Question: Should Social Security be Transformed into Private Accounts?

Privatization of social security could enhance economic expansion. Privatizing social security would permit the investment of personal savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola contends that: "If Social Security were privatized, individuals would deposit their earnings with a financial institution. People would save resources that businesses could invest. As genuine savers, we would accumulate more resources in the future."[1] Consequently, private accounts would also augment investments, employment, and wages. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute posits: "Social Security depletes capital from the poorest regions of the country, leaving less money for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would particularly benefit the poor."[2] Currently, Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Although Social Security was pivotal in restructuring the social contract in the USA following the great depression, it represents a poor deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this situation has deteriorated over time. 'Baby boomers' are estimated to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who reached adulthood in the early 1990s and today's children are on track to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were raised immediately to pay for OASI benefits on an ongoing basis, baby boomers would lose 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later, it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be introduced gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While individuals in retirement or nearing retirement would likely remain in the current system [if Social Security were privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their funds in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year due to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they divert money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.”[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the funds being misused. Privatizing Social Security would actually stimulate economic growth and result in better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only

The US constitution protects our property rights. The US constitution considers our personally owned businesses to be our private property. Facebook and other social media sites are privately owned businesses. Facebook and other social media sites are private property and are protected by the constitution. Facebook and other social media sites are not publicly owned, therefore the public has no say in how these social media sites are run. If you, the reader have any qualms with Facebook or other privately owned social media sites, you are free to start your own site.

It seems that George Bush, either in his ignorance, or in a underlying hatred, has endangered the rights of every human being in the US. His various acts and policies he has introduced and enforced have all lead up to jeopardizing the societies that we are all used to. The Patriot Act is the key example. Not only that, but the lack of enforcement/corruption in the various policies that are already in place have left detrimental effects on the people of the US. This is not only G.W.B.'s doing, but in a time of a faltering economy and nearly two recessions now (the first one being 4/5 years ago, but we quickly recovered), everyone seems to be willing to give up their rights and their consciences for either money or security. This debate, I intend, is not only about what G.W.B.'s faults, but also society in general of today, and how the US people's human rights are being threatened by all means.

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.

I thank subutai for this opportunity to debate. I should also note that while these are all communistic ideas, some are more mine, heavily influenced by Marx, rather than completely Marx"s. 1. The economy Private property, and the property owning classes, are inherently oppressive. They allow the few (bourgeoisie) to oppress the many. They take the produce of those beneath them whom they hold captive with debt, banks and the political establishment. Communism proposes a system in which the economy is used to produce what the people need. Such an economy is based on a democratic hierarchy of elected councils which allows those at the bottom to control the top. Historically, communist economies have suffered mainly from an over centralization of power (not necessarily the same as organization) in the economy. When things went wrong, the higher ups tried to deflect it rather than admit their mistakes and directly fix them. The system MUST have accountability at the heart of it and term limits, power of recall, and transparency are vitally important, but went by the wayside in the 20th century Stalinist systems. As comrade Roy Medvedev states in "Let History Judge", "[socialists] must overcome one of the most dangerous consequences of Stalinism-fear of speaking the truth." Supply and demand for most commodities will be calculated by averaging demand over a certain number of years (probably around five) and then producing at a rate slightly above this. Years where production exceeds demand will produce a surplus which can be used in years where demand exceeds production. The rate at which production exceeds demand for a given commodity will vary depending on the volatility of demand for a commodity. Luxury commodities will be produced in such a way that everybody can receive certain amounts of them, though not in such excess that they either become worthless or it begins to interfere with more vital aspects of the economy. Computers and the digital age will allow us to track demand, compute supply and organize distribution with relative ease, when compared with earlier communist attempts. Governments and corporations already do this, and things like censuses, credit cards and smart phones could be adapted for a communist society. Factories and farms would be balanced between productive efficiency and employment, ensuring everyone can work, and for a reasonable amount of time. Most work would fall into one of three categories, assigned, optional and semi-recreational. Assigned work would be similar in concept to jury duty. Some work is unpleasant, but must be done, like garbage collection. To ensure that it is done, everyone would be assigned a certain time when they must do one of these jobs. Exemptions would be rare, especially for political figures. Optional work may be a misleading way to categorize this section, as the option is not to whether or not to work, but rather what work one does specifically. This category includes factory jobs, farming, teaching and such, jobs which will be how most people contribute to society most of the time, and without which society could not function. Finally there is semi-recreational. This title to could be misleading, as recreational does not mean strictly that they are "fun". Rather, they are not necessarily essential to the day to day functioning of society. A coach, painter or philosopher could fall into this category. They are jobs which an individual decides to put some of his or her time into for the sake of the art, and although the state will gladly aid them in this endeavor with support and materials, they cannot expect more than perhaps a day off for a big game or art exhibition. There is one possible exception to this, which is that people who are considered true masters in an art or sport might make it their profession to aid the state in selecting people whose efforts are worthy of support. 2. Motivation A common accusation against the communist system is that it fails to properly motivate people. Capitalism, for example, claims to offer the ability to move up and offers wealth to those who want it enough. But communism seeks a society of complete equality and no money. So what motivates a man to get up each morning and trudge to work? Well firstly, communist work and capitalist work should be distinguished between. Communism offers a sense of purpose and accomplishment to everybody who will work. It offers to give the people the control over their economy, and work for themselves and their comrades, rather than some fat cat. "In 1990, a collection of research papers edited by Princeton economist Alan Blinder extends the data set much further and reached the same conclusion: worker participation usually enhances productivity in the short run, sometimes in the long run, and rarely has a negative effect. Moreover, participation is most conducive to enhancing productivity when combined with profit sharing, guaranteed long-range employment, relatively narrow wage differentials , and guaranteed worker rights (such as protection from dismissal except for just cause)- precisely the conditions that will prevail under Economic Democracy." [2] This quote is about research related to cooperatives and businesses with worker participation in the US. There are some differences between communism and the cooperative system, but the lesson is clear, worker control and rights, plus economic distribution equals greater productivity. 3. Innovation A communist system can provide innovation and technological advancement, without the pitfalls of capitalist motivation. In capitalism, there are of course the rewards. If you've got a good idea and questionable morals, you might be able to be incredibly rich. The problem is, innovation is not a guarantee from the profit incentive. When people create, or do anything, with the sole goal of profit, they are likely to cut corners and not account for anything which will not directly impede profit in the short term, as our most recent recession shows. There are other purer reasons for why we innovate though. Fame certainly plays into it, everyone likes to be a drum major, as Dr. King would say. But creation for its own sake is very human. If you have a good idea, you want to try and make it happen. Belief in the communist ideal is also a good way to foster innovation and motivation in general. Look at Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK-47 assault rifle, "... because his invention was never patented, Kalashnikov didn't get rich off royalties. "We worked for socialist society, for the good of the people, which I never regret,"".[3] Communist innovation would be more like kick starter than Microsoft (although kick starter is NOT a communist group). A sort of online petition system would allow people to present their ideas to the public and if an idea was well liked than it would be classed as either a luxury or necessity item, and put into probationary production in a limited number to see if it was popular enough to be mass produced. People who had successful ideas would be able to get a new job organizing production and further improving their creation. Capitalism damages people, it chains them to mediocrity with poverty, makes people cold and self absorbed, and rewards those people who display the worst human qualities with the most money. Communism is the only way we can end such self destructive tendencies in our species. [1]http://www.nytimes.com...... [2]http://trustcurrency.blogspot...... [3]http://america.aljazeera.com...... [4]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......

