[Todd D.]

And what of a corporation that pollutes the environment? Isn't this stealing the air and water from everyone?

Yeah, it's called an externality. There are ways of dealing with that, most notably with tradeable permits and assigning property rights. Direct regulation does little in this arena.

The only reason corporations or millionaire stockholders exist is because it is the will of the people that they exist. If the people decide they don't want these wasteful, damaging inequalities anymore, they can vote them away, in a democracy, that is.

I don't care how many people say that it's ok, restricting capitalism and the freedom of association is unconstitutional and will in the end be crippling for the economy. Centralized and regulated industry, you know, the ones that SAY that they are for the people, will always be more innefficient and downright shittier than the companies that HAVE to be for the people. See, at the end of the day, you don't have to buy Tide, or go to McDonalds, so they do things that make themselves more attractive to you. Competition ensures that they must remain attractive. Elimination of competition will in the end be shittier for the consumer.

Capitalism is a tradition the way that slavery and misoginy were traditions. When society progresses, it demands different things of its institutions.

You are correct. However, what you falsely infer that Socialism is farther along in the progression. Well, despite what a poor man's Santa Claus tells you, saying that Socialism is farther along the evolutionary ladder than Capitalism is like saying that Monkeys are more evolved because they have a tail and we don't. The example is true, but the result is pure bullshit. Empirical proof has shown time and time again that Socialism has failed or is failing in every single arena that it has ever been tried. Instead of dismissing it though, we are lulled by it's siren song of equality and fairness, and we always get our dreams smashed on the rocks of oppression and inefficiency.

Adam Smith-ing everything doesn't solve some of the root problems of power feeding power, the American Dream being the desperate struggle for self-actualization through material acquisition.

Please. Assigning value to something is human nature. We as a people are not uniform, and with different tastes come different values to certain products. Money is simply the uniform method of facilitating those trades. Arguing with that is like arguing with gravity.

Wake up and look at the world around you. Some of these people in other countries haven't slept, let alone dreamt, because of the constant din of Americans pursuing their dreams with machine guns in third world countries. Likewise, thousands of species will be American Dreaming forever since they no longer exist in the real world. Reactionaries like Reagan and Bush [and Clinton] will be fondly remembered in history as the people who almost stopped progress dead in its tracks, not the protectors of glorious Americana that those in deep denial would pretend they were.

Once again, you are insane. Your cute use of the dreaming rhetoric does not hide the fact that at the end of the day, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. I don't need to debunk this artistic, yet mundane rant because you decided not to make any real accusations, simply vague references to third world countries who don't have the same standard of living as the United States. If you really want to discuss that we can, but I would kindly suggest backing off, because you are going to get blown out there.

Also, did you just quote Tears for Fears? What's the matter with you? Next time Banarama? Rock on.