Question: Should Social Security Systems Be Transformed into Private Sector Solutions?

Resolved: Social Security should be privatized

Social Security should be privatized for the same reasons that healthcare, food production, and housing are privatized; it is more efficient. When companies operate for profit, they are incentivized to satisfy consumers' preferences quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. If they fail to satisfy consumers, they will quickly cease to exist. Examples of these incentives are evident in our everyday lives. If I order something from Amazon and it gets lost in the mail, they will send me a new item with no questions asked. If I have a dispute with the IRS, even if it's their fault, the process will be a nightmare. Amazon will bend over backward to keep my business. What incentive does the IRS have to be helpful at all? When the government provides a service, they will generally establish a monopoly. Thus, it does not have to fear competition. This is as true for Social Security as it is for any other facet of government. If someone is relying on Social Security benefits and the system fails to provide them efficiently, what is their incentive to improve? Altruism? If the system fails to provide benefits, the government agency won't lose a dime. If anything, they will say that if they had more funding it wouldn't have happened. Imagine what private Social Security firms would look like. They could be licensed by the government to uphold the law. Individuals and businesses would hire firms, much like investment advisors now, to manage their retirement funds. Subdivisions could have a small force that everyone contributes to. These firms would probably make it a point to check on every one of their customer's investments periodically. You could let them know when you'll be out of work. They would probably keep at least one advisor within 5-10 minutes of every house. If the firm had a good reputation, they would gain customers and make more money. If they didn't, they would go out of business. Firms would probably insure their customers in cases of market downturns. If they are unable to prevent a loss or recover the lost funds, they would pay out. Although this is all speculation, private firms would at least have the incentive to go above and beyond where the government does not. Another important benefit of private Social Security is that the needs of the customers would take top priority. A private firm would have no monetary incentive to harass people over trivial matters like paperwork errors. They would be focused exclusively on the safety and satisfaction of their customers. This means that investment advisors would spend their time

Responding to your question about round 3, round 3 will be primarily for rebuttals and closing. Barack Obama is not a Socialist. Socialism is an economic system that basically gives the means of production of a society to public or state ownership. Socialism is not a permanent form of government either. Socialism is basically the transition phase between Capitalism and Communism; Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. Mixed Economy: An economic system that allows the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Okay, Obama has not implemented "Socialist" policies or politics. He is not saying the government should eliminate private industries, eliminating Wall Street, and making the government hold all of the property correct? Those who say "Obama is a Socialist" are just right wing loons for propaganda purposes. http://answers.yahoo.com... Now, if Obama WAS a Socialist, we would see the Government taking over private industries and the wealth being massively redistributed. Here is the scenario that would occur if Obama was a Socialist and implementing Socialist policies: Obama would brought back all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and close down the Guantanamo Bay camp as well as give back that land to Cuba because "as a fellow Socialist nation to another" that would be the right thing to do. Then, Socialist Obama would send the I.R.S. and the F.B.I. to raid Wall Street and its institutions and prosecute the CEOs and Presidents of the financial sector to the fullest extent of the law. Then, the U.S. would gain control of Wall Street's assets for the Government and then for redistribution. Then, instead of just saving G.M. and the Big 3 automakers from bankruptcy, Obama would nationalize these corporations. Then, large scale works programs such as those from the 1930s would be implemented to repair America's infrastructure and create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. http://theageofnepotism.com... In actuality: Obama and the Democratic Party he is part of has implemented non-Socialistic policies. They have created the Stimulus program to prevent the U.S. economy from collapsing, which also helped Corporate America's incomes and profits reach record levels. Also, the health care mandate in 2010 that doesn't take place until 2014 for the most part is hardly Socialistic, especially compared to the N.H.S. in Britain which gives all people free, Socialized Medicine (Gov't controls Health Care and Insurance). F.D.R.'s New Deal was more Socialistic than Obama's programs, even though that program (New Deal) was not Socialistic either especially compared to world standards of Socialism. Lastly, the top Socialists in America are not calling Obama a Socialist, but a "market guy" who is just altering the current system of Capitalism that the U.S. has, not instituting a Socialist economy. They won't even call him a Socialist. http://www.politicsdaily.com...

socialism will hurt the U.S. economy. Forcing money from the working to give to the non-working will hurt the U.S. economy.

I assert that the problems that face our school system can be corrected, with the most effeciency, through the voucher system. Throughout history, the free market has proven itself to be an effective instrument in economics due to its self-regulating nature and power of the free market forcesn it creates. Con's suggested solution is surely a step in the right direction, however, it does not completely encompass the entire situation.

I am fine with that. and would agree with the comparison to sissies are all rich people Monsters? I would guess by the fact that you can read and write english fairly well that you are in the United states and by virtue of that fact you are in the top 1 percent of world's wealth distribution. If that is the case then aren't you a monster? This is why I don't like the monster arguement. There are good people and bad people that can exist in both systems. Barack Obama lived in the United states which I would argue is a good real world example of capitalism. (for the most part) He is consider a very nice guy by most standards and he said he was against evil greedy people. Does this mean Barack Obama is the spawn of Hell? I would consider him wealthy by most standards. Question, who is going to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor? how do we know they won't keep some for themselves? Even if you abolished currency how would you value goods? How would you make sure that no one is being evil by producing low quality goods that is being distributed by the government I would presume? Do you value life? or your own life for that matter? are you a bad rich person? should stalin kill you? I ask you all of these but recognize that you are nowhere near the boundaries for this debate. you have provided no logical reasoning for how the system functions well or benefits people other than saying poverty is bad and you want to end it. You made no comment on scarcity or how it effects a communist society. and you completely ignored the request for me not have to listen to you about evil people or governments.

