Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

We ought to reallocate wealth from the elite to the lower-middle class. I'm seeking to engage in a succinct yet comprehensive discussion. The precise topic is "We ought to reallocate wealth from the elite to the lower-middle class in the United States through augmented taxation." Wealth reallocation will involve an additional 10% tax for every dollar earned over the current income tax rate for the wealthiest 1%, which will then be redistributed to the lower-middle class.

I won't argue with you that MOST goods should not be socialized, like housing, clothes, etcetera. But doesn't there exist goods that ought to be? What about fire service? If your house is on fire, are the firefighters going to discriminate between those who have firefighter's insurance and those who do not? If the person in the apartment below you has firefighting insurance and you don't, should they only extinguish the fire on the floor below you? Police service follows the same argument, and arguably speaking, our government in general is a sort of socialism in itself, since the poor have an intrinsic right to it whether or not they can afford it. I have the utmost respect for the concept of Laissez-fare capitalism, however there are areas in which it works well, and areas in which it does not. Monopolies, for instance, represent one of the peculiar areas in which Laissez-fare must be controlled. If our Government were purely capitalist, it would be equal in corruptness to a purely socialist one. The technique of forming an effective government, therefore, lies in knowing what areas to capitalize and what areas to socialize. I am arguing that healthcare is an area best socialized. I have no health insurance at this time. I'm not trying to whine, I just want to use myself as an example. Last year I got sick, went to the hospital, and got treated. I was unable to pay for my visit, so the bill went to a collections agency(I did eventually get it paid, but my credit was harmed and I had to postpone payment of other important bills). My situation is reciprocated countless times throughout the country, and it is logical to presume that many people will never get to paying that hospital bill. Medical assistance is a fundamental need, and should be guaranteed by any modern country whether or not you have the ability to pay. When you cannot pay, your credit is ruined as if you went out and bought some product you can't afford. My friend recently went to secure a car loan, and was denied due to an old medical bill on his credit report, so even though creditors are supposed to give you a little extra leeway because it is medical in nature, this clearly does not make that much of a difference. We are harming our citizen's credit histories with these medical bills, and those who do pay their hospital bills can be crippled financially. When you make your monthly budget, you usually aren't going to have extra money set aside for medical emergencies. Health insurance is a complete ripoff, expensive, and hard to get for students (like myself) who cannot afford to work full-time. I sustain enormous pressure right now to drop out of school and go work for some crappy employer who will offer me health insurance at an affordable rate. Even when you have health insurance, you are still going to be hit with hundreds of dollars of bills if you get sick, and you're lucky just to break even with what you have already spent on the health insurance payments. This whole situation is simply a disaster that does not need to be an issue if we simply switch over to universal health care. And I don't mean the insurance kind. .. The insurance companies have been preying on our citizenry long enough and it is about time we free our citizens from the deceitful practices that these outfits engage in. I personally do not have any plans to obtain health insurance in the near future, not because I don't want to, but because I cannot afford it. If something happens to me anytime within the next four-five years then my credit will be destroyed and I will never have the chance to secure a loan in the future. The only chance I possibly have is to pray that one of these democrats gets elected and enacts universal healthcare, and does it SOON. So handsoff, I'll pose you a hypothetical. A poor person is sick, and does not have health insurance, and is definitely not going to be able to pay the bill. Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk, and then clean it up and send the family the cleaning bill? Or do we let the person in to be treated, and absorb the cost. As it is now, the person will not be left outside to die (thankfully), but the person's credit history will be destroyed, and it will be that much harder for them to climb out of poverty. What good does it do you to ruin this person's credit? Your not going to suck the money out of this person no matter what your policy suggestion, so why perpetuate this problem? I hear the Republicans saying that we will "destroy the best healthcare system in the world", and without even going to statistics, how are we "saving" the healthcare system right now as it is? We still have to treat the person anyway, so it doesn't make any sense that we are saving it at all. The only possible way we can save it is to deny treatment to sick people, and let some rich people in who are better off. Sure, we can coerce these poor people to not get treated in the first place (threaten them with a crippled credit rating) but their long-term health detriments will multiply in old age and they will end up costing the system even more money when they eventually do get treated. I'm sorry, handsoff, but universal healthcare is the only just way to approach this issue. Please explain to me how your argument is not terribly immoral. Please explain to me how these european countries are so bad that we have to stoop down to their level, those dirty socialist europeans. And finally, please explain to me how I am not entitled to healthcare. Thank you!

I affirm. DEFINITIONS Universal health care (UHC) – Healthcare for everyone. Should – Morally obliged to (do action X) Support – participate in, believe in. OBSERVATIONS 1) No specification of locality: The significance of this is that we are not talking about specifically in the US, in Zimbabwe, in Mongolia, but as a general concept. 2) No specification of time: This means we can go to any era in this debate, as long as the idea of UHC existed during that time. 3) Nothing is mentioned about implementation: Therefore, we aren't talking about any consequences that actually arise out of a specific UHC system. If we talk about a problems that, say, X country's Y aspect of its UHC system is faulty, then we're no longer talking about UHC as a whole, but rather, nitpicking at nontopical issues. 4) The definition of support does not necessarily mean that a supporter must be registered to some sort of organization legally, nor does it mean that a supporter must be an activist. For example, let's say a person likes the idea of small government. However, just because he supports something similar to libertarianism does not mean that he has to be registered with the Libertarian Party, nor does it mean he has to participate in libertarian activities, nor does it mean he IS a libertarian, nor does it mean he needs to speak about his opinion at all. All it says is that he supports the idea. It's just the same with this topic: all this resolution is asking whether or not we should believe in the idea of universal healthcare; not that we should go out and protest for it. Value: morality Morality is defined as "the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct" by dictionary.com. The question the topic poses is a completely moral one: when we look to the purpose of health care, to actually care for health, things like economics just fall away. Is it right, or is it wrong to support UHC? But morality is too broad, so we'll narrow it down by looking at whoever achieves the value criterion the best… Value Criterion: benevolence What defines right and wrong; what defines good and bad, is if it helps other people. If you use your toaster to make breakfast, that's not really moral or immoral. The only place where morality comes in is when we have interactions with each other. Dictionary.com defines benevolence as "desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness", and since we are not looking to the implementation or real world effects of any specific UHC system, a good intent is all one needs to achieve what is right. My sole contention is that supporting a universal health care system encourages the concept of helping others. Using an example of a society today that does not have universal healthcare, the United States leaves the healthcare of its citizens to the "private sector". Corporations then are free to provide and deny insurance to people at will, and the people are given the idea that everyone really is out for themselves. However, by supporting a universal health care system, it enforces the exact opposite idea; that we can help each other instead of just looking out for ourselves and maybe our families. We no longer live in Hobbes's ‘State of Nature', yet today many Americans still act as if we are in an ‘every man for himself' world. It, simply put, is not. Former president John F Kennedy once said, "The links first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure." This idea that we live in a global community was not in JFK's mind alone: It has been repeated to us by many of our greatest leaders, over and over again. Yet too many people still continue to believe that everything is a war, and when one man wins, another man loses. That's not how it works with healthcare. Just because one citizen is granted insurance doesn't mean that a certain number of others need to be denied that same access. That whole mindset can be changed for the better by supporting universal health care. Universal health care supports a point of view in which we can and do help each other – something that would let us all do more of what's right.