Thank you. Your points are marked as >>. >>Why must those statements be honest by law? Is it because they are economically potent? Then pretty much every advertisement would be banned. Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. >>Some companies fail because of corporate malfeasance, but not all of them. In fact, the vast majority of them don't… [a]nd when one corporation fails, its productivity in society doesn't evaporate forever. I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. >>I do not think it is the business of the government … to manipulate what people feel, period. To say otherwise is paternalistic and naive at best, totalitarian at worst. I never said or implied that the government should manipulate the way people feel. I was discussing the social harm associated with the dishonest and fraudulent activity of corporate executives – which you argue does not exist because Corporate America is not homogeneous? You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. However, even if you intended to limit your argument to corporate failures caused by white collar crime, my position still holds. Corporations are connected to every part of society in some form or another. A corporate failure creates problems for society beyond its employees and investors. Corporations are suppliers, distributors and manufacturers of goods and products that keep society going. The effects of corporate failures, without distinction, are not isolated to investors and employees. A failure caused by white collar dishonesty just brings a criminal element into the mix and that is why SOX is there. SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. >>This current economic crisis is occurring for reasons that have nothing to do with embezzlement and everything to do with inflated government credit. I did not address the causes of the current economic crisis in the first round. I discussed the current economic crisis in the context of social harm, specifically in connection with Corporate America, which includes banks, car manufacturers and finance companies. You claim that a social harm does not exist. When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. >>[I]t is sufficient that investors detect "red flags[.]" Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. >>Whose interests do these concerns serve if not those of shareholders? Who would care about any of this besides the shareholders? SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. >>There are many ways for smart shareholders to protect themselves from liars and crooks. They can run the companies themselves, they can gather enough competent, trustworthy contacts to fill those positions, etc. Why should the government have a hand in this? Assuming it should, what are the limits of their involvement? A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. It is a barrier to crooked capitalism. It is a response to the pattern of corrupt and selfish behavior of Corporate America where criminal minds use numbers as weapons. The government should "have a hand in this" because it carries the authority of law and the teeth of enforceability. Businesses cannot put people behind bars. >>When you own a company, that company is yours. At the same time, a corporation is not nearly as concrete or vital to the owner's survival as, say, a house. You live in your house; your house is necessary for your warmth and protection, and so the police help protect it. The same is not true of a corporation. Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. I see nothing wrong with that purpose, and I support the government's role in effecting that goal.

Why Taxation is Theft Taxation meets the legal definition of theft because it forcefully deprives an individual of their property permanently. [1] The main counter argument to taxation being viewed as theft is that it used for a common social good, which is irrelevant due to the legal circumstance for theft being valid. The conclusion is not changed by the fact that the government uses the money for a good cause; however, more often than not the government uses money irresponsibly for often unpopular causes. There is no social contract with individuals to pay taxes. Laws are irrelevant because they are compulsory and are legitimated by force, therefore would be disqualified as a legitimate contracts due to duress of one of the involved parties. Often the tax revenue is misused to benefit corporate or foreign institutions, which is essentially depriving the tax payer of their income permanently. Examine for instance the social security tax, when Social Security was established in 1935, it purpose was to provide minimal financial assistance to those too old or unable to work. The plan was to have certain workers and their employers make small contributions to a fund that would be held in trust for the workers by the government. At the time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age, but Social Security didn't kick in until age 65. Thus, the Social Security system was systematically taking money from the average American tax payer that most would never see returned. Intentionally and forcefully depriving an individual of income for a social program that they would not partake in, is by definition theft. [1] http://dictionary.law.com...

Now for my final argument, let me say that we all know who our President is, and we all know he has a tough job ahead of him. Unfortunately, we don't all know how important this Health Care Reform is. Government Health Care is just as essential as any other government ran services, such as police, military, and the postal service. Each and every day in this country, Americans are grappling with health care premiums that are growing three times the rate of wages and insurance company policies that limit coverage and raise out-of-pocket costs. Thousands are losing their insurance coverage each day. Without reform, the burdens on America's families and businesses will continue to multiply. This Health Care Reform is an issue of vital concern to every American, and it should be. Under this reform, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. This reform is just an option to those without insurance. You are under no obligation to shift to a public plan. But, if you don't have insurance, you will finally have access to quality coverage you can afford. If you do have insurance you will benefit from more security and more stability when it comes to your insurance. If you lose your job, change jobs, or move, you will not have to worry about losing health coverage. This bill sets up tougher consumer protections that will hold insurance companies accountable and stop them from exploiting you with unfair practices. It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history; They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. There will be a limit on how much out-of-pocket expenses because, "No one in America should go broke because they are sick. " -President Obama, Aug. 21, 2009 Insurance companies will be required to cover routine check ups and preventive care. This reform will help bring down skyrocketing costs, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and government. This reform will provide every American family and business a measure of security and stability that they lack today. Private insurance companies are the ones in charge of managing the pool of money and dull out the money to the people who need it. On average, these companies take out 10-20 cents for every dollar put in. Some of that goes to administrator costs, some are used for political campaigns to fight against health insurance reform, and some of the money is pure profit for the investors. Medicare takes out about 2-3 cents per dollar, but none of that is a profit. With government health care, there is no money coming out, so the money actually goes to caring for people's health. "My opponent said "Nobody said anything about their taxes being spent unfairly, until Obama came along. " And to be honest, I actually laughed out loud slightly when I read this. I have never heard a comment farther from the truth posted here. " Yes, people have been complaining about high taxes for years, but not over whether or not they had an option about what their taxes are going towards, or that they didn't have a say in the matter. There are lots of outrageous rumors circulating on the internet, television and in basic conversations within America. I could talk until I'm blue in the face trying to defend this reform, but the people that believe these rumors are never going to take what I say into perspective. They will only appreciate this reform if something happens to them and they find themselves in need of the Obama Care. I do admit though, the bill could be better, perhaps, but reform has to start somewhere.