I would like to apologize to Con for my computer issues, if you voters did not see my comment, I had difficult posting my round 3 arguments due to some script error my computer was giving me when I was hitting the submit button, so I was forced to forfeit the round. I will combine my round 3 and round 4 arguments into one argument. (ROUND 3) Con, you state that a mixed system can fix this, I would just like to state that these so called mixed systems (which they nowhere are near to being mixed, they are pure Capitalism with no socialist elements at all) have high rates of homeless people, unemployed people, and starving people because of the exploitation of the worker, they do not benefit from their labor like they would in a communist and socialist system. They also have a high rate of alcoholic people and suicidal people because of the the division of society to make you feel alienated. This is because the bourgeoisies in society display an image that we are all different, which we truely aren't. We are all human beings that are on this Earth, living day to day with the same thoughts and emotions. In a society that teaches we are all the same such as communism would dramatically decrease alcoholism and suicide rates to lower then 5% to 7%. (. http://www.accessmylibrary.com...) In your Section 1 of your piece, you make many outlandish statements that are baseless and purely biased statements with no proof. You state that the socialist dictatorship dehumanizes the bourgeoisie, which rightfully so, you need to dehumanize the bourgeoisie for what they have done to the majority of the people, they have made them hunger and freeze for years. You also state they dehumanize the Nazis, have you not seen the atrocities committed by the Nazis? They are no longer human when they systematically try to eliminate an entire faith/race. You also state that a communist society would be stagnant, I think not, the German Democratic Republic was very technologically advanced, they produced computers and cameras that could easily compete with the US' products. Here is a East German SLR camera made during the 80s: . http://www.flickr.com.... Here is a East German computer made in the 80s: . https://en.wikipedia.org.... I guarantee that if the western imperialist powers did not force the economic collapse of the Eastern Bloc, East Germany would be the technological hub of the world making the finest cameras and computers. Also here is a tumblr devoted to Yugoslavia (Just to show the futurism in a socialist society): . http://igoyugo.tumblr.com.... In Section 2 of your piece, you state that Warren Buffet is a great man and how he is so fantastic for donating money. But has he cared about giving the workers under him the right to the profit? No, he is just like the rest of the bourgeoisie, he has no care for the proletariat. You state that Che Guevara was a hateful bigot, he was not, he was a kind man fighting against the unjust regimes stripping the proletariat of the world of everything. Did you find why he executed those people? Those people where mobsters, Batista's henchmen, and soldiers that during the revolution that committed atrocities. They weren't innocent men, they were vicious criminals that needed to be put down. You state that he advocated nuclear war, he only favored it if the US decided to invade Cuba a second time. You also state that he was against free speech, he is against the form of speech that was created by the bourgeoisie to divide society likewise with free press and the right to assemble, these all divide society because if you allow nationalist and capitalist sentiments to be displayed, it will destroy the progress of equality. In Section 3 of your piece, you state that I use the excuse of "true communism". Like in all ideologies, there are always people that want to add their own principles to it like Mao Zedong who changed most of it to fit his cult of personality but there are some of the original principals of Marxism. Some add good additions like Josip Broz Tito who added worker self management to the Marxism which branched off into the ideology of Titoism which is the the section of Marxism that I would call myself. And some add horrible things like Josef Stalin by creating an almost totalitarian fascist side to communism and socialism. (ROUND 4) This round I will focus on the prices, this will be short. Prices in a communist country would be low because competition is eliminated for the peoples good and for the workers good. When competition is eliminated, you have that one company ran by the state that creates good products at a low cost since all of the money is being funneled into one company then to the state and into various programs. You can see some of the prices in the Soviet Union here: . http://englishrussia.com.... There are no competing companies that price their items high to seem like they are better because they have a higher price tag then the other.

There does seem to be some poor communication. Your resolution does indeed bring in "socialism" as a means to deal with what you deem as a shortfall of capitalism. You further defined socialism and we agreed to this definition in both PM and on this debate. Now I expect to use that definition as a means of disproving your argument. Socialism being the key word in your resolution as a means to solve the problems of capitalism. So let us be clear that the solution to your perceived problems of capitalism lies in the state controlling the means of production to satisfy the needs of the people. Or more precisely ""an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels". [1] This was the definition that my opponent cited. My opponent then brings to the argument "I AM SAYING THAT CAPITALISM HAS SOME FLAWS WHICH I BELIEVE CAN BE REMEDIED WITH SOME SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES(minimum wage, government regulation, child labor laws)." I ask those who are reading this debate, and indeed my opponent to apply the definition that he opened with for socialism to these problems and help me understand how they are solved by the state controlling production. My opponent complains that I am using the definition in its totality? He means only certain aspects of socialism should be applied, which particular part of the definition would solve the problems you cite? I believe my opponent is confusing socialism with some other sort of humanitarian version of governance that might make laws restricting business practices, but that is not socialism as he defined. Socialism =/= Big overreaching government. If that were the case fascism and socialism would be the same thing. Forgive me for drawing upon real life examples, but many socialist societies have far greater abuses in these areas than capitalist ones. The profit motive for the state can produce far more horrendous results to its people than private ones. My opponent then goes on to cite anti-trade laws as being socialist. Again, I draw upon the definition that my opponent provided. Anti-trust laws were put in place to prevent monopolies in a capitalist f societies. Socialism is actually a system of monopoly. Which particular aspect of the definition of socialism are you drawing upon to conclude that the anti-trust laws are socialist? By outlawing collusion as stipulated by the Sherman Act of 1890 [2] we have an example of the state controlling production? I am further confused when my opponent says " Without antitrust laws, there would be nothing to stop a healthcare monopoly." Which one would come to the conclusion and think a monopoly in health care is a bad thing, and yet, is not that the goal of socialism? Oh right, you're only talking about certain aspects of socialism which I really haven't seen yet. Then he says that the anti-trust laws are really a socialist concept. In 1890, there really wasn't much of a formalized socialist construct, and again the goal of anti trust legislation is to further promote competition and further enable the capitalist process. It was looking to keep the free market more free. The goal was to diminish anti competitive activity [3], not to have government control production. My opponent then accuses me of speculating. Well of course I am speculating, it's a fictitious scenario that I speak of, what else can I do but speculate. My opponent then asserts that "Full socialism always puts human needs in front of profit which makes it inefficient' - the inefficient thing is the only correct part of this statement. One is to assume that the profit motive for the state is less a factor than if it were private. That would be a different debate, but I would provide loads of examples of where the profit motive of the state is as avarice and corrupt as any private entity could be. My opponent also says "My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit." Actually, I am trying to find in your resolution where it actually says this, particularly about "people are exploited for profit", your argument does at some point, but I don't see it in your resolution. I will conclude this round by my opponents hyperbolic assertion "We know that it is right in capitalist terms to financially exploit millions of people and let countless thousands die just to keep up revenue." Of all the private interests that may have perpetrated something along these scales, how many of my opponent's big government, socialist countries have waged, and continue to wage at levels that stagger the mind. We need only look at the entire continent of Asia and its history to see how well socialism served it's people. I fear my opponent doesn't fully understand the economic theory of socialism, but rather holds an idyllic notion of what it is. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