I'm really unsure where to begin in this round because Con stated his argument in R1. So I will begin by refuting his argument now, then by defending my argument. Con states "Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?" Here, con agrees that abolishing of welfare would do some people good. He did not negate my topic, but agreed to it. Con then says it would harm many, yet he doesn't provide any proof for such a statement. Con says "Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?"Taxpayers. They wont need to pay for people who misuse it, or don't put it in use for what its actually provided for. Con states "Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person in the USA if missing two pay checks could be homeless." It's obvious for any family. If they have one less income, it's possible for anyone to become homeless. Not only those who depend on welfare. Con goes on to say that 'This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate." Con believes that welfare is provided for criminals because they steal from the rich. Does this mean we still provide them with money? Defending my case; "What would happen to the poor if welfare was eliminated? What would happen is a small percentage of them would find employment with no Medicare and most likely not making enough to support a family. We are also living in a technilogical revolution which is making it so machines can do allot of factory work that has employed people for generation, other job such as ones provided by GM motors, the biggest USA employer in until the 1980s, have outsauced dew to globalisation. " It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree. Arguing that machines have taken away jobs from employers is false. this has been going on for many years. Your rebuttal is invalid. "NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cardsin a manner that was against the law.Well how canwe judge what the poor, desperate, mentally and phyically sick spend what little money they are given on?" Con argues that these people who have stolen and committed illegal crimes are okay. They should suffer no consequences, and the actions they commuted are okay. He merely states that these people have a reason (which is okay) to commit these illegal crimes. Con says ". Charity's are not as affective as the federal government and cannot be relied upon to support yourself and a family and take away small digneties which i believe everyone is entitled to but espesially the children and pentioners and the disabled who deserve it." Yet, he doesn't prove to us *how* its not effective. After all, every little bit counts.

As I have not received an answer from my opponent, I will not present any arguments. However I would like to ask that my opponent provide sources that back his claim, specifically: 1. Only few people use welfare for the right reasons. 2a. You can claim disability from back pains 2b. That a lot of people use this to claim disability 3. That the average worker earns less than an unemployed welfare recipient If you could find me some sources backing this up then that would be much appreciated. If not I will post my arguments next round.

Since the pro concedes all of my arguments let me clear up some misconceptions. In capitalism my opponent says "Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated." While this is partly true it is not fully true. In capitalism their is a lack egalitarianism.Since companies are trying to get a step ahead and always one up their competition they offer the lowest prices possible. Usually to achieve these economic goals companies outsource jobs for much cheaper just to maximize profit. Let me provide a scenario. A man works very hard for his family and all of a sudden the company is downsizing and to cut cost they outsource jobs to Indonesia were work is very cheap. The man is now out of work and cannot provide for his family. Since he is the main wage earner the family must downsize. Give up the premium education in favor of 3rd rate education in a more affordable neighborhood. The result of this poor education is a less equipped next generation. Since the family has very limited resources they cannot afford to send their kids to college. Since degrees are valued for white collar positions the children are stuck in a perpetual cycle of working to maintain their meager existence. This scenario is also known as the cycle of poverty which can be defined as"The cycle of poverty has been described as a phenomenon where poor families become trapped in poverty for generations. Because they have no or limited access to critical resources, such as education and financial services, subsequent generations are also impoverished." http://www2.crcna.org... Historical example the Great Depression Those same people who you said ,"deserved" their wealth amassed large wealth in a faulty structure so they could maximize their profit. The result an economic depression unparalleled in the United State's existence. During the depression it didn't matter how hard you worked, you were poor so the claim hard work equivocates wealth in every circumstance is hogwash. Why do I care about the poor? Con says,"I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live." It is the same reason your parent's care about you when you are a baby and child. All you do in the first stages of life is consume and create debts for your parents. Children do nothing for society except live, but why do we care for children? Because we know that the investments we are putting in to them will one day turn them into productive citizens. Poor people can be the same way, just with an investment they too can join the ranks of productive society. So In review con, corroborates all my points so Socialism solves harms from capitalism because we share resources so the people can liberate themselves. Good round

Why would you be against welfare so what do we do let all those poor people and there families starve I mean if there on welfare and they got jobs and they get jobs that are below minimum wage they could afford to eat and feed there families but if they have jobs below minimum wage and no welfare they are just gonna starve and die off and that is gonna happen to more then 40% of the US so you are inhumanily killing more then a huge fraction of this country if this went your way.