Thank you Mr. Peebles for your plan for the country. Allow me to introduce mine.I believe that I would be a better President of the United States because of my modern and practical sense of looking at our country's biggest issues.My plan is the 4 Step Plan to a Better America.Step 1 - A Plan for Debt ReductionMy plan for debt reduction actually starts with an overhaul of the tax system. Under my administration, I would establish a flat tax on individuals, businesses, and manufacturers (It must be noted that I would reduce the manufacturing tax to 0% for 2 years). A flat tax is a way to level the playing field and really make our tax system fair.The second part of my debt reduction plan is to introduce a new law that would require a balanced budget by law. This would put pressure on Congress to spend only the money we have.The third part of my debt reduction plan is to reform Social Security. I would establish an opt-out option so citizens can chose to be a part of the Social Security system. Social Security will also be privatized under my administration. Privatizing Social Security into individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America's failing financial system. Also, by removing the requirement of the federal government to provide retirement benefits reduces the bloated bureaucracy of the US government. Step 2 - Eliminate Waste In Washington D.C.I believe this will be the most audacious part of my 4 step program. In this step, we will aim to reduce corruption within the government, shrink the size of our government, and cut waste.Under this step, the following government divisions will be abolished: The Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Reserve.I would also pay government employees on the same pay scale as private sector employees. A recent Heritage Foundation study found federal workers earn 30-40% more money on average than counterparts in the private sector (http://read.bi...).A subsection of decreasing federal employee pay is reducing the amount congressman pay. At the link I put above, you'll also find the startling fact that the median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was $2.38 million dollars. I find this wrong. Under my administration, I would call for the pay of a member of congress to match the median household income, which, in 2009 was $50,221 This law would also apply to the office of the President.Step 3 - Government TransparencyThis third step is by far the most forward thinking package of programs my administration would introduce. I believe in order for our government to be trusted by the people, we must show them that we are committed to transparency.This is what my administration's transparent government would look like: Create Transparency.gov Post government expenditures above $10,000. Reveal the identity and pay of the top 25 highest paid government workers. Post government contracts and bids in full so citizens can review them. Post the details of meetings, gifts, and travel of government officials. Publish reports done by third party organizations and watch dog groups on the effectiveness of public projects and what they cost. Step 4 - Government Support of Future TechnologiesUnlike Mr. Peebles, I would use government research labs and employees to research alternative energy. However, my plan for alternative energy research is a government subsidized research program that would focus on the following three technologies: Nuclear, solar, and wind power. From the research, we hope to find out how to make each type of alternative energy safe, clean, and cost effective.In regards to oil, I would open up US shores for oil drilling. This would get us off of our dependency on Middle Eastern countries and prices set by OPEC.It must be understood though that offshore drilling is a temporary fix and my administration would be committed to a greener America.

This is my first debate on this site and I hope I can do well on it. First off, I'd like to give the basic definitions of both Capitalism and Socialism to prevent any bias and have the two of us start on an equal ground. Capitalism is defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion. Socialism is as an economic system which consists of public (or government) or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion. I'm for a Capitalist-dominated mixed economy. Now I feel inclined to admit that Capitalism has a massive flaw in its overall plan where if you make one mistakes you could end up ruining yourself ten-fold. Yet Capitalism is probably the only, if not one of the very few, economic system where you are able to pick yourself back up, so to speak. There have been many instances where a person has joined the ranks of the jobless and homeless and used available opportunities and abilities to build their lives together, even more so than it was before. People who are generally opposed to Capitalism usually claim that the rich are the real ones in charge, that they make all the decisions. But as someone who sees the pro in Capitalism, I have to deny that claim. In my eyes it's the people who are in charge because they control the money flow of a business (i. e. if a number of people simply stop supporting a corporation, that corporation could see a potential downfall without the customer buying their product. The loss of money eventually leads to the end of big business. Easy as that! ). Now how does this all tie in with the economic benefits of Capitalism? Well if you look in the past, Capitalism has benefited a number of countries like the United States. We may have a large deficit, but we have the largest economy in the world and the U. S. Dollar still holds top spot among other currencies in other nations, and its been that way since the 1920s. Capitalism provides free, fair competition between businesses -- both big and small -- which in turn can benefit society because the people can look towards better and more efficient products; lower prices; and better deals that come with such promotions as sales. The money that goes to manufacturing firms which make these products can be used to build more Manufacturing jobs in a country and in turn, not only reduce the rate of unemployment, but also expand the tax base so a government can be able to pay for benefits like Social Security and Medicare. And jobs will always because of that.