In your first argument, you make the claim that surgeons do not have adequate knowledge of the patient they are operating upon.You fail to mention the 3,000 British patients who die every month of dehydration in NHS hospitals, a socialized institution. Let us begin:: In an ironic start to my defense of Capitalism, I must first begin with a quote from the Communist Manifesto. "In order to arouse sympathy the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate its indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge...In this way arose feudal socialism"..half echo of the past, half menace of the future". striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core." Here we see that Karl Marx (who himself was a Communist, not a Socialist) stating that Socialism is little more than the old Elite class, those overthrown by the American and French Revolutions that culminated the Age of Enlightenment, trying to regain their old authority by allying themselves with the lowest classes. It must be here stated that the adherents of Socialism, especially the common people, clearly do not do so out of malice or hate for the success of others., merely by envy of them; and there is nothing wrong with envy - it is a Natural trait engraved upon every human heart. However, the Socialist masses, blinded by their envy, ally themselves with authoritarian figures: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom. Socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." -Alexis de Tocqueville. "Socialism was not only early recognized as the gravest threat to freedom, but quite openly began as a reaction to liberalism of the French Revolution." -F.A. Hayek. Mr. Hayek goes on to cite the founder of reactionary French socialism, Count de Saint-Simon "Every man who fails to obey this commandment will be regarded and treated by others as an animal." How wise of the Count to have forseen the deeds of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. And it must be accounted for, how in the 1930's, Germany's model was held up to the world as what Progressivism must aspire to be. It was not until the war began and the atrocities of the authoritarian socialism was made known that Sweden began to be held up as the standard of excellence. And for those who wish to point out that Nazi Germany was no Democracy, remember that Hitler was elected, and remember what the famous American philosopher and martyr said. "never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." The powers he wielded were bestowed upon him by voters. The Socialist framework was already in place, and had been since long before the First World War. In fact, Germany had begun to experiment in Social Democracy as early as the 1850's, progressively adding government programs on top of government programs. It is most certain that the Prussian and Weimar States did set up the socialist framework with best of intentions: The good of the common man, the benefit of the worker. How could they have foreseen the rise of a mad tyrant? Let us not repeat the German mistake. But can this still apply in today's day and age? Why look, we have the United Nations! To answer this, let us examine the great Nations of healthcare, for indeed the American healthcare system leaves much to be desired. First up is France, the Fifth Republic. Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, as well as the American First Amendment, both protect the Freedom the Speech. However, the Fifth Republic has set up Hate Speech Laws, to restrict criticisms of others based upon physical characteristics, sexual preferences, and political beliefs. Certainly this is a good thing? Protecting the emotions of others? What about those magazines, to include the now world famous Charlie Hebdo, who have been saddle with hefty fines for criticizing France's drug laws and demanding reform? Or what about the criminalization of Anti-Israel Activism in the Homeland of Revolution? Indeed, the French elites are enjoying the aristocratic privileges that Tocqueville warned comes with Socialism of any kind, Democratic or not. So indeed, you may save a good deal of money in France from your healthcare bills, but you'll just pay the government in fines if you happen to express an unpopular opinion: 22,500 euros or six month's imprisonment! What a price to pay to get free healthcare. What of Italy, that home of Fascism and burial grounds of the many tyrannical Caesers who plagued the world for 400 years? Indeed coming at number two is great! Although Italian TV show Le Lene was pulled from the line-up for depicting Italian MP's using cocaine in parliament (something that indeed had come to pass). Sound almost like the politicians of another Social Democracy do not like to be criticized, or mocked! To be more short, Singapore imprisoned Youtube Amos Yee for mocking Islam: I guess its okay because he can get free condoms. And Oman! Lovely Oman. Number 8 on your list, and I quote Human Rights Watch: "Oman"s overly broad laws restrict the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. The authorities target peaceful activists, pro-reform bloggers, and government critics using short term arrests and detentions and other forms of harassment. Some detainees arrested since 2011 have allegedly reported that security forces tortured or otherwise ill-treated them." Lovely to exchange some basic human freedoms in exchange to prolong one's life of servitude to State! For those idiots crying "It will Never Happen here! American Exceptionalism!" We currently have an Administration which has targeted opposing opinions using the IRS to audit them, and the administration before that setting up mass surveillance: What do you think will happen when they gain control of healthcare? Now onto your plan to Bern the American Higher Education System: Most Illiberal and Regressive! You praise making tuition free at public colleges, yet ignore how many of these European students flock to American Universities to study, hiding from the piss-poor education found in their home continent. European Universities, which used to produce minds like Kant, Rousseau, Robespierre, and Nietzche now produce docile working drones who are thrilled to be ruled by unelected elites in the EU. Obedient worker drones who celebrate the arrival of a million migrants from a war torn terrorist hot spot and are surprised when violence and terrorism are suddenly to be considered the norm in their Social "Democracies"! Once upon a time, in this country, all you needed to go into the world was a high school diploma. Not anymore, thanks to government mismanagement, American high school grads are mocked as among the most ignorant in the world. Social Democrats wish to extend this mismanagement to the higher education system. If the Social "Democracies" in Europe have proven anything, it is that public schools in the US will have to adhere to certain teachings, such as sophistries, will be rigidly taught and unpopular philosophies will be banned once they become socialized. Government meddlers with little more to do in their jobs than to regulate what can and can't be said on campuses: but don't fear, the children of politicians and billionaires and the academic elite will not go to such schools. No! They will continue to attend private universities, in order to prevent them from being assimilated into the mass of slaves Social "Democracy" will push out of its free universities. "4. Cease acceptance of students below the GPA of 2.8 and 3.0 range". Man! have you no concern for the individual? What of the kid who screwed off for two years of high school, but buckled down the final two years only to get a 2.5? What of the nerd who is so bullied that he can barely function in school, graduating with a meager 2.6, but has many side projects which attest to his intellectual excellence? What of those who choose to defend their Nation, or opt to travel abroad? Or what of returning college students? Or what of those who simply had unfair teachers in high school? Shall they be all relegated to "manual physical labor"? After all, they could not achieve a 3.0 in one of the worst education systems in the world! What you are proposing will evolve into an Elitist society far faster than Germany's Social Democracy turned into a dystopian nightmare! "In our era, college experience is a necessity in order to progress in life." I guess only for those who regurgitate what they have been told. Everybody else, to the fields! To the ditches! Look down, look down, you'll always be slave! I also like that dig at the US military. $800,000,000,000 is quite alot indeed. I guess that's the price you gotta pay when you not only have to defend your own people, but also Progressive Social "Democratic" Utopias in Europe. There is a bright side though: service members get plenty of physical exercise so when they come home they'll be prepared for the manual labor awaiting them. 1,000 economists have supported Bernie's plan. Indeed. Do you know how many Economists are in the United States? 21,000. That means 4.7% of America's economists support Bernie's plan. The other 95.3%? I guess not. If you were to use Six-Sigma (a method engineers use to quality control products) to ask samples of economists to see if they support the Senator's plans, they do not statistically stand a chance. At least 5% is needed. Oh well, I guess those 95.3% will one day get to pay a hefty fine for disagreeing with Social "Democratic" values, or better yet, be arrested as political prisoners! Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!