I like money, don"t get me wrong here, I do not love money, I need money, money is important, but only because people are important, and people need money. Anyway, when you are working for 1$ a hour in 1944, you are earning 24$ a hour, which is a living wage, but then Lyndon B Johnson passes the Coinage Act of 1964, which doubles inflation, so now you are working for that same dollar an hour in 1968, but that dollar is now worth 10.10$. Then Richard Nixon passes the "Economic Recovery Act of 1970" even though our economy does not need to recover because there is nothing for it to recover from, then you are working for 3.35$ a hour, it stays there until the 1990"s, now your Federal Minimum Wage is raised to 7.25$, but there is a problem, that is not enough to support your family, so then you would have to apply for welfare which is funded partially by your tax dollars, and the rest by the big boss man whose money is earned by you, so let me get this straight, you slave for 8 hours a day, and get a sliver of the money you produced, then you have to APPLY for another sliver of what is rightfully yours, and you get hated on for it . I am no communist, I am a strictly free market capitalist, and this is why I hate this issue. According to Thomas Pains "Common Sense": "The works of his hands we may consider rightfully his", so why are these guys slaving for a big fat boss man, 8 hours a day for not enough to live off of? And why is this boss man getting his pockets stuffed because you are slaving away for 8 hours a day? I swear, if Adam Smith saw how our money system works today he would have had a heart attack and died. Now let"s get this thing cleared up ok, just because Karl Marx agreed with this being a significant issue does not mean I am a Marxist, for example; me and Karl Marx can both agree that the sky is blue, but that hardly means that I am a communist. This issue is fairly simple, it"s just about as simple and obvious as the sky is blue, it just so happens to be that Karl Marx used this issue top reinforce his idea of communism. So here"s my solution: Free Trade, just return to free trade. I cannot understand how any capitalist can call himself a capitalist, when he didn"t even read "The Wealth of Nations", it would be like a person calling himself a Christian even though he never opened the bible in his life. Smith"s book, his thesis statement, is that the common man is more than capable of choosing the price for his goods and services, and yet we establish the Federal Reserve. I want you to just consider this, a popular myth is that the Federal Reserve lowers inflation, how is the Federal Reserve any more capable of giving the same commands than congress? A congressman is just as capable of saying "Tighten Monetary policy" or "Loosen monetary policy" as a Federal Reserve chairman. So let"s get this straight, we think that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is superior in decision making than us, and that we are incapable of deciding for ourselves, and we are supposed to call ourselves capitalists?!? Adam Smith supported free trade, this is the core of capitalism, that all men are created equal, and that the common man is capable of choosing his own trade, his own prices. That every human ought to have an equal shot at life. Our system is no capitalist system, our current system is a hybrid between communism and feudalism, in no way are we capitalists

Resolved; Every human is unique. This argument hinges on the idea that humans are sentient. That they have a inner reflective self that is capable of observing the world.I argue that this must be true not only because we as humans can know it ourselves when we reflect on our own condition, but that our moral and legal structures that we take for granted require it to be true.My argument here is that the way humans interact with one another is only explainable by the fact that we treat every human as unique; not interchangeable, irreplaceable, and impossible to place monetary value upon.So my opponent should have an easy time defeating me as this person will only need to give me another reasonable explanation for why we believe the following:1.) If a 6 year old child is murdered, it is not sufficient for the murderer to return any number of 6 year old children to the family even if they were exact replicas or clones. The only way to compensate the family fully would be to bring the same child back to life. a.) We treat this totally different than if someone had destroyed any other property the family possesses. Often compensation is twice the value of the item plus compensation for mental distress. Why does the same reasoning not apply to murder?2.) Slavery is unacceptable. a.) If humans are just another animal, how can it be morally impermissable for some animal to own the same type of animal? That is, it's not logically impossible for an animal to form hierarchies, even if they are all the same animal.As a condition of this debate, my opponent must concede that slavery is morally wrong, and that a family of a murdered child can only be fully compensated if at least their child is returned to life.My argument is that any moral framework that posits those ideas can only be logical if humans are unique.Try to avoid symantics, and keep in mind that you will have 24 hours for each round and there are 4 rounds.