Before we begin this debate I feel we must define the term of the resolution. My opponent has neglected to so I will do so here. Capitalism will simply be defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion. Socialism will be defined as an economic system which consists of public or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion. My opponent also somewhat described a primary goal of socialism being to "redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without." We will add this to the definition of socialism, seeing as it would not make sense for my opponent to say it had we not. I will also ask my opponent what form of socialism he is defending. I will, depending on his answer, offer a full critique of it in the next round. Different forms of socialism would be state socialism, pure communism,and left libertarianism. For now I will simply focus on my opponent's specific points. As for the definition of better, this seems tricky. Because the term 'better' can have so many different meanings, I will list a few so as to give my opponent and readers of this debate the best understanding of the term. Better: of superior quality or excellence[1] Greater in excellence or higher in quality[2] something superior in quality or condition or effect[3] I, for the sake of this debate, will ask that my opponent not bring any semantical arguments to this debate. For this debate, arguments which attempt to negate or affirm the resolution on the basis of definitions alone should not be used. It is only because of the vague nature of the term 'better' that I ask this. I will ask that my opponent acts in good faith. Now as for my opponent's arguments I will try to list them below and refute them if necessary. The BOP will necessarily be on my opponent as Pro and instigator of this debate. (A)""The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none."" Either-or fallacy. Why must all wealth belong to everyone or no one? (B)Rich have no reason to work. Here my opponent argues that because the rich are rich "they have no incentive to use their land productively." Ignoring the fact that my opponent here fallaciously assumes that all rich people were born rich and does not in any way account for people who personally made their own fortunes, this point of my opponent's completely contradicts another point which he brings up later in his case. I quote my opponent: //"Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man"// In this quote my opponent argues that people can be just as much motivated to work to help others than for profit. So I ask my opponent if people can work without a profit incentive, then why should it matter that rich people have not as much to gain y using their land productively? Also, seeing as for this scenario, the rich are assumed to be using the system of capitalism as opposed to socialism. If we are to assume that they are in a capitalistic setting then they will always have the profit incentive. There is no point that one becomes so rich that it is not possible to be richer. In fact the "rich" would have more incentive to use their wealth to acquire more seeing as it would be easier for them to do so considering their access to more resources. I would also like to use my opponent's own point as a critique of his own system of socialism. It is actually when a system of socialism is in place, that there is no profit incentive. My opponent admits this saying that people would "share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind". But I will ask the readers, what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness. Of course when I use the word 'selfishness' I do not mean it in the general negative connotation of one who only cares about one's self and will trample over anyone to get what he wants. I simply mean it in an egoistic sense of caring for one's survival. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialism is completely run on moral principles of egalitarianism and equality. However this is the very reason that it does not work. Because these qualities are not dominant in the human species. Humans are biologically programmed to care for themselves and their progeny. Capitalism utilizes this fact to provide services that others want and need. Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's. This is all I will write at the moment. I do not think I can write more without knowing what specific form of socialism my opponent is advocating. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


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

Social Security should indeed be means-tested for the affluent. I'm largely reiterating my previous arguments. Regarding the privatization of Social Security, if individuals have complete autonomy over their funds, the majority would likely face destitution in their senior years, leading to a significant societal issue. Moreover, under the current system, less fortunate individuals receive a degree of support from Social Security, which they would no longer receive if it were privatized. This support should instead be funded by the excess wealth of society, ensuring that those who are too impoverished are taken care of.

I believe that Socialism, if implemented correctly, can lead to a better, fair society compared to the current capitalist situation. The trouble for many people is not that this is very complicated, or hard to understand, but that it just sounds too good to be true. Many of us get so ground down and demoralised by living under capitalism that we become convinced that nothing as evidently sane and good as socialism could possibly ever really happen - life just isn't like that, so there must be a catch somewhere. I intend to prove that socialism is not too good to be true, that it is a perfectly reasonable and practical way of organising society, and that the various objections to it which spring into our minds, because they have been planted there by the dominant capitalist ideology, are illusory or even downright silly. I say silly because when people are deeply prejudiced they often think arguments are obvious, because they are based on their prejudices, which are in fact absurd and which disappear like a puff of smoke the moment the matter is tested in practice. Let us begin by looking at something absolutely basic: feeding people. The world is currently richer and more productive than it has ever been in history, yet, according to the United Nations, 963 million people live in hunger and fear of starvation, and about 25,000 people, mostly children, actually die of hunger, or causes related to hunger, every day. Is this because of a shortage of food? No. According to the Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First think-tank, "Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and a half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs - enough to make most people fat! Even most 'hungry countries' have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products." Perhaps the problem is transport - maybe the hungry are in remote parts of the world and the food can't reach them. On the contrary, many of them are in huge cities where planes, and sometimes tourists, fly every day - places like Calcutta, Rio de Janeiro or Dhaka. Besides, we know we have the means of getting planes with bombs to all the remote places of the earth. Perhaps people just don't care if thousands of children starve. Except the UN is full of people who "care". There's an abundance of charities, like Oxfam and Save the Children, who care a lot and depend on donations from people who care, and the poor countries themselves are full of NGOs doing their best, yet the hunger and the malnutrition continue. Why? There is one answer you can read on any website dealing with this issue and which all the agencies and charities from the UN down would agree on: poverty. People go hungry because they are poor and can't afford to buy the food available. But actually this is only part of the story. What would we think of parents with four children and a larder full of food who allowed one of the children to starve on the grounds that the child could not afford to pay for the food? In fact poverty only leads to people going hungry for a reason that you don't find on the charity websites, namely that in capitalist society food, like almost everything else, is a commodity, a good produced for sale on the market in order to make a profit. Socialism would deal with this seemingly intractable problem of hunger in the easiest and most obvious way, the way any ordinary family deals with it, by not treating food as a commodity and simply distributing enough of it to people to ensure that everyone has enough for a healthy diet. Just think about what this would mean: no more starving children, no more distended bellies and vacant, staring eyes, no need for kids to work 12 hours a day in sweatshops or for old people to die in the gutter or beggars to crawl in the dirt; so much human suffering ended. Even if it achieved nothing else, this alone would be enough to justify socialism a thousand times over. But, of course, it's too good to be true; there must be a catch somewhere! This is where those "standard objections" pop into our heads, just as they have been programmed to do. If food was distributed free there would be no incentive. Wouldn't people all stop work? Actually, no. Very few people reading this article will ever have literally gone hungry, very few people in Britain do, but we haven't all stopped work. The truth is the opposite: if you are starving you soon lose the ability to work at all and people with a decent diet work much more productively than the malnourished. As it happens there are two major "catches" to distributing food to the hungry: the first is that the big corporations would not be able to make their billions in profits out of it, and the second is that if it would work for food it would work for other things too - housing for example. Shelter is one of the basic requirements of human life. Yet even in the richest cities in the richest country in the world, the US, there are homeless people sleeping on the streets, just as there are in London. In the mega-cities of the world's poorer countries, with their favellas and shanty towns, the problem is horrendous. Socialist planning would solve this problem very simply. Take Britain as a starting point. Strictly speaking, there is no housing shortage in Britain, only a shortage of affordable housing. Dealing with the immediate problem of homelessness would just involve requisitioning the empty properties, the mansions and second and third homes of the rich. But a permanent solution is easy to envisage. Use the census to estimate the housing needs of the population (something like this happens already) and establish a public house building programme, employing thousands of bricklayers, carpenters and other building workers to build slightly more houses than are needed. Then make the provision of a modest but decent residence for every family or individual citizen a basic right, in the same way that every child has a right to a place in school, or the NHS provides free healthcare for all. In other words, stop treating houses as a commodity and distribute them on the basis of need. The same principles could be applied to transport. Presently transport is a complete mess. Technologically, of course, it is possible to transport people around the world more efficiently than ever before in history, but under capitalism the organisation of transport is both inefficient and destructive. The main form of transport is the private car, and car ownership and use have become so widespread that the roads are clogged up and the pollution generated is a major contributor to climate change. The socialist solution is obvious: set up a comprehensive integrated system of free public transport. This would involve a huge expansion of the railways for freight and intercity travel, since they are clearly faster, more cost efficient and more environmentally friendly than cars and lorries. Within towns it could be a combination of trams, buses, subways, monorails, minibuses and bicycles. The precise details don't matter here. The point is that, provided the public transport was sufficiently extensive and effective, the private car, with its attendant problems of parking, congestion, accidents, petrol and pollution, could virtually be eliminated in urban areas (and rural areas too if the public network was extensive enough). So at this point we have free food, housing and transport along with, I assume, free health and education. Inevitably the question arises, "How would this all be paid for?" Given the unbelievable sums raised to bail out the banks in recent months this question loses much of its charge, but in any case there are two answers to it depending on how far we look into the matter. The first answer is simply that it would be paid for out of taxation, as the NHS, schools and, of course, the armed services and their wars are at present. Clearly if food, housing and transport were all free, people would have more money to pay tax with. However, looking a bit further we have to remember that money does not itself create wealth, or goods or services. Only the application of labour to nature does that. Money is just a means of exchanging goods and services that have become commodities. The less goods and services are treated as commodities, and socialism would systematically reduce commodity production until it disappeared, the less role money will have. So the real question becomes, would it be possible for society to allocate sufficient labour to grow and distribute enough food to feed everyone adequately, to build enough houses for everyone and to make and operate enough trains, trams, buses, etc to move people around. And we know the answer to this is yes because we more or less do it already. But how would all these collectively owned industries be run? Socialist planning will not be socialist and will not work practically unless it is democratic and actively involves the mass of ordinary people. As for some people getting to the top and abusing their position, this will be a problem, not because it is human nature, but because socialism has to be built by people brought up under capitalism, not by saints and angels. The answer is to develop mechanisms for controlling and removing such individuals, and since the Paris Commune of 1871, we have known what those mechanisms are: make all public officials subject to election and recall and pay them a worker's wage. Once that happens, a better world, a far better world, will move from being a possibility to being a reality.