"I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on." HERE IS WHERE I THINK EACH OF US STANDS: 1. You think people are entitled to free health care as one of their natural rights-- if not a natural right, a right that we should secure after the fact, similar to public education. My view: I do not think free health care is a natural right, but that affordable health care is a need likely to be met by unfettered private enterprise. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to realize the importance of such a need and budget for health insurance appropriately, just as he does for food, clothing and rent. I feel the same about education. 2. You think, because health care is a natural right (or close to one), we should find a way to guaranty it to all. Although you might agree that government would not be the most cost-effective way of providing it, it must because private industry may allow some people to fall through the cracks. So efficiency sacrificed in exchange for certainty is worth the cost (in taxes). My view: Since I never agreed with the presumption that health care is a right, I don't think we morally have a say in how it should be provided, at what cost, to what extent, nor by whom. I believe it should be left to the free market to provide very affordable services (hence very affordable insurance) of acceptable quality wherever there is a need. If health care is still not financially feasible for some, then family, friends or charitable organization may or may not step in. But without insurance there is no guaranty. THAT'S MY VIEW ON OUR DIFFERENCES. HERE IS MY ROUND 4 ARGUMENT: "So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar?" If government got out of the way, entrepreneurs could provide extremely affordable medical services, and that in turn would result in extremely affordable private health insurance. I realize some would still fall through the cracks, but that is where family, friends and charity may or may not step in. There are no guaranties. However, I have no problem with city or state governments deciding to provide additional safety nets beyond this point. At least citizens can decide whether they want to live there and pay the taxes required to support such programs. But, given that costs would me much less due to our hypothetical deregulation, it may not be that costly. "You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street." I am not for government providing housing to anyone. No one has a natural right to housing. The government is here to protect our natural rights. Anything beyond that is the job of private charity-- another industry that government intervention has crippled by forcing prospective voluntary donors to give involuntarily by way of taxation. Can you imagine how much more charities could do if taxes were lowered so individuals had more to give? A SIDE NOTE ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS PRIVATE CHARITY: With government taking over half one's income it's amazing any private charities survive at all. Government is in the business of taking money from would-be donors and inefficiently spreading it about, all while robbing donors of any good feeling in exchange for their forced generosity. I read somewhere we are luck to see one of every four dollars spent on welfare programs reach the recipient in some form. That means government needs to confiscate more than four times the amount required to solve the problem. If citizens were allowed to keep the tax revenue currently spent on welfare programs they could pocket half, donate half to charity and nearly double the current dollar value of services provided to recipients. A similar analogy could be drawn from the money spent on unnecessary wars. Imagine how low are taxes would be and how well charities would do. "our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature." I always accuse liberals of being like the protective parents who feel (because it is in their nature) they must create a safety net for their child to save him from the real-life consequences of his behavior or lack of. Case in point would be the 35-year-old unemployed slacker still living at home. His well-meaning, good-NATURED parents have effectively robbed him of the benefits of life's harsh lessons, which would have been helpful to him in developing his own self-reliance. Which brings me to my opinion on your personal credit situation. If feel you are one of the most fair-minded debaters on this site, and have enjoyed our acquaintance. But allow be to be blunt for a moment. By having your credit ruined, life has handed you a consequence in response to your behavior-- that of not securing private medical insurance. This action (or lack of) essentially led to your involvement in what is tantamount to grand theft of medical services. You should feel fortunate that you are being harassed by creditors and not by law enforcement. I don't see pilfering $5,000 worth of medical services from a doctor as any different from stealing a $5,000 motorcycle out of his driveway. I think you simply felt insurance was not a priority. I'm willing to bet you have a cell phone you pay for each month, rent, food, nights on the town, etc. You may even have a car payment. If so, you are like so many others who go on and on about how important universal health care is, yet they choose to spend their money on everything but health insurance. Your friend is a perfect example. He's bummed that his credit it trashed because he couldn't afford health insurance, yet he's out car shopping and obviously believes he can afford a monthly car payment. I'd ride a bike, use pay phones and eat Top Raman before I stopped making my health insurance payments. My values (how I spend my money) demonstrate how important I believe health care is. But again, it is not my right. "people should not have to trade physical health for financial health." No, just as I should not trade the condition of my house for financial health. That is why I bought a homeowners insurance policy. Private companies have devised a way to make it relatively affordable to avoid a major financial crisis in case my house burns down (similar to assurances provided by government in exchange for tax dollars, but much more affordable). In fact they are able to insure a home worth more than $500K for a measly $600 per year. But then again, the government has not gotten involved in the contracting industry and made the cost of rebuilding a burnt house astronomically high. "You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it." I searched for a contradiction here and could not find one. I will come back to it if you are able clarify it to me in the comments section. If so I will correct my position. I see no contradiction when I say that people are likely to (but not obligated to) help others, and that as a result of this fact it would be wise to get insurance. I hope I've clarified my position and helped you hone your's. We agree on what an ideal outcome would be: adequate and affordable healthcare for ALL. We disagree on how to get there and on whether people have an absolute right to said outcome. Thanks for your time and thoughts on this.