'Are you saying you would deny someone medical treatment because they have less money than you? ' I would like to point out that I also come from a lower middle class family and I respect the fact that you don't have the security net of a NHS in your country. Some may say we're very lucky - perspective. However, when I addressed healthcare as an example, I did not intend to say that those in dire need should be denied medical treatment; I should point out that those who smoke, knowing the dangers of smoking but continuing to do so cripple the NHS in terms of resources and money. People who don't smoke, drink, over-eat, often have to wait long periods of time for extensive, possibly life-saving medical treatment - because ignorant, selfish people (even if they don't realise it) are causing problems by inflicting themselves upon the system. I would like to say that I smoke myself infrequently (and in knowledge of the risks) and would be incredibly ashamed if I was hospitalised due to a smoking related ailment. People who have worked hard, paid their taxes, are paying for me - I would never want that. It is these aforementioned people I spoke of when I said they should be made to pay for their treatment. People who have gotten illnesses through no fault of their own should be entitled to free medical treatment. Why not? ------- 'because they have less money than you? ' Smoking is a risk. Risks have consequences. Somebody who can't afford the medical treatment, but continues to smoke in awareness of the danger is taking a big risk, and if the risk fails, they should have to suffer the consequence. For example, if somebody murdered somebody else to rob them and they get caught by authorities, shouldn't they suffer the consequence by going to prison? ------ 'Allowing everyone not just those with money to feel better is more progressive. And as for helping people sick because of whatever stupid things they did is a good thing as well. ' As I tried to hint in the previous paragraph my intention was not that only people with money should get treatment, that is basic prejudice. As for progress - I do not believe that a junkie overdosing, being hospitalised for free, given a slap on the wrists, then kicked back on the streets to offend again gets society anywhere at all, the fact is we need to eliminate the source of why these people do this, to do that we need to educate, culture and guide. Not mollycoddle. Now that, I'm sure you would agree, is better help. Prevention rather than the cure. Another point - if poor people are getting help with payment for smoking healthcare where as a rich person pays fully for their smoking healthcare, is that not going against equality? Sure, poor people suffer much because they lack money which is extremely unfortunate, but often they get themselves into poverty, others are born into it - it's the luck of the draw and we all know life isn't always fair. -------- 'First you must consider the backlash from the masses when they hear that you have denied even the most basic help. ' They (the people) are being warned of the risk, as I have said risks have consequences. If you take the risk, the risk fails, don't come crying to a government that gave you fair warning. If somebody tells you not to touch the plate for it is hot, and then you touch it, you can't blame the person for warning you, it's pointless and foolish. Plus, 'the masses' aren't being denied treatment just those who I keep mentioning. 'That is the equivalent of murder if someone is about to die even if it's their own stupid fault we help that's being human. ' So tell me, who committed the murder? The government? I'm a Christian and know to 'treat others as you want to be treated yourself'. If you knew your neighbour couldn't afford healthcare wouldn't you help them? If we are so human, why don't we help each other directly? Then we ourselves can choose personally to decide whether someone deserves to be helped or not, we don't need a system re-routing our money to places where we don't want it to go. If someone is about to die because of their self-inflicted illness how can it be anyone else's fault? Because they chose not to? Sure that's not very nice at all but the point is that we have choice as a God-given gift. The people themselves can choose where the money goes, not the government system. ------ 'And further more the government does have a responsibility to take care of it's people that's one of the reasons they were even made a government' More importantly don't we have a responsibility to take care of one another. Yes, the government gives money to sick people through healthcare but it doesn't matter if that person gets better or not, they just become part of a statistic. When we give taxes to the government I'm fairly certain few people think about how the money is going to help, they won't even know the person it's going to help. But if we helped each other in a more direct way, in a community, the choice is made and its effect is clearly seen, furthermore the person doesn't become a statistic. People love other people, not statistics, I think putting people into statistics veils the reality of the situation. ------ 'a democracy or a monarchy is there to protect, serve and govern its people so that the country runs smoothly and you can't do that with a bunch of sick people running around. ' Yes, systems of rule were made for that purpose but they often fail (as seen from history) and those that work may appear to do so very well, but there is always a minority of people unhappy. The minority would probably be much happier if we had communities and more direct choice, those people who are unhealthy would be helped by others who know them and genuinely want to help. My fingers tire now. Thank you.

Everyone should be allowed the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all individuals would undeniably stimulate the economy and facilitate upward social mobility for many low-income Americans. By lifting people above the poverty line, reducing income inequality, creating jobs, decreasing school dropout rates, enhancing health, and increasing overall economic output, a UBI would empower those in unfortunate financial circumstances, providing everyone with monetary resources to work with. All would have the financial leverage to progress when they otherwise wouldn’t.

In contrast, current welfare programs often have the opposite effect of their intended purpose. They promote passive behavior and hinder productivity. Means-tested programs withdraw benefits once a certain income is reached, burdening recipients with high marginal tax rates. Other programs require individuals to deplete almost all their assets before becoming eligible for aid. Given their counter-productive nature, welfare programs are inferior to a UBI and have numerous drawbacks.

There are several examples of cash transfers or UBI trials demonstrating multiple benefits. In Namibia, the Basic Income Grant program reduced household poverty rates from 76% to 37% after just one year. Income-generating activities increased from 44% to 55% over the time period. School dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% due to parents being able to afford school uniforms, fees, and encourage attendance. In India, a cash transfer project improved sanitation, made medicine affordable, provided access to clean water, and allowed participants to eat more regularly. Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training, increasing business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%. In Kenya, the ongoing trial has reportedly led to increased happiness, life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress.

In the United States, with a proposed UBI of $10,000, millions of people could be lifted above the poverty line, which is currently $12,140 for individuals. The failure of welfare programs to provide overall work incentives is evident. Most welfare programs are means-tested, leading to the “cliff effect” where aid is withdrawn once an income threshold is surpassed. The Congressional Budget Office found that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40% when a worker earns slightly more than $12,000 and to nearly 50% in the mid-$20,000 range. These programs impose high marginal tax rates, trapping recipients in a large income hole they can’t escape.

A UBI would extend to every person,

"I disagree but comply nonetheless." Consider it a lesson - challenge someone, have an argument to challenge with. "I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status." False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others. "It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status." Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity. "Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income." Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals. "The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget." The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare. "People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money." Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause. "And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving." What are you doing to survive if you are not working?

1. im referring to all types of caitalism. 2. you are obviously having a difficult time debating, seeing as you have made all of these claims in round 2 but you have not given any reasons or basis for why you believe it. in a sense you havent even been debating, you have just been stating your opinion and arrogantly expecting people to just have faith in what you say. 3. you act like society couldnt work without money but there are cultures and societies in the the past and present that dont use money at all. you even said yourself in the comments that you are in favor of a barter economy which still wouldnt work in a future civilization but it shows your hypocrisy. 4. the soviet union has nothing to do with what im talking about. you are using old conventional thinking. 5. a) society can own the machines in the future, it doesnt have to be individual ownership. b) your claim that machines wont have creativity has no basis and therefore should be dismissed. many scientists disagree with you. there is a growing awareness of something called the technological singularity that is predicted. russia has even started a congressional committee dedicated to figuring out ways to deal with the impact that the singularity will have on society. its called russia 2045. c) it doesnt matter what anyone thinks about the ethics of greed. there is no choice, either we adapt and have a great standard of living, or we ignore the fact that machines will eventually be able to take over our jobs leaving us poor which will probably lead to more conflict, if not the demise of our species. 6. once again, my argument isnt about the ethics of wage slavery or any of that, we simply have no choice. technology is rendering money obsolete. 7. incentives to be rich are cute ideas but it holds back technological advancement. that is why computer operating systems like windows always release updated versions of heir software that we must buy, rather than making it open source so that individuals can improve on it and share it for free. the internet is one of the first examples of how innovation is eliminating capitalism with things like media and software pirating and open source web browsers just to name a couple.