With many thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate, I should like to address the objections he raided in turn. 1) Many things get wrecked and broken in a revolution… Although I hope for a "Velvet Revolution", as free from violence as possible, my opponent is right, some things will be destroyed. Amongst them, the entrenched system of privileges accorded to the upper classes. 2) There are better ways of improving society… Under the current electoral system, no political party can win a general election without substantial financial contributions of businesses or high net worth individuals, and the support of the mass media. As high-rolling tycoons and international media moguls tend not to be socialists, it will not be possible to achieve our goals through the ballot box. 3) The supporters of this idea are inept… Most capitalist politicians adopt socialist principles in government, although they do not couch it in those terms, of course. Let's take two examples Firstly, the use of public funds to finance private banks and, secondly: agricultural subsidies. This is socialism except that the public makes the payments but take none of the profits. 4) Britain is already the world's fifth largest economy... I believe in socialism, not communism. Free enterprise can flourish in a socialist state. Only the key industries will be taken under public ownership. However, no government can allow key industries to collapse. Utilities that are currently in private ownership such as water, electricity, gas, railways and airports will be re-nationalised. 5) Too many people are already on the fiddle… But only the wealthy get away with it under capitalism. Consider a politician trying to raise election funds from high net-worth individuals. Do you think he is likely to get a fat check from a tax-fiddling tycoon by promising to crack down hard on tax evasion? Capitalists govern not for the benefit of society as a whole, but rather for their wealthy paymasters. That's the gap between rich and poor is getting ever wider. Under a socialist system, there will be a thorough review of existing tax legislation and all the loopholes that can be closed will be. This would only affect the wealthy, however, as most workers have taxes deducted at source by their employers. 6) History suggests that it will all turn to custard… A country where the landed gentry own over half the nation's wealth, and are getting ever richer at the expense of ordinary, hardworking families is already "custard". If their excess wealth was redistributed amongst the rest of the population, every man, woman and child would receive a cheque for US$$124.881.00. (1) So, a couple with two kids would be almost half a million dollars richer at a stroke - I don't think that would be too unpopular. I must take exception with my opponent's impression of socialism. The right-wing media always portray socialism as humourless, dull and oppressive, where the work-shy are supported by the state and freedom of expression is ruthlessly punished. This is not case. Enterprise, culture and entertainment would be encouraged while everybody that can work will have to work – that means both the benefit-scroungers and the idle rich. Naturally, the civil service will be retained to run the day-to-day affairs of state and the best political and economic minds would be drafted in to assist with strategic decisions, so there is no reason to suppose that the country could not be run efficiently. Furthermore, I would make the following commitment to the people of Britain. The People's Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will remain a member of the European Union, NATO and the United Nations and all your human rights will be guaranteed. There would also be regular, free and fair elections with opposition parties being invited to participate without let or hindrance. Not that I'd expect them to be very successful. "There now follows an election broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party: ‘Good evening. Do you remember that huge pile of cash you got after the revolution? Well vote Conservative and we'll take it all off you and give it to our posh friends so that they can sit around all day sipping champagne rather than go out to work like everybody else.'" Now is the time to put an end the tyranny of the privileged classes and, instead, strive to create a society where there is true equality of opportunity and where hard work and creativity is rewarded. This cannot be realised through parliamentary elections – it can only be achieved if the workers rise up and seize the levers of power. (1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk...