Let me begin by saying that, after reading your last round, it seems as though you didn't internalize what I said before making your points. Its like you were pretending I said something else and responded to your imagination. I'll try to get you back on track. 1. Let me just check and make sure you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare cares for the elderly. Whether they are poor or not, old people qualify for Medicare coverage. Medicaid, on the other hand, covers poor people. For most people, you qualify to receive Medicare benefits once you turn 65. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is needs-based and is administered by each state, so qualifications vary. Based on your previous round, you seem to have the two mixed up. And the fact that there is Medicaid and Medicare does not negate the fact that 47 million people in this country don't have health coverage. You have to stop thinking that people simply don't want coverage. No one wants to spend their lives hoping they don't get sick for fear of the bills they would face. Everyone wants insurance, they just can't afford it, even with Medicaid and Medicare. Even the American Medical Association, traditionally a very conservative organization of physicians that has opposed every attempt at national health coverage, is now running ads deploring the fact that 1 in 7 people are not covered. I would hope that that serves as some kind of perspective for you in just how bad the problem is right now. Under your logic, no program is capable of being run. Why do we have a Secretary of Defense or State? Why do we have a Secretary of Homeland Security? Why do we even have a president if no one person can run a large program? It seems like you're reaching for straws as for why the single-payer plan wouldn't work in this point. 2. What's so absurd about the tax plan I mentioned to cover it? Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers would all be taxed before any individual. In addition, resources would be taken from Medicare and Medicaid to cover it since their role in providing services would be diminished. After those bases have been touched, then only the wealthiest people would be taxed first. Please explain to me what about this plan is absurd? As it is, employer-based coverage makes employees pay a certain percentage of the premiums. As medical costs have risen, the share that employers have been making employees pay as risen as well, or employers have stopped offering coverage altogether. Between this, copays and deductibles, individuals pay ridiculous amounts for usually crappy coverage. That's another thing. You mention "the different insurances". You're right. The fractious nature of the system means that every insurer has a smaller risk pool than would be the case in a single-payer system. This means that they have to keep their rates higher since they are pulling in money from fewer people. Its basic economies of scale. 3. Explain to me how hospitals and doctors remaining private keeps people from being entitled to the same thing? Universal health care is universal in COVERAGE, meaning that everyone is entitled to the same care since everyone has access to it. Under the current system, people get denied to the care they need all the time because they don't have the right coverage or no coverage at all. The private insurance market is the #1 problem. Let me explain to you how HMOs have totally screwed up the system. As it is, most insurers only pay a percentage of what Medicare pays. This is the example that the executive director of heart and vascular services at the hospital I worked at gave me: Say a certain procedure costs the hospital $8,000 to perform and Medicare pays the hospital $10,000 to do it. That means that the hospital makes $2,000 profit from it. HMOs, however, sometimes only pay 30% of what Medicare pays, which in this example would only be $3,000. That means that the hospital loses $5,000 every time they perform it. So, in order to simply pay its bills, the hospital has to inflate their prices 300%, turning that $3,000 into $9,000. The hospital's costs stayed the same at $8,000, but now they can make $1,000 profit on it. THIS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL INFLATION COMES FROM. These costs get passed onto to everyone else who needs that procedure, including Medicare. A single-payer system would completely erase the built up inflation in the system, as well as keep it from happening again. 4. I'm not even sure what you're talking about in this point. You made the mistake of confusing Medicare and Medicaid again, but aside from that, you aren't really saying anything else. Public hospitals are suffering, and raising local taxes just to cover themselves from so many people they see lacking coverage. The single-payer system I mentioned, or any universal system, would enable public and non-profit hospitals, who have much lower overhead than for profit hospitals, would be able to provide much better services and lower local taxes. 5. My points just aren't true? After working with doctors and hospital administration for nearly 10 years, I can tell you it is very much true. Here, go to Physicians for a National Health Program and see what they say about the time wasted dealing with HMOs. It's enlightening. And why India? How about France and Italy? Or how about Great Britain or Canada? All of them have universal systems and all of them have better health systems then we do, according to the World Health Organization. http://www.pnhp.org... 6. Who would be paying the same amount? I already pointed out to you who would be paying the taxes on this. And of course you're relatively healthy. You're only 16. I'm only 24, but I'm already having a few minor problems, but still problems nonetheless. My gf is also 24, but she's needed three reconstructive jaw surgeries. Dealing with her "premium" insurance provider has been a nightmare. I couldn't imagine if she had an HMO. That was only for her surgeries though. She doesn't have insurance anymore because she couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean her complications have stopped though. Count yourself lucky for being healthy. That won't always be the case. And when that time comes, you'll be angry if you have to spend 25% of your income of health care, which many people with insurance are having to do. If you did have to pay into the system, other people would be paying into it for you when you needed it. Trust me, you will need it at some point. 7. First of all, as I mentioned before, most insurers are wanting to move to only covering catastrophic coverage anyway. This system would only aid them in achieving what they want anyway. You clearly have no idea how much hospitals and doctors hate dealing with HMOs. I was talking with a nurse practitioner just today who was telling me she spent almost 34% of her income on clerical staff just to deal with billing. Doctors would love the new system if for no other reason then HMOs would be a thing of the past. 8. I didn't deny it. In fact, I backed it up. Read what I said again. It isn't the money they are in it for. They are in medicine because they love helping people and love the respect they get in their communities. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. 9. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? I said I'm not on government coverage because I'm a full-time grad student and still covered by my mom's insurance. We're ranked between Costa Rica and Slovenia because of the lack of accessibility to our system. What the hell about my point made you think I thought the system was working as it is? 10. I don't know why you choose India for your examples. Here, check out the World Health Organization's rankings. At least 15 of the top 20 have universal or single-payer systems. http://www.photius.com...

"There are forms of socialism like Market Socialism and Social Democracy that have a market componnent" This is false, In a pure socialistic system either the state or a smaller collection of individuals (eg a worker cooperative) own the means of production in each of the different economic sectors. There is no competition in the free market sense of the term. Market socialism is not considered a purely traditional socialist system and social democracy is a political designation which has more to do with a state"s social safety net policies - political policies that promote wealth redistribution and policy based economic regulation but these aren"t the same as economic socialism which involve public ownership of industries. "your defintion is a marxist one i did not stupulate marxist socialism" My definition is not Marxist socialism, Marxist socialism involves state ownership of industries- I specified social ownership which would include also decentralized forms of socialism (eg worker ownership of industries). "NOrdics are very social democratic there for they fit a type of socialism. " I think it"s right to call them socially democratic but this is not the same as economic socialism. Having hefty safety nets, Strong regulatory policy doesn"t make one economically socialistic. What actually makes them have socialistic components in their economy is the fact that there are some publically owned companies (particularly in Norway and Sweden), And Denmark apparently has a strong tradition of worker cooperatives but these all operate within a market economy in that they compete with privately owned companies. Hence they are mixed systems


Question: Should Social Security be Transformed into a Private System?

The Social Security system should be dismantled. It is unreliable, chaotic, and rife with fraud—characteristics that perfectly describe Social Security. I strongly advocate for the dismantling of Social Security based on the following arguments: Argument 1: Social Security offers no prospects for America; Argument 2: America, both now and in the future, will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social Security system; and Argument 3: Individual workers should have the autonomy to invest their own retirement funds. Under Social Security, lower and middle-class individuals are compelled to part with a significant portion of their income, roughly 12 percent, ostensibly to secure their retirement. This money is not saved or invested but is directly transferred to the program's current beneficiaries, with the "promise" that when current taxpayers reach retirement age, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. As this system does not generate wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of their contributions necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual receives twice as much from others as they contributed, half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot rely on Social Security for anything—except for a massive drain on their income. Therefore, there is no way the system can even guarantee future retirees the same amount they previously contributed to Social Security, making the system inequitable. Fixing the Social Security system is virtually impossible. Despite 17 payroll tax increases since 1935, the system remains in crisis. This underscores my argument that Social Security should be dismantled immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retirees. This marked the beginning of the end for the Social Security system. The workforce can no longer generate the funds required to support the retirement population. The evidence continues to accumulate. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers entered the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers entered retirement. This is an unfathomable number and impossible for the Social Security system to address, leaving retirees uncertain about how they will receive their benefits. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual and should be left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives individuals of this freedom, making them less capable of planning for the future, less capable of providing for their retirements, less capable of

I like Bernie I agree with Bernie on his policies, But the term socialist is so misused today. H e doesnt advocate changing a market system to a state system, He merely advocates radical reforms, To our present Capitalist mixed economy to make it more like Canada or Europe, Not to make it like Cuba, Venzuela or, North Korea, Or even China, Social democracy is very very different than socialism. . Or do you disagree?

