The role of the U.S. Government isn't to defend people who bought more house than they could afford. The markets take care of themselves. The government should not intervene. The more people who lose their houses, the more affordable houses become and others who act more responsibly and don't have as much money will be able to buy them at the lower price.

I don't see why responsible people should be taxed to pay for the irresponsibility of others and also don't see how the government should be involved at all.

When the government meddles in the markets, we have disaster. That is what caused the great depression in America. When markets are allowed to adjust naturally without intervention, we have normal cycles.

Except that they don't. Government has always meddled in the market, it's just that it usually meddles on behalf of big business and lobby interests.

Unhampered Free-Markets ALWAYS take care of themselves and have never failed. Only when government involves itself do things fail. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics knows this.

The invisible hand absolutely exists and absolutely works 100% of the time. The hard part is keeping government out of the markets. The more government involvement (especially in regulations) the worse off the economy, and the less freedom people have.

Socialism is always wrong.

I do not believe it has been truly tested, anymore than I believe communism has been truly tested. Even the most hands off gvernments aren't actually hands off. Rules and laws relating to trade are skewed in favour of a particular class and even in a predominately laissez faire government such as America's there are such things as trade protectionism, subsidies and corporate welfare.

I tend to agree with you on capitalism not being fully tested, but not communism. Communism was setup the way it is described by Marx, but it never lasts because it violates human nature. What is the motivation for one person to produce more than another when there is no more reward? People who do more naturally want more than the guy who does less.

History has proven many times over that the more a country embraces socialism or communism, the more likely that country is to collapse financially under its own weight and beg capitalists to bail them out. Communism always ends up being totalitarianism because an iron fist is required to force people to violate their own nature.

Socialism and communism require force to exist, while capitalism does not. In capitalism every person is a winner in every transaction because every transaction is voluntary and each person will do what is in their own best interest.

I have a dollar and I want an apple. You have an apple and you want a dollar. I buy your apple for a dollar. We both win. Some will claim I was ripped off for paying a whole dollar for an apple, but to me it was worth the price. Nobody forced me to give up my dollar for an apple.

If I had been walking in the desert for days and was starving and the guy sold me the apple for $100, I am still not a victim. The value of the apple rises the more I want it.

I disagree. In fact the people attempting to 'set up' communism also disagreed...with each other. There are many ways of intepreting Marx, and the mensheviks and Bolsheviks each had their own analysis of how to go about creating a communist state. From the very start the project was riven with internal dissent and civil war. In such a climate, Strongmen flourish. Systems envisaged to promote democratic participation were in fact skewed to the needs of said Strongmen. Communism, as envisaged by Marx was never implemented.

Technically it can never be implemented 100% as envisioned by Marx because humans can't do it; only robots can because it violates our very nature. Capitalism on the other hand, could be and does not violate human nature.

I am not sure I would agree completely. The system where government is involved in the markets is actually an important aspect. Regulations which control how companies can and cannot act are in important factor in controlling fraud and abuse. It is not perfect but I think it is better. Take for example Enron. A number of new rules and regulations were developed to hold CEO's more responsible for the bottom lines reported to the shareholders and those that trade on the stock in the various exchanges. There are other examples I am sure. It is important that we go after crooked companies and hold them responsible, it is the responsiblity of Government to do that.

Again, I disagree. Communism doesn't sit well with our concept of what an advanced society is. There have been numerous cultures which have developed along broadly collectivist principles. Many of those cultures are cultures we deem to be anachronistic and undeveloped. But the people living within them are (or were) still humans and those cultures do not clash with their nature. Many such cultures have since been eroded through contact with our culture and our concepts of ownership, trade and the market. The reason communism appears to run contrary to human nature is that the kind of culture and sensibilities which 'won the race', so to speak, have not developed along broadly collectivist lines. But there were fits and starts of collectivism within the history and development of even these cultures.

There is nothing inherently natural about market forces, or inherently unnatural about collectivism or communism. We view such concepts from the perspective of people raised within one of those systems and as such we are viewing the one through the filter of the other.

There are only 2 choices.

1) Free-Market capitalism which does not require force to exist.

2) Everything else.

However, since you can't prevent "force" from existing, you can't implement capitalism in a "force-free" environment.

The only valid use of force is for defense. We either trade dollars or bullets. I prefer trading freely and peacefully. Will there be some who don't subscribe to this? Yes, but then using force against them is ok.

So it would take some force to exist.

Capitalism doesn't take force to exist. It only takes force to defend. Capitalism can exist without force. No other system can.

If it can't exist without being defended by force, then it requires force to exist.