In recent times, threat to social security has been at the forefront of society. Governments had a sharp wake up and found themselves facing a terrible trouble - terrorism. I truly believe that it is fair to say that the majority of terrorists are religious, and it needn't be said that the worst overwhelmingly are. This perpetual danger forces leaders of great, secure countries, like the US and Britain, to transgress some of our most basic rights in the name of counter-terrorism. I'm absolutely confident that both you and I would rather not have our legs rubbed up and down when trying to travel through an airport. It isn't just modern religion that is dangerous, it is also the remnant of the archaic and outdated religion that poisons our society. The most prevalent are, of course, Islam and Christianity. What I mean when I suggest that religious is poisonous, is that it infects us in our most basic integrity, and spreads lies such as 'you cannot be moral without God.' How insulting and offensive is an untrue statement like that to an atheist? I don't want my basic moral values to be credited to a fascist Big Brother in the sky. I'd like the credit to go to the ones who have raised me, like my mother and father. Now onto the family matters. The Roman Catholic Church, very recently, introduced a basic code to try and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This was called the ABC policy, which was: abstinence, being loyal to your partner, and, if all else fails, condoms. It's true that abstinence and being loyal can prevent the spread of such a disease, but why can condoms not be a first resort instead of the last?! I'd like you to bear in mind, while reading this paragraph, that this was the exact same church that spread the devastating lie to African countries that condoms actually have small, microscopic holes in them that can actually increase the number of cases of HIV/AIDS. Now, how dare the Roman Catholics call me, as an atheist who likes to think of himself as a morally adequate person, a morally EVIL person, when they are directly causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of Africans who will never know any better? The Catholic Church seems like a very easy target, though. So why not go onto not a different denomination, but a whole new religion. Islam. The most morally inept, destructive and sickening religion known to man. This is a religion that, when guiding a middle eastern theocracy, sets down laws that state a woman cannot be executed if she is a virgin, but imperial guards may rape this woman and then kill her. What a sickening though, and even more sickening to think that things like this happen on a day to day basic in these vile countries. I am not blaming the people of the country though, they are only victims of this totalitarian regime that dictates to them what food to eat, what clothes to wear, who they can go to bed with and what they can think. I believe the final dictation in the previous list to be thought crime, something that George Orwell used to exaggerate the consequences of a hypothetical situation where a totalitarian government sat in power. Finally, I'd like to close my opening remarks by borrowing a question asked by the late Christopher Hitchens: Name an ethical deed or statement said or done by a religious person that couldn't have been done by a non-believer. If you can't do this, then do the following: name me a wicked deed or statement said or done that could have only been done by a believer. Who says we get our moral values from religion?

i've agreed with most of the things you've said so far, but I still think you're twisting the definition a bit. Indeed if we could learn get along better, stop using money we don't have, and worry about more than our own personal gain, we could live far better than we do now., but private ownership isn't to blame. It's our imperfections. Our greed, our stupidity, our love of power... it's the fact that we're human.. And as always, thank you for the debate.

1. I've already pointed out to you how the Department of Health and Human Services could take it on if they are given competent leadership and adequate resources. They already run Social Security and Medicare, in addition to many other programs. Why wouldn't they be able to handle a restructuring of their priorities and administrate a new program? You give absolutely no reason explaining why my points in the previous round are not sufficient enough. Yes, you're right. There are three branches of government. They do have divisions within them, such as committees in Congress or individual agencies in the Executive branch. What does any of this have to do with proving a cabinet-level department can't run large programs when I've already given you plenty of examples to the contrary? There isn't much I can do if I give you examples proving my point, but you dismiss them out of hand based simply on your opinion without any evidence to back it up. 2. That isn't what I said at all. It's like you aren't even paying attention to my points and instead respond to what you wish I said. These taxes would be imposed on all of the payers from the outset. The parties that pay into the taxes for the program, the less they are for any one party. I haven't done a detailed analysis of how much would be needed down to the dollar, but based on the site I listed at the bottom of my last round, the country would save $350 billion on administrative costs alone. This is just one area where we would save lots of money with the single-payer system I mentioned, so I doubt if any taxes would be needed beyond what I mentioned before. The current recession is being lead by the housing market and the problems with credit associated with it. Banks around the world got caught up in our mortgage mess, and now they are all paying the price as well. A single-payer system would have nothing to do with this at all. It might cost some jobs in some areas, but create a lot of jobs in other areas, so that would either be neutral or be a positive. What rates are dropping? Insurance rates? Where did you get that from? I think you're confusing insurance rates with interest rates. The Fed cut interest rates. They have nothing to do cutting rates for health care at all. I wanted to debate universal health care, not educate you on the current state of the economy. Your lack of understanding the basics of our economy and the current state of it is dragging this debate down. 3. Why? Why can't you have universal coverage and private practices? You give absolutely no reasons to back up your claims. It's universal coverage, not universal provision. A single-payer system would be paid for by the government, but the payments would be made to private providers, just like how Medicare does it now. Again, your lack of understanding of the system is dragging this debate down. Some of medical inflation is due to the development of new medical devices and machinery. That is natural. Inflation due to the example I listed above wouldn't happen because HMOs would no longer be able to cut hospitals and doctors off at the knees. Also, the sales tax on the advertising and lobbying expenditures of pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers would also provide them with an incentive to cut their costs, thus cutting prices. Device manufacturers current spend billions of dollars on lobbying doctors to use their devices, regardless of whether they are the best devices or not. Drug companies only spend 13% of revenues on R&D while they take 17% in profits and over 30% on advertising. THIS IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO EXPENSIVE. Not only would the tax either drive these prices down or help the government pay for their price, but the government's enormous negotiating power would also force these companies to drive down their prices, as well as get hospitals to strip out the inflation they have added to the system. These reasons are why inflation would be cut and reversed under the system I advocate. What hospitals would be lost? Where did that come from? 4. Hospitals will be as poor as other countries? What? I already illustrated how hospitals would be paid much more regularly and at a fair rate. They wouldn't be undercut by greedy HMOs that only pay 30% of the bill presented to them. None of the arguments you've mentioned, at least the ones where I can figure out what it is you're trying to say, have addressed this. If public hospitals get reimbursed more, regardless from where it's coming from, they don't have to tax localities as much to keep themselves running. That's just common sense. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. 5. That's a nice article, but it doesn't explain much of anything. it only looks at our system. If our system is so efficient, then we would have the same numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality (among others) as other countries at the top of the WHO's list. Western Europeans, on average, live longer, have more children live through birth and infancy, have lower rates of disease and live healthier, all while spending FAR less than we do. Here, check this out: http://www.kff.org... We spend over $2 trillion on health care, but we get beat in just about every health category that matters. In just 7 years, that number is expected to double. And you're trying to tell me that our system is efficient and effective, especially after the numbers and examples I've given you about how inefficient our system is? 6. No, you didn't mention anything about trickle down economics above. Besides, what does that have to do with anything in this debate? Given the point in your life you're in, 25% doesn't mean anything to you. But once you're paying rent or a mortgage, paying for a car, utilities, food, credit card bills, etc., you'll understand what taking 25% of your income to pay for medical bills. Often times, its a lot worse than that. Sometimes it eats up everything they make, and thats when they have to file for bankruptcy. When this happens, everyone loses out: the hospital, the doctor, and everyone that person owed money to. When that happens, we all end up paying more to make up for what their creditors lost out on. We already pay for everyone else's inability to pay for medical care. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you're just going to keep dismissing that fact without any reason to back up your rationale. Just saying it doesn't make it so. 7. I have already explained repeatedly how doctors would be working in much better conditions than they do now. Yet, you continue to say it would be worse but don't give any reasons that I haven't already addressed as to why I'm wrong. Their wages would be the same, and they would get to keep much more of what they make since they wouldn't have to fight HMOs for every dollar they make. And no, getting paid for their services is not a trivial matter. You assuming there are other reasons for my NP friend paying for so many clerical staff does not mean there were. 8. Once again, you're ignoring what I said and continue to insist on your opinion without giving any evidence to back it up. 9. So you think that a rich person's life is more important to save just because they can pay for adequate care? Ok. 10. Did you even read the criteria? This is ho they judged the countries: "WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)." I'll address why you're wrong about Canada in my next round.

