A strong faith in capitalism as the only acceptable economic system, and a belief that all problems can be solved by the free market. Often identifiable due to rabid rantings against socialism and communism as evil at the slighest mention of a social program, or suggestion that the government should provide something for everyone. Vicious commentary about freeloaders when talking about welfare is also a sign.

It can often be seen in staunch libertarians as they talk about how everything should be privatized, though it's often present, maybe not as strongly, in many republicans.

Is often associated with a very strong belief that a person is defined by their work - perhaps influence by the protestant work ethic?

Actually, what it comes down to is: Defense.

If you find the system that you believe in, under attack, by someone, would you stand by & let them continously rip at it? Of course not..

Many people will take great pride in pointing out the errors of capitalism. But once someone dares to touch their precious Communism, Socialism, etc. They're a fringe character, who should be mocked, & downvoted into eternity. And remember, Libertarians are not a good example of capitalists. Their belief is "Freedom for all, but only if it's My brand of Freedom."

A good example of a Capitalist is someone who is a Democratic Capitalist. They believe in the system, but continually work at it. No system is perfect, no matter how much one might like to believe. But you work at it, & it gets better.

I do feel that, to a degree, a person is defined by their work. Michaelangelo, Socrates, Tina Turner. All very different people, And very different examples. But for the most part, they've been defined by their work. Their work in this case, is art. Different forms of art, yes, but still art.

A person can be defined to a degree by their personality, but most people have a drive in life. That drive is usually to work on something. Their work defines them. Maybe their "work" isn't their 9-5, but something they do on the side. Just because it doesn't result in a paycheck, does not mean that it does not count as work.

You have a goal, you strive for it, it's work. You poured yourself into it.

The node at the top of this page describes: "Often identifiable due to rabid rantings against socialism and communism..."

Does anyone feel that this writeup can be described in such a way?

And then goes onto say: " often present, maybe not as strongly, in many republicans."

Now, I guess it seems pretty fun to go after the Republicans...gotta have a hobby, right?

"Vicious commentary about freeloaders..."
Whats wrong with working for your fair share? I can see if someone hits the skids, & needs a month or so to get their shit back together, but christ, years? WTF man? Theres a 2 year max. for welfare now, thankfully...which is a good thing. This desire to help everyone might be good, but remember, it's at the expense of someone else. Help one, but step on another. But step on them as long as you don't like them, or don't agree with them, & it becomes OK?

I think not...

And for the Record, I am NOT DMan...

I've heard from many Western denizens lately -- Americans, Canadians, and Britons -- who think that socialized health care, trade, domain name registration, gun ownership, etc. are all the only sensible way to handle anything. It wasn't until recently that I heard from non-Westerners polarized to the exact opposite view.

The problem with both types of people is that extremism is invariably inaccurate; truth always lies somewhere in between. Capitalism is, IMO, a Very Good Thing in a government. It ensures that everyone has a chance to earn their own success and discourages people from relying on a higher power to provide for them in every time of need.

On the other hand, pure capitalism isn't a good thing either. This is because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in any such system: wealth begets wealth, and poverty begets poverty. It's always a good idea to have some socialist devices to keep this in check. Otherwise, the democratic majorities will have no way to ensure that their government treats them fairly.

Take the American health care system, for instance. It's currently dominated by a wealth of competing HMOs, with Medicare and Medicaid standing in for the poorest citizens. But the doctors and hospitals are still permitted to levy whatever prices they deem suitable for their work, no matter how basic -- including routine physicals, vaccinations, and eyeglasses. Canada, on the other hand, has a nationalized health care system as well as HMOs for those who can afford them. This way, everyone is entitled to basic care, and the population and country as a whole benefits.

It's certainly not a good idea for a government to manage all business. Competitive markets in the food industry, for instance, ensures that agricultural researchers constantly develop better hybrids and higher yields. But at the same time, allowing pure capitalism would permit the widespread use of agricultural pesticides or excess irrigation that could ruin the local environment. Government regulation is unquestionably a good thing in this regard.

It's been said that moderation is a virtue in all things. So it is with government economics. It's difficult, if not impossible, for any large nation to strike a perfect balance between the two, but few people will disagree that a balance, rather than an absolute extreme, is what's needed to benefit the largest number of people.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.