This is a 4 round debate. For the first round give 1 paragraph about your side. I am on the side of abolishing the Federal Reserve. It wastes tax dollars because it is a private company. The IRS is also private. This is also a scary thing because this means that a private company has control over all of the money we use, they could do anything they want with it.

Actually, I'm not sure what possessed me to start this debate. Certainly it wasn't the prospect of an easy win (a task made even harder by having a formidable opponent). I haven't checked, but my impression is that there are more capitalists members of this site than there are militant left-wing agitators! Never mind, though, I'm sure most members will vote on the quality of debate rather than their own personal opinion. My opponent rightly pointed out that preceding the Revolution, the working classes would suffer more than the ruling classes. This, unfortunately, is a necessary evil - it would be for the workers' long-term benefit. The strategy is that the working classes would blame the capitalist government for their impoverishment and help to depose them (let's just hope they don't rumble my plan by reading this debate)! He went on to make speculate that the revolution, for various reasons, would not be successful and that the system of government would be fundamentally flawed. It is undoubtedly true that a socialist regime would face challenges, one cannot forecast "events", but let us not forget where we are right now, under capitalism. The economy is in freefall, unemployment is rocketing, the value of pensions and house prices are plummeting, inflation is soaring and while the tax payer bails out rotten banks, fat cat financiers are feathering their nests will multi-million dollar "golden parachutes". With regard to the point that it is not only the rich that are on the fiddle, but ordinary folk too – I fully concur. Who amongst us can honestly hold their hands up and say they have never tried to cheat the system? That's because nobody feels bad about swindling a government that cracks down hard on the pensioners that do a few odd jobs on the black, yet let the rich salt away fortunes in offshore tax havens. Also, it is true that not everybody will be sensible with their $125,000 windfall – for sure, some will be reckless and blow the lot on having fun (good for the economy) or move abroad (reduces the housing shortage, making homes more affordable for first time buyers) but socialists don't, contrary to the popular misconception, want to dictate how people spend their own money – it should and would be up the individual's own discretion. My opponent is right, of course, when he suggests there would be huge resistance to my plan from the richest 5% who would be worse off, but what are they going to do against the 95%, including all the soldiers and police officers, who are each going to be $125,000 better off? So whether it's to create a fairer society or it's just for the money, I believe my socialist revolution would not only be popular, but also achievable. Thank you.

First, thanks to Wj for proposing this very interesting topic. I am making the assumption that the debate is focused on the current US situation, but if that is not the case I will be glad to expand it to other countries in the second round. Somebody -I think it was Churchill?- once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Something similar can be applied to the welfare state. It is full of inconsistencies, loopholes and potential for abuse, yet it beats the alternative -the lack of it. I see it in evolutionary terms: animals (other than humans I mean) use diverse combinations of cooperation and violence to reach their goals. When it comes to what to do with the destitute, the weak, the sick or the injured, their strategies vary from community help (survival) to open violence or abandon (both an effective death sentence). Humans have the cognition ability to realize there are multiple alternatives, but we don't necessarily agree on which one to use: so when we are faced with that situation, some of us choose to assist the ones in need, while some others will effectively kick the weaklings out of the group. Add to this that human power goes well beyond animal's: while animals can only assert themselves in terms of physical force, humans extend that power by long reach influence (i.e. a paunchy, feeble CEO can decide the destiny of thousands of physically stronger men). And this is when the need for a welfare state kicks in -an institution above individual power, in charge of redistributing wealth and assistance where the community alone is unable to, be it because of unwillingness or lack of power. Add to this the issue of inequality, be it gender based or racial. Women have made significant progress but are still far from effective equal rights (sometimes the laws exist, but their application leaves much to be desired). Racial minorities are in the same boat -Jim Crow laws are long gone, but a color blind society is still a pipe dream, and in many ways the palliative measures such as Affirmative Action do more to freeze a situation of practical inequality under "tolerable" terms than to pave the way for true equality. I would like to end this with a key question: who is on welfare? The answer is you, me, and the vast majority of Americans. When we think of welfare we think of food stamps, welfare checks and Medicaid. Actually, the bulk of American citizens are subsidized by the State. We assume it's our own taxes which pay for welfare, but in reality, the roads we drive on, the electricity we use, the police that keeps us safe (sometimes...), all this is paid by the very rich. I know this is hard to swallow, but take a closer look at the brutal income inequality today (the infamous 99% vs. 1%, which is a figure of speech but not too far from reality), then at taxation which is slightly regressive but not that much, and do the math. You'll be surprised.

So you're saying a 74 year old man (75 if he were elected president) has bones as strong as someone who is in their 30s? That for the most part is wrong. It is possible but very unlikely. There is now way that he can hide his disability as easily as FDR did. This is not the 1930s this is 2015. We have YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and tons of other sites where people share pictures and videos. There are 1000s of sites dedicated to leaking information. It would get out there very quickly. It could not be hidden "in the same manner." So what if Elizabeth Warren was a college professor? She didnt attend Harvard as a student. She attended the University of Houston. Then later on she attended Rutgers School of Law. She was actually the first to graduate college in her family. Where as Bernie sanders went to college at University of College and Brooklyn college. Bernie sanders college was actually more expensive than Elizabeth Warrens. If we do cut the military fund and stop sending our troops to other countries that would be terrible for many reasons. We are fighting to protect civilians all over the world from there governments who are trying to kill them but I guess you're right we should just pull out of there and let countless people who have no possible way to defend themselves die just because we want more money. Maybe we should let ISIS run rampant through the middle east destroying historical sites, kidnapping people, and killing thousands of innocent men women and children. Also Australia does not have there minimum wage at $19 an hour. They use a different currency than we do. The value of there currency is different than ours. Also Australia has 14% of their nation in poverty. So they do indeed have a problem in poverty. It may not be as bad as ours at 15% but its absurd to say that have no problem. Also if we raise minimum raise companies will have to pay their employees more money. Where will they get this extra money? They will raise the prices of their products to obtain the money to pay their employees causing inflation. Also people make a living off of working with hair which gets them money so they can buy food to survive. So it is pretty important! It creates jobs so we have less people in poverty! So yes I would compare it to life.