In this debate I intend to produce compelling arguments against universal health care in general and against my opponent’s arguments. The United States spends $2.6 trillion on health care annually. This is roughly 17% of the country’s GDP. Due to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), and state and public health care programs, the government is responsible for approximately 50 cents out of every dollar spent on health care. Health care is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the American economy. (1) And as this source points out, more government control means less personal freedom. I personally believe that Americans are smart enough to handle their own finances and the citizens who are not financially secure are not taking advantage of the opportunities that a free-market system gives them. There should be no level playing field, in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, but no one should have it handed out to them by the government. In 2009, there were 50.6 million people in the country uninsured. That is up from 46.3 million in 2008. (2) This is a large number, and it does indeed continue to rise. Out of this number 9.9 million are not citizens or, they are illegal aliens. (2) Now if you believe that even illegal aliens should be provided with health coverage, than these numbers will not matter to you. It is my belief, however that if a person is in the country unlawfully they should not be allowed privileges that American citizens are allowed. With that being said, we are left with a number of 40.7 million uninsured in America. In 2009, the average price of health coverage was $4,824. (3) That breaks down to $402 per month. (4) In 2009, 9.3 million of the uninsured in America made $50,000 to $75,000 per year and 10.5 million made over $75,000 per year. (2) If health care was such a high priority to Americans, than why are people who have ample finances to afford it, not buying it? The face of Universal Health care… Wait times in ERs in the UK were so long that the government created a target mandating that patients be seen in less than four hours. (5) The government could not meet this target and tens of thousands of people who call for medical emergencies, are held outside of the hospitals in ambulances for five or more hours before being picked up and in some cases, before being let into the ER. (6) “People prefer not to be admitted for Christmas and doctors prefer to keep them out of hospital, Dr Robinson said. But to discharge so many more on Christmas Eve – 8 to 10 per cent more than on an average day – implies a change in discharge criteria.” (7) One reason doctors do not “care” as much under a socialized health care system, is because there is no competition to keep the doctors up to par. And when a patient is admitted and then discharged the same day, it doesn’t change the fact that it costs the taxpayers 1000 Euros per patient when admitted in the ERs within the target. (7) “Cleaners at Good Hope hospital with a poor record on superbugs have been told to turn over dirty sheets instead of using fresh ones between patients to save money” (8). I don’t have to point out the obvious problems with this. This is another example of how medical care will become very poor under universal health care. Other incidents include doctors asking patients to bring drugs from home (8), to people having to resort to home remedies, and super glue for teeth crowns because medical personnel cannot be found (9). An organization by the name of NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) has the job of literally telling you what your life is worth, in money, and if it is worth living or not. Newspapers in the UK are littered with stories of drugs and treatments that are to “pricey” to extend life. Yet NICE is actually envied by a large portion of the world. Top health officials from around the globe closely watch and mimic the procedures of NICE. (10). In Canada right now, a family is fighting to keep the hospital from removing a breathing tube from their son as a judge has ordered the family to allow the hospital to do so. Obviously, this is not something that would happen in America as long as the parents are legally sane. Liberals make fun of Sarah Palin, but you cannot deny that there are death panels, as evident by this story. (11) Another argument from supporters of universal health care is that health care is a right and should be guaranteed to all Americans. However, health care is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The only rights in the founding documents are rights to action. Americans have the right to pursue happiness. They don’t have the right to have somebody else pay for it or achieve a level of happiness at the expense of someone else’s happiness. Moreover, no citizen or non-citizen can, by law, be turned away from an emergency room. Millions of people who are uninsured, who liberals use to argue that we need universal health care, simply don’t want to pay for it. They would rather pay cash each time they visit the ER. Government ran, socialist style health care has been a complete failure everywhere it has been instituted. We need to be responsible for our own health care. This will bring costs down as the government will not have to spend quite as much per dollar spent on health care. (1)-www.heritage.org/Initiatives/Health-Care (2)-http://www.census.gov... (3)-Kaiser Family Foundation; Health Research & Educational Trust (4)-My calculator ;) (5)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (6)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7)-http://www.timesonline.co.uk... (8)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (9)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (10)-http://blogs.wsj.com... (11)- http://www.foxnews.com...

Well, you can easily have laws preventing the hoarding of money if you want, I wouldn't necessarily support that, but that would solve that problem, and getting rid of money is not necessary. Just because people will hoard money, doesn't mean we have to get rid of it. We just need an economy that works for everyone and not just the wealthy.

I. Lands can benefit the collectiveThis is a matter of one sided opinion. I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. As I said earlier, we hold millions of acres in land, IE, a lot of other land that can benefit the collective;. Tight sharecropping operations can be run pretty compact. Which is why I posted the above photo. In truth, with current interest rates on BLM controlled land, the farms can be distributed at 400-500 m2 a piece, with you average farm being about 1000-3000 acres. A well organized and structured government share farm will be efficient and beneficial to the collective.II. Land UseIt is important we set a basic ratio, for distributed land, and land held in reserve. We have established that the US has plenty of unused land it seems. I reason that a fair distribution equation would be DLm2 =(FEI - CI)/4) +200. If you couldn't figure out what the abbreviations meant, ask me in the comments. Honestly, given current demographics, and the reserved land comparative to what would need to be distributed, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.Oh, and just to run the equation for practical application, it would look something like this. The federally established income right now is 10,000, and lets say a random person only has 8000 in total income. You would deduct 8000 from the FEI to equal 2000, which you would proceed to divide by 4, leaving you with 500 m2, which you would add 200 to, leaving you with a land plot of of exactly 700 m2. 700m2 =(10,000 - 8000)/2) + 200I tinkered with some charts for awhile, and this equation would ensure a perfect balance of distribution. It would be great to give everyone the same plot of land, but my opponent is right. That would be nearing the line, as that land is used for development at the moment. III. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI doubled up on my research for this round, and it turns out that operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. The USDA is trying to push for a new agriculture surplus, which is desperately needed to lower the commodity prices of food items in Europe. We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. IV. Success on the homesteadMy opponent brings up a good point. You can't just drop someone on a farm and tell them to make money. It doesn't work like that. I should of been more clear. I am advocating for government leased sharecropping zones, operated by the people, under the supervision of the government. Do you see the central housing in these two screen shots? Those are known as villas, and they're usually the center of a share cropping farm. Most share croppers sleep in cabins, even in the commercial world. These are cheap, inexpensive, and can be built in two days time. Housing isn't a problem. Welfare isn't a problem. And food certainly isn't a problem.V. Distribute or LeaseMy opponent is mistaken. They can in fact go hand in hand. Leasing means you are allotting that land for a shortened period of time. Distributing means you are cutting up land for people. In this scenario, I am advocating we distribute land to be operated by citizens for a allotted period of time. Thanks for the debate Con, and sorry I didn't refute in order of your arguments.Cheers!

