I would agree that the totalitarian countries made an attempt. They didn't get there, as your posting points out.

Equality can't be imposed, it has to be desired first. That is where cultural norms come into play, and that is why I indicated that at this stage of human development it is not possible.

We've made huge strides technologically, but socially we are still little better than savages. (IMO)

This country, according to most on both right and left is in a precarious position economically. Precisely BECAUSE of the elitist position that ideas are worth infinitely more than workers....offshoring production, putting self interest way too far ahead of community interest, again, in my opinion.

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

Ok, that still fits my capitalism definition does it not? As long as it operates without government interference I'm game

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

What happens if the government is the individual, like with a monarchy.

I disagree. If economic self interest was the ONLY factor motivating people, why reproduce? That would NOT be in your self interest in todays world because child take away from your economic self interest.

Other factors can influence people to take actions not in their best economic interest as well. Romantic love can make people do all kinds of crazy shit.

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

Equality HAS to be imposed because you will never have agreement on what is "equal". And what do you do with those who don't agree? Off to the labor camps for them.

Even IF we were able to provide all material comfort easily, you would still have people who want more or want something that someone else has. I mean wouldn't we all want to live in the best house in Hawaii. How are you going to decide who gets that?

No, the simple fact is that there will always be divisions in humanity, and as Nietschze pointed out, the more "equal" things become the more resentment there will be for any perceived inequality. This is the true basis underlying communism. It is resentment empowered. So naturally this is going to end up in totalitarianism.

As for the Star Trek scenario. That is fantasy, we live in the world today. So we must base our opinions on what is achievable, not what we hope.

Not necessarily, in that a child is an insurance policy for your future, both economically and socially.

Who owns the air, water, sun, and climate?

Or do you believe that air, water, sun are not factors of production?

Who owns the polluted water and air from a factory or land fill? The people who made it want to give it away, so they are charitable and provide it to you for free so that you will share in the bounty they have created?

That sounds like some sort of slavery or bondage. To place a burden on anyone is certainly the same as socialism.....

Are you implying that the government owns these things?

Your argument is not valid. Imposing certain regulation does not necessary impede free markets or Capitalism under nathan's definition and more than traffic laws do.

Well, the main difference with that and socialism is that the parent cannot force the kid to take care of the parent.

Otherwise you are correct, it is as much a type of slavery or bondage akin to socialism (in most instances).