Thank you for your detailed reply. I know exactly what you and TB are aguing about and it was clearly elucidated in print over 40 years ago:

Socialism in Russia is now restoring individualistic motives to give its system greater productive stimulus, and to allow its people more physical and intellectual liberty. Meanwhile capitalism undergoes a correlative process of limiting individualistic acquisition by semi-socialistic legislation and the redistribution of wealth through the "welfare state." Marx was an unfaithful disciple of Hegel: He interpreted the Hegelian dialectic as implying that the struggle between capitalism and socialism would end in the complete victory of socialism; but if the Hegelian formula of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is applied to the industrial revolution is applied to the Industrial Revolution as thesis, and to capitalism versus socialism as antithesis, the thid condition would be a synthesis of capitalism and socialism; and to this reconciliation the western world visibly moves. Year by year the role of Western governments in the economy rises, the share of the private sector declines. Capitalism retains the stimulus of private property, free enterprise and competition, and produces a rich supply of goods; high taxation, falling heavily on the upper classes, enables the government to provide for a self-limited population unprecedented services in education, health and recreation. The fear of capitalism has compelled socialism to widen freedom, and the fear of socialism has compelled capitalism to increase equality. East is West and West is East and soon the twain will meet.

Source: Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History - 1968

This is what both of you have been arguing about on these boards since your arrival. TB watches the increasing and creeping socialism infest capitalism and you watch the capitalism strangle socialism. Both of you realize certain merits of this "synthesis" of capitalism and socialism, as the Durants put it, but both fear that it will not end up in a reconciliation, but rather in the domination of one system over the other.

And this fear is not irrational. In 1968, when the above observations were published, the Soviet Union still held fast and the Western world would never have imagined their governments would be bailing out private banks with taxpayer dollars and discussing nationalization of certain industries. I would say that, in this year of 2009, the twain have met and the outcome is a very unsustainable mixture. The two systems and motivations are largely incompatible and what's more important: those advocating one system over the other as predominantly beneficial - like you both - are dedicated to purity of your visions of how a proper society should exist and function.

So a proper synthesis will not be found until the likes of the two of you can alslo reach a reconciliation and a synthesis of your societal viewpoints. How likely is that? ;-) As long as there exist strong-willed advocates of one system, the conflict will not be settled and both the West and the East will struggle with the peoples will and the tangible forces of capital, power and ideas.

That's why the two of you always end up in a stand off, neither one giving more than an inch. You both realize instinctively the power in the other's philosophy and also realize, if unchecked, it will surely dominate.

I realize the need for the synthesis of the two. I realize the need of powerful anti-trust legislation, a more powerful SEC, etc. I also realize that these government controls when made too powerful will destroy the very wealth they wish to regulate and disperse more equitably and justly. If everyone shared this understanding and if the wealth generators and the bureaucrats realized this truth too, the entire world could shift, significantly, to a more utopic existence that generates ample wealth and distributes it justly.