At this time I will rebut Pro's case. P1. SOCIAL FREEDOM Pro describes how much our freedom may increase under a SOL system; yet, he fails to justify how this is a good thing. It seems to me that giving people the freedom to "own a pet tiger and let it maul you" is actually a bad thing--while this may maximize your right freedom, it undermines your right to life. Life seems, on face, like a much more desirable thing to retain than the near-absolute freedom Pro is forced to advocate for. Surely, the type of restrictions we have in our current system still allow us the necessary space and liberty to self-actualize, while ensuring that our own foolhardiness doesn't jeopardize our right to life. P2. ECONOMIC FREEDOM Pro says that taxes would plummet--in fact, under SOL, taxes would be illegal. SOL states that we own the products of our labor, and taking away those products by force is theft. Therefore, all taxation is theft. The government could only be run through voluntary donations; so, it is completely possible that the government might not have the money to run its police, military, and judicial arms due to a lack of voluntary donations by the public it serves. This is definitely going to undermine Pro's first argument about social freedom. It also derails Pro's flat tax plan as being Con, not Pro, ground. In other words, I could implement Pro's plan, but Pro can't. Moreover, since government cannot regulate the markets, America would likely see a repeat of the industrial horrors of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, where companies put out unsafe products, grossly underpaid their workforce, and accrued monopolies to extort exorbitant fees out of consumers. This would lower quality of life in America. With no one able to check against abuses, companies are free to abuse. For example, if companies in the food industry decide they want to massively underpay their workers to increase profits, they could do it. If they then decided to increase the prices of food, they could also do it because, like OPEC and oil, the cartel has an effective monopoly that prevents competition from driving down prices. There is no reason this wouldn't occur in every single industry, making it virtually impossible to find good paying jobs, or cheap products. The income gap would skyrocket, and upward mobility would freeze (the rich save money for themselves, vice giving back to their workers). Adam Smith himself wrote, "The landlords' role in the economic process is passive. Their ability to reap a revenue solely from ownership of land tends to make them indolent and inept, and so they tend to be unable to even look after their own economic interests." [1] Companies are wholly self-interested, profit-motivated entities. There has to be a separate entity out there balancing the scales in favor of the public welfare. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...

The opponent seems to have a murky knowledge of communism, and what it really is. Firstly, I would like to define several terms:1. Communism: A classless, stateless, moneyless self-administering societyThe opponent states things about oppression, but in a self administering society like that of communism, where would the oppression come from? 2. Private Property (Marxism): Private Enterprises in generalTherefore, if Private Property is Private Enterprises, how could the worker not have any incentive for work?Now, with some terms defined, I would like to add that all the points the opponent has given me, I have to accept, as we anti-communists must create a brotherhood against the devil that commonly launches attacks on our almost utopic society. Instead of attacking my opponent's points, I shall do the same thing he does: explain my views on communism.The working man is the backbone of the nation; any nation. The working man produces, sustain, and is relied upon to create a greater good and benefits for the nation. However, the working man faces a popular dillema: either work, and get society's support, or do not work, and do not get society's support. If they work, they face society's support, but low pay. If they do not work, they do not get society's support.In 1848, some socially phobic aristocrats and high living bourgeoisie decided to write a manifesto to attempt to seduce the workers into a dream, so they could shut their mouths up. Karl Marx, a son of a government official, and Engels, a son of a capitalist factory owner, decided that they could stop their workers from complaining about the system by luring them into another system, which would destroy the working class: why?1. The Communist Society is an Obsolete SocietyIn early Christianity, Christian societies seemed to have practice a simple form of communism. According to the book On Politics by Alan Ryan (pg 207: The Justification for Private Property), they seemed to have put all their property on a pool table, and the inhabitants of that community would come and take what they needed: this practice is known as mutual aid, and is endorsed by the modern left, but much more by anarchists than communists. However, once institutions of worship were created, the need for private property grew. Churches soon grew by the need to expand and be bigger and better than many other churches. Soon, the Papacy arose: from taking things at the pool table to an enormous theological organization that claims to be the messengers and the direct sons of god shows the path of all communist society: private property is human nature. The opponent claims that communists do not care about our property, but yet Marxist doctrines show that they do: they care about the land we own, they care about our children, they care about where we live, and they care about how we live. Under communism, all land and property is held in common. Is that not theft to a point? That only propels my point: private property is human nature. In all attempted communist societies, there have been inequalities. People taking more than what they need is the exact reason for the rise of more powerful institutions, such as the case of the Papacy, and in other institutions too: the rise of the government itself can be seen as a development of primitive communism, where everything was held in common. In both Christian and Primitive communism, we can see one prime way: years of practicing mutual aid and/or communism cannot lead to a classless moneyless stateless community that Marx and Engels are advocating for. Years of practicing mutual aid and communism can only lead to the establishment of a government, of a state, and of a institution that could claim legitimacy over ruling. This makes communism totally obsolete in this world (it also makes it unsustainable), as it is a primitive way of organizing the society, and it lead to the governing systems that we have now. This makes in inapplicable to current human society, because through communism, we have led the world into the path of what it is now: governments and capitalism. We cannot reverse that trend. Humanity will never advance backwards, but would only advance forwards, forwards to the path of being more complex, not simpler. To the path of being more human, and less animal. To the path of being more civilized, and less barbaric. Is it not clear that communism was built for those who do not understand human society thoroughly, whose human nature aren't fully developed yet? Communism will only destroy humanity and it's innovation. I support reformation within the capitalist system. I hope you all do to.Workers, unite for the fatherland against communism!