Ha, ha. I like how you say poverty is a "NATURAL THING" and people who are in poverty are destined to be there, and rich people deserve everything they have. Hee hee hee. Capitalism does not eliminate poverty, because in a capitalist society one person will always have more than another person. This is undeniable. People in a capitalist society are always unequal. Why not completely abolish inequality? That seems better than keeping it around. I also like how you talk about those garbage "rags to riches" stories. those are capitalist propaganda. Once you're poor, you're stuck there, and stuck good. the rules and regulations that we have set up prevent any social mobility. In my new utopia, Apple would not have to worry about making 200 million new iphones, because they would not have to pay for the resources used to make those iphones. Remember, money is not a thing. And a good amount of jail time will prevent crime.

Yes, true, but there is the problem you have too little resource for it to give the same amount to everyone else in your argument you stated if we have 10 fishermen that catch 4 fish each but what about persons that don't give something directly back, but they are needed like the persons working in logistics (truck driver, a captain of a ship and go on) or scientist, teachers, soldiers they are needed, but they don't contribute to the pool of recourses only consuming it so you will have a shortage of food because of it (and you need those people for a working country) now about the second part: immigration could work but then the living standard need to be higher than in other countries in depends: that would create a very bloody war where most likely the rebels would lose or you must send our troops for our glorious nation of Arstotzka to support them and as last propaganda yes that could work but again your living standards needs to be better than the other country to have a efect

So the central point of my opponents argument is his own opinion that kids should have allowance. He has not addressed my points or brought up any points himself. His account was made less than an hour ago from me typing this so I imagine he might be doing this for fun. But I want to take this time to talk some more. What will children do with this allowance assuming we spent all the money to get all kids one? If they are rich or middle-class, the money would be used for food or expensive toys such as video games. For the poorer, it might be a catalyst for drug use as this allowance did not change their situation and the drugs will be an outlet. The money will be wasted on toys and food, stimulating the wrong parts of the economy. This money could be used for healthcare, education, or infrastructure. But my opponent would rather have it be wasted. It is a shame this could not be a serious debate.

That isn't necessarily true. What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more.

By your statements, I agree that education can be free for everyone, but for a "limited time" only. For if the government will reserve all its funds for education for all the students in a country that would count to millions of chair, table and etc... -That will surely cost millions, or even billions of money. Then where will the government have the money to spend for -> Protection (Police, National Defense, Fireguards) -> Pension (Old age & Sickness) -> Health care -> Other Spending (Waste management, sports, and leisure) -> Let's even add the corrupted people in the government that steals money from the it. Then how will our country rise up if some of its needs is not fulfilled because of lack of funds due to reserving it all for education? If there is lack of protection then there will be many crime events. Can you think of a country with schools that has free school tuition fees but without protection (no police, no national defense). That is why the government funds is divided to many spending. That shows why the government won't make education free for all. -by the way I'm just a 13 yr. old don't use too much deep vocabularies. (PLEASE :)


Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

The United States should consider implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all its citizens. The idea of a basic income has five defining characteristics: it is a periodic cash payment, given to individuals on a regular basis, without any conditions or work requirements. This form of income is not given in kind or as a benefit, but as cash, allowing individuals to decide how to spend it. It is paid to all citizens, regardless of their means, and is unconditional.

One of the primary reasons for supporting a UBI is the promotion of freedom. A UBI would give individuals the financial resources to pursue their own happiness and self-fulfillment, free from the constraints of exploitative labor markets. This would allow people to engage in work that is meaningful to them, rather than simply working to make ends meet. Furthermore, a UBI would provide economic freedom to citizens, particularly women, who would have the means to escape abusive relationships or invest in professional careers.

A UBI would also help to eliminate poverty, which is a human-made tragedy that can be ended by recognizing the right of individuals to live free from poverty. Poverty has been linked to increased rates of drug abuse, which can lead to more deaths, illnesses, and disabilities than any other preventable health condition. A UBI would provide the financial means for people to seek treatment for drug addiction and avoid the cycle of poverty and drug abuse.

In addition, a UBI would improve access to healthcare. Many people face financial obstacles when seeking medical care, including high premiums, deductibles, copayments, and prescription costs. A UBI would provide the means for people to afford healthcare, leading to better health outcomes and a reduction in preventable deaths and injuries.

Finally, a UBI would improve educational outcomes. By providing an income cushion, a UBI would increase workers' bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would also make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices and invest in education, leading to higher rates of graduation and better educational outcomes for all citizens.

In conclusion, a UBI would promote freedom, eliminate poverty, improve access to healthcare, and improve educational outcomes. These benefits make a strong case for implementing a UBI in the United States.

