Hmm. In most capitalist run countries, most occupants have a relatively convienent lifestyle. All that is required to keep all your nice sparkly benifits, is that you work, make money, and spend money. However, the consumer based setup cares little of the costs and damage done to things in certain aspects. In other words, if it doesn't generate any money, it's off the radar entirely. The second is, when somebody, or particularily a large sum of people dislike the system and make their voice quite loud, the head honchos just nod quietly, and the present their counter. "Okay, you guys don't like the way things are? Well, we'll take your house, your job, and all the nice comfy and cool things you own that you haven't paid off. We'll shut things down, and see how you all like it." Capitalism is fine when left alone to do it's own thing, but when disturbed, it's not a happy camper. So, work as a part of the system all your life, and in return for it, you get access to a lot of really nice things. But stand up to it, and you'll end up in the shitter real fast. And, worst of all, environmental problems are ignored entirely. I'm stuck in between a 3 and a 2. It's a decent system in that it provides a lot of eye candy for those who participate in it, but in the background, there's a lot of disparity between the upper and lower classes, as well as the blatent ignorance shown about environmental destruction. I'll go with 2. It's a liveable system, but far away from being ideal.