Finally, something a bit more interesting. For the record, I'm pretty glad you didn't want to debate about abortion. I'm getting pretty sick of the topic. And I apologize for taking so long to respond. But anyhow. Firstly, what's all this about goodwill? Goodwill has nothing to do with it. The difference is that (at least right now) it is the government's job to take care of the poor and they are held accountable to it. Obviously, ordinary citizens are not. It doesn't matter if politicians don't have much goodwill personally, because if they're doing the jobs we elected them for, then they're going to be taking care of the poor. If you got rid of this facet of our government, then no one would be accountable for helping the poor and we would rely on this ‘goodwill' you mentioned for any form of financial aid or healthcare or whatever. Of course, the downside of goodwill is that if people don't feel like helping others, they don't have to. The government absolutely has to help people. If they stop paying financial aid, they're in trouble. If I stop donating to the salvation army guy on the sidewalk, no one's going to punish me for it. What makes you so sure that the only reason people don't donate to charity is because of taxes? My argument is that if taxes were lowered, the majority of those people wouldn't be thinking, ‘hey, now I have more money to donate to charity', but something more along the lines of ‘hey, now I can afford that hummer.' It's not necessarily that people are heartless and cruel and don't care, (although I won't deny that some are) but that they just get wrapped up in their own lives and forget about the poor. We Americans have short memories. Everyone donates right after a major disaster, but if it's a long and ongoing thing, donations taper off. For example, let's look at Katrina again. New Orleans is still literally rotting, and people need money almost as much as they did right after the hurricane. However, no one donates any more, because we've essentially forgotten about it. After the initial rush of donations, no one wants to help. It's the sort of thing you generally run into with people, because we've got our own lives and are often occupied by other things. We're not necessarily cruel, just forgetful. I'm not necessarily saying the government's charitable, I'm saying it's supporting the poor. Again, people in power may not like to help people, but they are legally obligated to. And since when is helping the poor not ‘public good', anyway? Besides, a lot of the things you want to get rid of do benefit you anyway. Social security? Medicare? "If those families will not provide charity because of their financial situation, how does that imply taking their money would be better? Taking the money they cannot afford to give would make the situation much worse." Simple. Taxes are levied on everyone. If you get rid of taxes, then only the people who want to donate will. Therefore, less people will be giving money to the poor. If less people donate, each will have to donate a larger amount in order to support the same amount of people. Therefore, more financial stress is put on donating families. Now, if we don't get rid of taxes, there's a whole lot less financial stress on everyone, and therefore the likelihood of taxes driving people into poverty is much lower. Not to mention the fact that you are also taxing the rich, and regardless of the financial situation of the country there are always rich people to be taxed. Even during the great depression, there was a booming upper class. So, you people seem to have a lot of problems with taxing individuals. But couldn't you lower taxes on individuals and raise them on corporations, who, at the moment, give the country practically nothing? What do you have against that? For that matter, without the government organizing things, how are you going to spend those donations? The government, if nothing else, keeps things well organized. If you created groups to sort out donations and give them to the right people you'd need a lot of volunteers. And people tend to have lives, so you're likely not going to get that many people who want to work for free. What then? Not to mention things like healthcare. How are these organizations going to organize healthcare deals with large corporations? And here's my favorite point. In how many situations have these libertarian ideals worked? How many countries out there have implemented this successfully? Most of the other developed countries out there are downright socialist compared to us. I mean, libertarian ideas work great in theory, but hey, so did communism.

It is my belief that we need to keep the U.S. postal service. The U.S. postal service provides many services that are valuable to todays society. If we were to get rid of the U.S. Postal service then private companies would take up that niche in the economy. This would be bad as prices would rise in the cost to mail items. This would also be bad because then the mail would not be protected by the U.S. government.

I accept the challenge to this debate. First I think that it is important to define socialism. All though this is an affirmative burden, my opponent has not met this burden, and it is crucial that we know what we are debating about. I define hurt contextually. I define the U.S. economy contextually. I define socialism as social democracy. Social Democracy - A moderately socialist form of government achieved by democratic means. Social Democracies typically have regulations, and strong welfare states. Now, at the same time, they still have free markets. Many services like healthcare and education would be provided to everybody. One misconseption about socialism is that it is always centralized and statist. The idea of the proletariat owning the means of production would not be, under this definition of socialism, the nationalization of industries. Industries (other than the health insurance industry) wouldn't be socialized by the state, but directly by the workers. Factories would become cooperatives. They'd be owned by working people; business decisions would either be made by vote or by the elected representatives of workers. There'd be no management, though in some cases there would be elected management. There is one last point which I would like to clarify before this debate. My opponent says that forcing money from the working people to the non-working people will hurt the U.S. economy. He is right about that. I do not deny it, in fact I will be arguing that Capitalism enriches the investor class at great expense to the working class, and that this process is ultimately very harmful to the economy. Now that the definitions and ground for the debate have been laid out, I'll refrain from making any contentions, so that my oponent can make the first contentions in this debate. I look forward to seeing his arguments.