Is it the last round already? I thank my opponent for this debate. My opponent may not have willingly conceded that fiscal equality is unjust; however, he has not argued against it. "I ask my opponent to elaborate on whether he means fiscal equality as in a basic living stipend or a minimum wage." Fiscal Equality is not referring to a minimum wage, but earning equal money. I had defined that in the first round. My opponent's problems with capitalism: 1. bias towards those who already have property 2. monopolies can exist 3. there are multiple classes 4. externalities 1. No one is born with property. All property is earned during one's lifetime from one's work. One's property never effects how much money is made through a job. Correction: -minute bias towards those born with property 2. Small business often succeeds in competition against large companies due to specialization, quality, or whatever is lacking from the current 'monopoly'. -Microsoft was once a large monopoly, but it now faces competition from many companies, including Apple. -Small business often competes with Wal-Mart. Examples include Randall's, Wallgreen's, Kroger's, etc. -Intel is hardly a monopoly. Several other companies compete in that industry. Correction: -monopolies are rare and temporary 3. My argument was that jobs with various wages are not only good, but also just, because input relates to output. When input has an effect on output, input is larger. Further, if ouput serves as a reward for input, then input is also just. My opponent has argued that companies would be scrambling to hire more people to take out the trash if many sanitation workers suddenly disappeared. The result would be an increase in the wage of sanitation workers in order to attract more to that job. When the demand for a job increases, the wage increases. The same goes for lawyers. When there are fewer lawyers, there is more demand for a lawyer and individual lawyers are paid more as a result. This wouldn't affect individual companies, though, because we aren't talking about companies right now. The answer to the inquiry about the lunatic that would spend twelve years of his life studying only English is that my opponent is simply wrong. A doctorate in English can lead to a proffessorship, which pays much higher than someone that spends four years in business school and may or may not become a rich entrepreneur. No correction. 4. Economic change is sometimes necessary to improve the local economy. Harder times are temporary and their effects improve the situation. An example would be a city that has most of its employees in a coal mine. The coal is mined and sold to other areas for a profit, while the employees are paid from this money. The pay is then circulated to stores and businesses for various needs. We're pretending that the mine runs dry of coal. Major unemployment occurs and the money that businesses need is lost. This is an 'external problem'. This is not a reason for the end of capitalism, though. The free market quickly adapts to this problem in one of the following example ways: oils is found and replaces coal as chief export; another coal mine is started nearby; the people move; a factory comes and produces things that were always sold to the people (there are many people that want a job and the company decides to move there for that reason); etc. Capitalism is flexible, so externalities only have a temporary effect. Correction: -externalities have a slight and temporary effect Capitalism's 'flaws': 1. minute bias towards those born with property 2. monopolies are rare and temporary 3. fiscal inequality 4. externalities have a slight and temporary effect The first flaw is minute. The second is temporary and minute. The third is actually a good and just thing. The fourth is temporary and minute. Now we can see how capitalism fairs when compared with the other systems. Regulated Capitalism- "flammable material in cars is a public safety concern, which is of the utmost importance to the state" As I have already proven, it is not a public safety issue because the market corrects these issues independently. The state does not have to take part in mandating safety when the market will do it on itself and the result will be more flexible. Polarized wages and monopolies cannot exist in a free market. Varying wages can occur, but extremely low wages cannot exist; otherwise, no one would want that job, forcing the wage for that job to increase in order to have someone take it. In addition, there is nothing wrong with someone making a lot of money. Further, a harmful monopoly cannot exist in a monopoly because if a company were to price gouge, competition would rise up and compete the prices down. Monopolies also create competitin with their existence, because there is an easier market to start a company in. In a regulated market, regulations can limit the flexibility of the market and keep it from adapting to problems it must face. As I have already argued, externalities cause temporary instabilities. A regulation cannot perfect the markets. The regulations can, however, limit the market's ability to adapt to such an instability. Regulated capitalism has all the same problems unregulated capitalism has, but the markets cannot adapt to problems and instabilities as well. Therefore, Regulated Capitalism is not as effective as Capitalism. Libertarian Marxism- Education and effort do not effect what one gets from the system because in marxism, there is no fiscal inequality. There is no competition in this system to drive innovation (because government companies are monopolies). Competition creates innovation because people strive to do things in a better way than eachother in order to dominate the market.The people benefit from this competition because lower prices, higher quality, and innovation are all used to compete. http://www.amd.com... Further, people all make the same under this system. As already decided, fiscal equality is unjust. Therefore, this system, which harbors on fiscal equality, is also unjust. People should be able to work their lives out in a manner in which they can be whatever they want and accomplish and invent and compete and be rich if they want. Libertarian Marxism's flaws, as I have already pointed out, are: - a lack of competition - a lack of individual motivation - fiscal equality These problems are much worse than the slight issues with capitalism. Therefore, I urge an affirmation. My opponent has not debated the justness of fiscal equality; therefore, he has conceded this point. I have proven that capitalism is the best economic and political system. You, the reader, must vote PRO. I thank the reader for reading this debate and my opponent for contending.

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.

" W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs" That's not relevant, since neither does welfare. "it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things," At the cost of taxpayers being enslaved in the name of the program. "so they can learn to make more themselves" No, contradiction. If you required government aid that you did not pay for to begin doing a thing, it's continuation is not "making more yourself." It's inertia. "finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k). " Fudged statistics. The relevant amount is not the specific money allocated to "welfare programs," it is the total unearned money stolen by way of taxation, both now and in the long-term. The short-term savings are proportionally negligible (Government tax revenue was 2.6 trillion in this country in 2007, we'll multiply your statistical difference by 50 to see the short term effects of complete adaptation of your plan, and come up with about 4.6 million, and thus with a .0002% difference in short term taxation). The long term costs, of lengthening the number of times thefts on the scale of trillions of dollars are perpetrated, are massive compared to that. " Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government. " Just because something is currently a common practice and has an interest group behind it (bureaucrats, dictators, lobbyists, legislators, and the like) does not mean it is "inevitable." Burning dung was once a major cooking-energy provider for every human being. Now, however, we have better fuels. There are numerous potential funding mechanisms that are sufficient to displace taxes in a government reduced to it's legitimate functions of law enforcement, national defense, and dispute resolution (that is, police, military, and the courts). Such mechanisms include charges for registering a contract at the court (to make it legally enforceable,) charges for installing emergency phone lines, charges for registering property claims with the court, etc. People will, when offered the choice, choose to fund a legitimate government function, out of self-interest, but not an illegitimate one. The factory owner, for instance, is rational to fund a government for the act of preventing sabotage to his machinery- but rationally he would not pay for a subsidy to his competitor who produces an inferior product, and rationally that's bad for the consumer too. In order to achieve liberty from taxation, then, it is necessary that such programs as "W-2" and "AFDC" be eliminated. Since AFDC is less efficient, it is easier to eliminate, i.e. it is easier to convince voters to stop supporting it. As such it is the lesser evil. Efficiency is only a virtue for producers of goods, it is a vice for producers of "bads." Hitler, for example, was far more efficient than Jack the Ripper- which is why we are more concerned with the evil of the former.

