Isn't it ironic that

[kandrathe]

To me it seemed very clear from my post that I was opting for a system in which there is a free market, in other words, people can make a profit, own there own things etc. but are taxed enough so that a welfare system can be sustained.
I wasn't opting for a Khmer government.

The problem is that once people begin to accept being fed at the trough of government, they forget how to hunt for themselves. We need people to be self sufficient, and not dependent on the trough. If the choice is a zero hour work week and 1/2 salary, or 40 hour work week and full salary, I can tell you that people will opt for the dole every time. In my State, over 50% of the people here work for some form of government. The other 50% of workers already support them, and the social system. I'm in support of a safety net that keeps people from homelessness and starvation, and propels them back into the work force. Even many of those with disabilities can find some productive use for their time. The purpose of Capitalism in my opinion is to allow the market to determine what "valuable" means when it comes to the use of labor and capital investment, rather than some bureaucrat.

You will always have people trying to profit from whatever system they are in (most of the new Russian billionaires were also very powerful when it was still the communist soviet union) so that is not a point of discussion.

The Russian Oligarchs were not suddenly spawned, and existed well before Gorbachev accepted free market reforms. They were a part of the system, until the system failed and then their power became transparent.

A government should moderate or balance greed motives from its citizens.

With drugs? With force? A law? What does it take to enforce a law? How do you moderate greed motives? How does this jive with your statement "you will always have people trying to profit"? Do you want your government to restrain that quest for profit? We have very different ideas about what "freedom" means. The best way to enslave a person is to keep them impoverished and dependent on the masters benevolence.

Your remark about peaceful socialism I don't understand.

The idealism of "all for one and one for all" is great for herding the masses into a paddock of tyrannical dominion. History has shown repeatedly that once a population is so cowed, it becomes the next simple thing to eliminate any threat to the fence or silence any voice of dissent. Go back and reread "Animal Farm" by Orwell. I believe the concept of egalitarian utopia is unrealizable in a world where any one person can obliterate a city with the press of a button. It might work at the scale of a kibbutz, but at a national level, there are too many Berkshire boars ready to kick the eppie Snowballs off the farm.