"Basic things such as food, water, clothes, and living spaces should be provided by the government." Typically when the government provides things, they are very inefficient. Take as an example the dmv, national defense, law enforcement, welfare (both corporate and private), and more. Whereas the private sector and the free market have been proven to thrive in areas like these. Because when one works for profit, they need the consumer. When the consumer is not satisfied, the business owner begins to fail and will try to improve his product. The government doesn't work this way. If you wish to change the way things are within the government. You'd either have to vote for it, or become a politician. Both ways are both very complex and often difficult processes. "in the event of a monopoly, the suppliers can drive the consumers bankrupt simply by charging essentials as high as they possibly can in order to make a greater profit margin." With capitalism, monopolies are nearly impossible to create. That's why political parties that support capitalism such as the American Libertarian Party don't have big corporate followers, because they know that under a capitalist system they have more competitors. Again, not to insult, you may have capitalism mixed with corporatism or crony capitalism. This is when the government is in bed with corporations through lobbying and special treatment. With capitalism, the government is not allowed to grant special favors to anybody. Not corporations, not the people, no one. Most (if not all) monopolies that were created throughout history were making bargains with the government. A prominent example today is Walmart. In defense of monopolies (my only defense for that matter), is that they have proven to provide great prices. Take the 19th century "robber barons" as an example. It's an often told myth as to how they were created, which really involved government help. The government is the largest monopoly that has ever lived. "You proposal of anarchism could also potentially increase violence" This is a fallacious argument often brought up by critics of anarchist capitalism. Of course, no one can truly predict how society would handle this issue, but anarchist philosophers, economists, ect. Have offered blueprints. Like I said, I don't want to branch this out into an argument over anarchism so I will offer links for you to read if you so choose. If you still think anarchism can't handle violence, that's your choice. But what I can offer in a short argument over this is that the government has created more violence than any other organization has all throughout history. "The government will always grant special treatment to the rich in Capitalism because the rich are the ones who supply the money for the campaigns." As stated in previous arguments, this isn't capitalism. "Naturally, due to the inherent greed of humanity" Not in this debate, but maybe through private messaging we should discuss human nature. It's a topic I love discussing. "it impinges upon equal opportunity." I prefer freedom over equality. This is a morality debate. Which you can continue to debate it as you please so I'm leaving it to you if you wanna debate morality more lol. (Maybe through private message or another debate?) "trickle-down economics, which frankly, do not and were never intended to work." This is where my anarchist argument comes into play. Trickle down economics I feel like is a bad term for capitalism as it implies that the rich must give to the poor without the governments help. This isn't precisely what capitalism is in my opinion. The government often rids the incentive to give and really pushes this notion of trickle down economics. "While you are correct that SMALL businesses are beneficial, big ones simply drive the small ones out." Under capitalism, true capitalism that is, it'd be very hard for a business to buy off other companies. Imagine there are five malls. One is preferably bigger than the other four. For this bigger mall to even buy one smaller mall, it'd be a great financial burden. The owner would eventually have to pass this burden onto his consumers or his workers or his shareholders and it'd be very hard to do so. For a continuing example, let's say the owner buys it anyway and pulls it off. The other three businesses are then going to become more expensive to buy off since there are less malls now in circulation. The cycle of facing financial burdens left and right would soon come to an end once consumers start evading this business since it is making harmful decisions. "These interest rates and level of economy control would not be necessary if Capitalism were to simply be discarded." Well, it depends on if it were anarchist capitalism and limited government capitalism. Anarchist capitalism would be the easier solution, but in the went of limited government, there is still no central bank that would be able to commit such disasters to the economy like our central bank does now. "If people were to simply be offered jobs of equal work for necessities and some comforts interest and the stock market would not exist and our economy would not be so flimsily tipped over." The government still spends under what you're proposing. Which includes interest rates. Marxism proposes a national bank. I believe it's the seventh plank in the communist manifesto (correct me if I'm wrong). National banks destroy economies by controlling interest rates. In the short run, lower interest rates are better. But they prolong spending and do more harm than good in the long run. "While it would be nice for it to simply be so easy as to say "I'm going to the upper class today!" and move into that zone, reality is not so ideal." I apologize if my argument on that issue maybe made it seem like I thought moving into different classes is easy, I didn't mean it that way lol. The key word was opportunity. It is very much possible and doable to gain income under a capitalist society, whereas a controlled economy keeps everything equal and offers little to no opportunity, unless you work within the government then you can have lots of money. "As the link shows, the wealthiest of Americans control an overwhelming 85% of the nation's wealth despite only accounting for 20% of the overall population. With the elimination of Capitalism, those numbers would balance out." This is another either or argument with anarchism and limited government. Anarchism provides the better solution to this because there is no actual "national wealth" set up by governments and such. I will elaborate on my political freedom argument by using a quote made by economist Milton Friedman, "The preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing governmental power. But there is also a constructive reason. The great advances of civilization, whether in architecture, or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government... Newton and Leibniz; Einstein and Bohr, Shakespeare, Milton and Pasternak; Whitney, McCormich, Edison and Ford; Jane Addams, Florence Nightingale and Albert Schwietzer; no one of these opened new frontiers of human knowledge and understanding, in literature, in technical possibilities, or in the relief of human misery, in response to governmental directives. Their achievements were the product of individual genius, of strongly held minority views, of a social climate permitting variety and diversity." This is what my main point is when saying that capitalism and freedom are two sides of the same coin. To end, I'd just like to thank you for also being civil in the debate. As you read in my argument I'd like to discuss human nature through private messaging or something. Bringing it in the debate would make things unclear..

However, I am somewhat challenged in seeing the argument as illustrated. My opponent has manufactured a scenario that really doesn't exist, nor has he offered socialism as a solution to this fabricated scenario. I will offer actual examples of where capitalism is superior to socialism in providing for the needs of its people. It would be helpful for us to look at what we must assume from his resolution to be a better alternative, i. e. the socialist model. In essence socialism is where the state controls production and distribution to meet the needs of its people. To best illustrate this point let us look at the Soviet Union; a socialist system that I am intimately familiar with and exemplifies as pure of a socialist society as you will find. My opponent points out the basic needs of people, and how something like food is a basic need, so I will stick with that, because the examples are easy to analyze and find. Under the original Soviet model collective farms were centrally managed. "The theory behind collectivisation was that it would replace the small-scale unmechanised and inefficient farms that were then commonplace in the Soviet Union with large-scale mechanised farms that would produce food far more efficiently. Lenin saw private farming as a source of capitalist mentalities and hoped to replace farms with either sovkhozy which would make the farmers "proletarian" workers or kolkhozy which would at least be collective in nature. "[1] However the theory was a tragic failure and resulted in famine, and starvation. "The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization……The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings. " Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay. "[2]. Quickly they began to understand that the socialist model of providing basic needs, like food was failing, and incorporated some miniscule capitalist private alternatives, which proved to be much more successful. After Stalin died, Khrushchev made a visit to the US, and was very interested in learning how the capitalist farmers in the US were far better at feeding the people of the US, and beyond than their own farmers back in the USSR. He visited a farm in Iowa and was impressed by the yield per acre, and the quality of the product. He was further fascinated by the meat yield per pig. The capitalist model of supply, demand, competition was obviously better prepared to provide the basics of food distribution and production than the socialist model [3]. I will now indulge my opponent in his manufactured scenario of a drug that can never be recreated which is created by the evil capitalists for sale to the highest bidder. This isn't exactly the way things work. So drug X is created by this drug company, and it is proven to be a success. To get to this point the drug company had to invest huge sums of money to create this product, i. e. costs. So now the product is ready for market. The assumption my opponent has is that there is a fairly arbitrary price that can be charged, and that competition is not a factor, both are false. First, in arriving at a price, yes profit is definitely the prime factor, but not simply profit margin on the individual sale of the product, but rather striking a balance in profit margin, and volume of sales [4] to offset the costs and achieve a net profit. Volume is an important factor, so providing this product to as many as possible without eroding the profit margin is optimum. Now, for competition. Name a product where the monopoly via a patent has actually held true in a capitalist environment. The competition of your fictitious drug company is not going to sit by and let market share of a product be taken from them. They will do what the need to in order to regain their stake in the market. They may not make an exact match, but will most likely find a similar product with a similar function in order to compete, this is the nature of capitalism. Again, I will point out that socialism hasn't been pointed to by my opponent as a better system, or solution to his perceived problems with capitalism. I will point out that in a socialist society such a drug as the fictitious one he created would probably never be produced. Capitalism is the mother of innovation, and socialism is the mother of inefficiency. The unique characteristics of innovation within capitalism is clearly demonstrated by Baumol [5] in his book (see footnote) where he does a comparative analysis of economic systems, and how the best system to address the needs of men is capitalism. Although not a perfect system, as there is no such thing as perfection in such things; capitalism is the best hope in satisfying the fundamental needs of men, and is far superior in doing so to socialism. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.loc.gov... . http://www.isbnlib.com... . http://www.businessdictionary.com... . http://press.princeton.edu...