising in capitalism to provide yourself with better things, including better access to things for your close social partners such as friends and family. Along the way you are socialized to do this by the act of doing it without social forces at work to counteract that socialization.

Let's begin a simple thought experiment on capitalism without a government and even without any social forces at work here. Capitalism down to its most basic mathematical essence. In a system beginning with equality, where opportunity value is 10 = 10 = 10 = 10

and on down the line for each person beginning in the system, the act of rising in the system means that you wish to improve yourself. Given the choice to invest in yourself (or your friends and family) or someone you don't know, you will pick the former because your disposable capital is fixed (you do not have infinite). 10 is comfortable opportunity and each person, in the new capitalist-objectivist society, is comfortable beginning. The represents what is required to overcome the barriers to success, which are things like the level of intellectual awareness you stated. In a capitalist-only society, education (and thus intellectual advancement) will obviously cost money because there are no public facilities to provide it, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that idea providing everyone has the equal opportunity to pay, which right now they do in this experiment.

So let's say that we avoid the argument that you can only advantage yourself by disadvantaging others (because I don't know if I really buy that argument even in a capitalist system) and you invest in yourself and therefore your children. Lets say you invest 1. So now society looks like this: 11 = 10 = 10 = 10. The next person in line is even more successful than you and invests 2. so society looks like this: 11 = 12 = 10 = 10 and the last two are just average people who get by enough on the equal opportunity they were presented with, they didn't lose anything or get in debt, they lived responsible lives. So now the next generation rolls around and everyone's children start trying to survive in society. So your children and the second person's children now have a better opportunity for success because you invested in your children's future. Now a natural occurrence happens in capitalism: inflation. This happens because of business cycles, something that happens because some people are more successful than others due to their natural ability or hard work, something Adam Smith described as inherent in capitalism. So now 11 is the new 10. So lets do some simple math:

(10 + 1) / 11 * 10 = 10
(10 + 2) / 11 * 10 = 10.9
(10 + 0) / 11 * 10 = 9.1
(10 + 0) /11 * 10 = 9.1

So there we go, if we assume 10 is comfortable opportunity, now suddenly half of the members of our theoretical capitalist society no longer have comfortable opportunity through no fault of their own. They were not unsuccessful, they remained comfortable all their lives, but now their children are less comfortable because their parents did not have enough above average success to sustain themselves as average after inflation. Now say one of them is as successful as you were in the first generation, they gain 1. and your children, of course, gain 1 or 2. So we have this in the end: 11 = 12.9 = 10.1 = 10.1. And then inflation:

(10+1) / 11 * 10 = 10
(10.9+2) / 11 * 10 = 11.7
(9.1+1) / 11 = 9.2
(9.1+1) / 11 = 9.2

What's this? Even though their parents were moderately successful in their life (as successful as your kids) still half of the third generation's kids still do not go forward with a comfortable level of opportunity, yet yours do. So now to leave their kids with a comfortable level of opportunity, they must make double the effort of your grandchildren (they need at least 2 for inflation to reset them to over 10 for the next generation). The thing is, this is with everything else fixed, there are no other external forces that impact opportunity except inflation (in real life there are many more thanks to the existence of a state and the mentalities of society). This is just a thought experiment on capitalism in a stateless society,

and yet even in the absolute best conditions, capitalism still destroys its own inequality immediately after its inception without an external body (state) to ensure that opportunity stays fixed by subsidizing the opportunity of anyone who is unsuccessful. This leads to problems at the top end (banks unable to fail) and at the bottom end (no motivation to work). The current US government (and, for the most part, any other failing capitalist state) has evolved out of what its economic backbone necessitates because it is an imperfect system to begin with.

BINGO!

See, those workers are stupid and need leadership from smart people who know what's best for them. They're much better off working in the factories under our orders. Sound a lot like something you happened to be railing against before?

The thing is, those workers really aren't that stupid if you bother to look at what they actually think. It's just that if they had a say in what happens in government, they'd be making serious moves for their own benefit. Looking at labor history is illuminating in this regard. Child labor laws were not repealed because the factory owners suddenly decided to have morals. Health-safety standards were not instated because the wealthy elites decided it would be nice if people stopped dying while working. The same goes for social security and affordable healthcare. The rich did not need those things and did not do a thing to see them put into existence. It was solely thanks to the work of those same, stupid workers that we're allowed to live if we get into an accident.

So when you look at polls of what one particularly reviled group of workers think, you'll find that even the Tea Party members support welfare (as long as it's not called welfare, as that word's been tainted). The US public itself has been in favor of a Canadian-styled single-payer healthcare system for a long time, with a solid majority. They would prefer it if the government provided them with equal health coverage regardless of wealth and income. Well, that has absolutely no benefits whatsoever for the rich elites, so obviously those stupid workers lack the intellectual sophistication to make smart decisions.

Aside from the juvenile rhetoric and illogical nonsense, I think you ought to be applauded for at least being honest about the fact you think of poor people as stupid automatons who should just obey the masters. Galt would be proud.

Nope, even if you want to interpret that as me making the same excuse as you, that's still not a capitalistic measure, that's just nepotism, corruption, government favoring their butt buddies or whatever else you want to call it. This is inherent to any system involving people, including your fabulous socialism, which is why it will NEVER work.

yeah i guess if you were a completely naive autist this may seem apparent, but when you look throughout history this has really never been the case and the working class has been subject to pretty brutal repression(by none other than the rugged industrialists or state bureaucrats) when they've organized. the state is the governing apparatus of the ruling class, when they break strikes it's because they're serving a class interest, and not acting as some autonomous entity disconnected from the economy.

Economists are notoriously awful at math and complete philistines in the discipline. Mises and Heyek are no exception.

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf
... so much for that argument!

& the LTV is more or less valid. ~*deal with it*~