Everyone loves power, the lust for power and money corrupts. Unless you have Jesus in charge of the treasury, it's not going to work, ever.

[quote]Not necessarily. In true socialism things are collectively owned. ---I'm sorry but no. That's the fallacy because in order to enforce collective ownership it has to be enforced by a centralized power. So ironically the government controls it So rather than the boss being the owner and hiring employees, the the workers are the owners and they hire a boss. ---yes hire the Supreme ruler Socialism just refers to who owns the means of production. There's no rules that it must be government.[/quote] ---yes it is garenteed. Capitalism means voluntary transactions and free enterprise. You own your property meaning it's truly owned by the people not collectively but individually

[quote]Not necessarily. In true socialism things are collectively owned. ---I'm sorry but no. That's the fallacy because in order to enforce collective ownership it has to be enforced by a centralized power. So ironically the government controls it So rather than the boss being the owner and hiring employees, the the workers are the owners and they hire a boss. ---yes hire the Supreme ruler Socialism just refers to who owns the means of production. There's no rules that it must be government.[/quote] ---yes it is garenteed. Capitalism means voluntary transactions and free enterprise. You own your property meaning it's truly owned by the people not collectively but individually

As far as a country wide system, yes.

The only way for socialism to succeed is to subdue the people living within the system. It's simply human nature

( ;-;)

I'm curious. Name one place where decentralization has worked for decades (besides the US, although that can be debated depending on which part of the US you're in).

Which is why we have checks and balances.

...probably, yeah.

Not exactly: you're giving humans too much credit. The age old philosophy about humans is that the true nature of man is duality. I won't go into philosophical details, but the prevailing belief during the enlightenment was a Civilization vs Barbarism duality, meaning man can be both civil and barbaric through his words, actions, personality, physique, etc. This in turn loops around to the notion that humans possess the capacity to be "mature" or "immature" based on which side of their duality is dominant. This nature is rooted within the human species as apart of it's natural mechanisms for survival. People are social creatures, and studies have found that being isolated or ostracized for extended periods of time can have negative effects on the person's well being. Additionally, humans are still hardwired to want and avoid certain concepts; sexual procreation and perceived danger are just one example of each, respectively. So over time, conditions change and so do humans. Instead of fighting against predators to survive, they fight economic and political battles to become successful. Instead of developing hunting parties or living communities, they gather likes and followers on social media. The playing field changes, but the nature remains the same. To phrase it nicely: humans are naturally immature, or rather self-concerned, because their barbaric nature is rooted within their survival instincts. We are also naturally social and kind because of our civilized nature, ergo we constantly seek the company of friends.

[quote]Europe is not a country, it's a [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Europe] continent [/url] Also, majority of the countries that make up the continent of Europe already have some form of socialism since their creation and heavily tax everyone where America we started out as capitalists.[/quote] Really they always had some form of socialism? Do you not have any idea why the French Revolution happened?

[quote]And capitalism would save it? The problem isn't the system its the people who run it.[/quote] Yes it would save it duuuuuuh