Logical Fallacies will not be permitted The United States was formed on the basis of the philosophy of the likes of John Locke, William Blackstone, And Adam Smith. Namely, That the people and the Individual is far more intelligent and important than the greater whole of society and its contract. This is especially true in the case of the management of familial and community units. However, These ideas are falling by the wayside. Nowhere is this more felt than in our public school system. Every human being has a right to an education. The government has seen fit to interpret this as meaning that every human MUST be forced to get a government provided education. There have been few tragedies that fly as directly into the face of our principles as this abomination. First, The government is abusing a system meant to help those with fewer resources. The public school system was never meant to be the main source of education in America. It was meant to supply poor families with a more affordable option. The rest of the schools were built and operated privately, By those wishing to progress the human race. However, Over time, The government began to create and enforce more regulations upon the curriculum of these schools, And the schools that were accepting public funds (which should never have happened in the first place) became dependent on the funds provided by the government, Which then dictated what could or could not be taught by these schools. This has lead to a population of government worshippers who believe that every problem the United States has faced has been solved by government, From slavery and racism to the great depression. This could not be less true, And is leading us down a very dark path of big government movements like the Socialist state dreams of Ocasio-Cortez and other campus radicals who have been brainwashed into believing the trash spouted by the government about such matters as the role of our Founding Fathers, Of Racism, And of the New Deal. One wonders why the products of our government run school system are supporting the growth of our government. They have been turned into Alinsky"s useful idiots, Serving the system they were trained to blindly follow and strengthen. Secondly, This leads to the death of choice. Now, Every single American citizen is forced by law under penalty of fines and the Social Services to attend an educational course for "between 175 and 180 days of school and/or between 900 and 1, 000 hours of instructional time per year, Depending on the grade level (Center For Public Education). " This is one of the most obvious examples of subjugation that has ever been present in the United States. With these mandates, The government is implying that they, As the "ruling body, " know what is best for the population and that they should therefore be able to force their ideas upon us. It"s disgusting, And is an obvious violation of the underlying and fundamental principles of the United States of America. There should certainly be trust in the ability of parents to choose what is best for their children, But this idea is being ridiculed and destroyed by the government. Why? Because, As said by Brutus in the Anti-federalist number one, "it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, That every man, And every body of men, Invested with power, Are ever disposed to increase it, And to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. " This is also backed up by Abigail Adams in her assertion that "Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could, " in her Braintree letter to John Adams on March 31, 1776. The most well known statement of this type is "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " which was written by lord Acton. There is an obvious solution to this problem. The Common Core government program must be overturned and replaced by independent and privatised schools. We must have faith that there will always be Individuals such as Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln, Who adhere to the principle of scholar empowered learning. Anyone who refuses to attend a school should have that choice, As those people exist now and are simply a drain on resources and serve as distractions to those scholars who are willing to learn. A choice based system would eliminate the need for internal the discipline issues of today"s school systems. This would also free Individuals from large taxes going toward indoctrination programs and drains such as those mentioned above. This system would force schools to compete for attendance like businesses, Ensuring that only the best would thrive, As the Free Market was meant to do. Of course, This will lead to more uneducated members of society who refused to take the initiative of education. Those people exist now, Though. They go through the Public School System refusing to retain knowledge and acting as a drain on resources, Tax dollars, And time. A choice system would only make these people easier to notice. One might also object that people would not be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, As is taught in Kindergarten and Elementary schools. However, With a choice system, Parents would still have the prerogative to teach right and wrong, Which would also be reinforced by church and normal social interactions. The parents who would not have that prerogative would be the same ones who don"t know either, Which would make no difference. In the end, The only downsides are negated by the fact that they are also the pitfalls facing us now, Whereas the merits of this proposed system are self evident: increased freedom, Better education, And a sense of independence from the government which is healthy in a Free Society. Works Cited Gatto, John. "How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, And Why. " The Natural Child Project. Https://www. Naturalchild. Org/articles/guest/john_gatto2. Html. Accessed 15 October 2018. "What is School Choice? " ed Choice. Https://www. Edchoice. Org/school-choice/what-is-school-choice/. Accessed 15 October 2018. Hull, Jim. "Time in school: How does the U. S. Compare? " Center for Public Education. Http://www. Centerforpubliceducation. Org/research/time-school-how-does-us-compare. Accessed 15 October 2018. Adams, Abigail. Letter to John Adams, Braintree March 31, 1776. Brutus. Anti-Federalist Brutus I, October 18, 1787. Lord Acton. Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887.

While it is obvious that the Pro displays a good understanding of economics, the Pro is still obligated by burden of proof to present why a democratic socialist model is superior to a free market capitalist system which the Con has obviously been unable to substantiate as I will demonstrate below."The Con makes a very good point when he says that the United States is a mixed economy, and I apologize for the semantic error on my part when I referred to "the free market system" as a whole- I recognize that it would have been more accurate to say "the predominantly free-market economic system" (Of the USA) . However, I still maintain that free market policies are predominantly responsible for the banking crisis leading up to the 2008 crash:"It isn't a semantic error. You have provided factually incorrect and misleading information. The United States is as I have stated earlier in the previous round, nowhere near a free market system. It is a mixed economy where the United States Federal Government heavily regulates both the private and public sectors of it's economy.An article published by the reputable Economist describes my point entirely on how completely driven away the United State's economy is from any Laissez-faire model of capitalism. "Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity" - The Economist [S1]"Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates"It is not an overstatement it is a fact. The Federal governments policies were responsible for the chain of events that led to risky lending and irresponsible lending on the part of Wall Street and it's subsidiaries. If proper interest rates had been maintained credit would have remained more stable and Wallstreet would not have had the ability to lend out risky amounts of capital. "The fact is, under a free-market dominated health care system, Americans spend far more for a far worse service than the Swedes. But how can this be, when the 'invisible hand' of competition should drive prices down and care standards up, when rival firms must compete for customers?"The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works. The comparison here is faulty. The United State's health care system is hardly a free market in any sense of the term and to compare it to a socialist model like Sweden is a false dichotomy. Therefore the comparison to Sweden is not only incorrect but irrelevant. To provide proof of my claim I have provided an article from the United State's Department of Justice which thoroughly analyzes the serious challenges the United State's is facing due to a completely over regulated and mismanaged health care system. "Health care is subject to extensive regulation at both the federal and the state level, much of which "arose haphazardly." [S2]Conclusion:As shown through this round of my argument it is clear that the Pro's understanding of American economics is incorrect and the arguments he has presented are fallacious in some portions. Sources:1. http://www.economist.com...2. http://www.justice.gov...

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.