Sure, different ones have different levels of dictorshipness. To be clear, democratic and authoritarian are not opposites at all. Chattel slavery in the US was extremely authoritarian and awful, yet it was democratic. Abolition was a minority viewpoint until around the time of the Civil War.
That's the cartoon version of capitalism just like how "socialism is when the government does something" is the cartoon version of socialism. Capitalism just means that the means of production in a society are owned and controlled by private owners instead of by workers or the government as a proxy for workers. It says nothing about whether people are compelled to be greedy or anti-sharing or something.
Sometimes corporations get bigger, sometimes they get toppled by new competitors. A lot of them that we think of as unstoppable are barely hanging on by a thread. Twitter/X and Facebook are examples that come to mind. People don't realize how much power they as consumers have.
If we set a national policy today and didn't allow local governments to set their own policies, I'm pretty sure we'd have a national policy of no help for the homeless at all. Be happy the places that do have support are allowed to because of states' rights.
Given the choice between greed with poverty vs greed with wealth, I choose greed with wealth aka capitalism. Like I said, capitalism at least does some good with the greed. Socialism, etc. pretends it can make greed go away, but it obviously can't.
Sidenote, a vanishingly small portion of people in the US are killed or injured in school shootings. They're obviously bad, but when comparing societies on the societal scale, they make basically no impact.
No European country or the US is anything like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Orders of magnitude different.
Billionaires get arrested and taxed all the time in modern China.
They don't get arrested for the reasons you or I would arrest them, they get arrested for crossing the CCP. Billionaires do face punishment in the capitalist West.
I'm certainly not advocating for toppling other countries' governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
I'd say the fact that leftist socialist or communist movements keep decaying into authoritarian dictatorships is a pretty big weakness of communism, actually. I think Western capitalist countries are not perfect by any means, but they're winning the quality of life game, even of poor people.
I'm a big fan of capitalism, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless. To me there's nothing anti capitalist about sharing or wanting to take care of the people around you.
That's kind of true in some parts of the US, indirectly. Some places criminalize not being homeless but all the things that are the result of being homeless like sleeping outside or in public places. But there are a lot of places in the US that do provide for the homeless. New York City has a right to housing provision, for example.
Capitalists would argue that between capitalism and socialism, capitalism is the one that better accounts for greed, as it generally has laws to con strain it but otherwise uses it to generate all the production that's the hallmark of modern society, division of labor, economy of scale, technological advancement, etc. Socialism doesn't really deal with greed, it just sort of wishes it away. That's why so many societies that have started down the socialist path have become at best poor and at worst authoritarian murder factories like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Chavist Venezuela, the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia, etc.
I think it sort of depends on what time period we're talking about. Jericho and other walled cities came about after a certain point. By then, there certainly were societies that lived off raiding the less nomadic agrarian societies, not very peaceful or egalitarian.
I think most people who've actually thought about it would say either "sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people" or the same but with "oversensitivity", depending on which side of it you're on.
You're correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren't. Murder isn't, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.
I don't think anyone means literally one person did all the work when they say "self made." Also, you as an individual pay for most of the things you get from the rest of society. You're still earning it, more or less.
Sure, different ones have different levels of dictorshipness. To be clear, democratic and authoritarian are not opposites at all. Chattel slavery in the US was extremely authoritarian and awful, yet it was democratic. Abolition was a minority viewpoint until around the time of the Civil War.