A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.
Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun
They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.
That's good to hear. I am exposed to a lot of leftist college educated UK citizens through social media connections and it's pretty terrifying to think that otherwise intelligent people *think* that way. Then I see the UKIP and I have to assume that a strong right-wing response is rebelling against the socialists who are afraid to report the skin color of the London rioters because it would disprove the myth of racial integration in London.
So who's the majority, then? Not the extreme left? Not the UKIP? Then why is the UK ever increasingly moving towards a surveillance state and socialism?
You beat me to it. Also, the new "drones" are easier to fly than regular airplanes, and come as consumer or prosumer goods, instead of being stick built like in the old days.
Also, "Get off my lawn!"
Ok, despite you just insulting me, I'm going to try to seriously answer.
First, I was under the impression we were talking mainly about liberal arts. Not fine arts, not math/physics/science/accounting for the most part. In the cases of lit, philosophy, history, unless you're really going to generate new academic content, it's not progressive. That said, I'll freely admit you have a point regarding advanced math and science.
Second, guaranteed loans. Uh, these are guaranteed for the schools. Not the students. In other words, they (schools) get paid whether the person who takes them out to pay for the degree finds the degree economically benefical or not. If it's not clear what the problem with that system is, it's that it encourages universities to charge a lot for financial black-hole degrees.
Now, regarding another of your questions, specifically "Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?", I think I can reasonably respond that LOTS of people have had success learning programming on the job, or with curated enrichment at the direction of a manager, mentor, etc., as I've done for others and have had done for me. Maybe that could also work for math and science - I can't say for sure because I don't know, but in at least one of those cases, I have solid proof that people can excel without being in the 4-year system.