As I have time constraints I will start right away "False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others." The point is that though the orginizations may exist, the govenment not intervening to save some ones life is as good as killing. "Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity" Welfare doen't advocate irresponsible behavior. Rather it advocates for human beings to help one another. "Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals." Yes but by not providing welfare you are not protecting the populace and giving them the oppurtunity for happiness. In fact you are preventing it. "The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare." My point is that many people say people on welfare have a easy life. They do not. And to counteract your point of being forced to pay for welfare, it is exactly the same for me. I must pay for TWO wars I do not support. But this is how our government provides funding. "Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause." But as I stated before, people need welfare to survive, you can't change the cause. "What are you doing to survive if you are not working?" I should have rephrased that , people need to help their families survive. And just finding a place to sleep at night would be hard enough. It has occured to me I will not have time to locate sources.

The problem with the postulation that human greed can be ended is that no matter how good we have it, there will always be something else that we want. That is the underlying factor in economics, humans must try to satisfy an infinite list of wants with only a finite amount of resources. In addition, the wants and needs of every person is different. Some people are born with diabetes, some are born with allergies, so how could a government distinguish between these peoples' needs and wants in accordance to their disabilites? Maybe someone can't handle glucose the way others can, and it makes them sick to try and process it, yet they can still eat it if they needed to. Would this be a want, because it's not crucial to their survival that they go glucose free, or would it be a need because it still makes them sick to try and process it, and is overall detrimental to their health? There's an infinite amount of these little details that are handled on a daily basis by individuals themselves. After all, you should know what's best for you right? It would be practically impossible for a government to try and sort through the plethora of minute conditions and disabilities that individuals are able to take care of by themselves. Even if a government was able to process and handle all this information successfully, it would be ludicrous to think that there wouldn't be private markets within the communist society. Lets assume that there are two citizens, each issued bread and cheese. Next, lets say that one citizen prefers the taste of cheese over bread, and vice versa. Eventually these two citizens get together and trade their unwanted goods for wanted goods, after all, they both have something the other one wants. This goes on for weeks until they finally decide to start trading bananas for oranges, water for soda, the list goes on and on. Maybe someone even finds a way to end up with two wheels of cheese for every loaf of bread he gives away. This is a free market which runs off of mutually beneficial transactions between two or more parties. The problem with communism is that you are the only person who knows what's best for you. Not your friends, not your teacher, and certainly not your government. Only you.

No worries on the time as you were within the limits. Now on to the debate... I assume that this (your statement in the abortion debate that brought about my debate) is all that is required to justify the goodwill portion of the argument: "I'd much rather charge everyone to make sure people get the care they need than depend on people's goodwill. And for that matter, in hard times when people need help most, wouldn't people stop donating in order to keep their own families afloat? And wouldn't that essentially strand the poor?" You are quite correct that no one will punish you for not donating to the Salvation Army. However, why are you positing that statement as being inherently undesirable? Is it morally righteous to punish someone for doing as they please with money they earn? When did the welfare of the poor become the obligation of those with wealth? There is a fine line separation here between the natural instinct of charity (which is founded on individual choice) and that of an obligation? "What makes you so sure that the only reason people don't donate to charity is because of taxes?" I hardly implied that as the sole rationale. I merely pointed out that when you remove a certain portion of wealth from an individual, they will have to make choices on how to use that, now reduced, wealth. As such, to expect the same level of charity from the same individual who now has less wealth is, I think obviously, ridiculous. "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." I would hardly attest the state of New Orleans to the private charity of Americans, but rather to the incompetence of their government. The same fools that did not maintain levees in a city below sea level were placed in charge of its reconstruction. Did you expect a better result? "Again, people in power may not like to help people, but they are legally obligated to." A legal obligation to do something is hardly a moral justification. "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?" A public good is defined as the marginal cost equaling zero, therefore the price is zero. You can hardly place welfare or any other "help to the poor" as a public good precisely because the addition of one more poor person increases the cost by a nonzero amount. On Social Security, there is a question as to whether or not it will actually be financially viable when I retire (entirely dependent on how the economy performs into the unforeseeable future)and Medicare is in a questionable position given the rising cost of health care despite (most likely because of) the growing interference of the government over the last 35 years. " "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." No, it is not that simple because you simply dodged the issue. If you tax the same person who cannot afford to give charity because of their financial situation then you will do them harm. Besides, your line of reasoning does not imply that less money will be given in charity. If, for the only reason, that every time the government has lowered taxes they have received more revenue (there is obviously a point at which this will no longer be true, but for the tax cuts of the 20th century this holds true). "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." No, just read about the Wiemar Republic and you can come across a financial situation that destroyed the rich and poor alike. Also, the "booming" upper class is a farce. The wealth of the country dropped considerably during the Great Depression. Those who were wealthy before the Great Depression (who were out of the stock market by the crash, and had subsequently protected there wealth in certain banks or commodities) maintained there "growing" wealth largely because of the great deflation experienced at that time due to certain Federal Reserve policies. "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?" I have a problem with the income tax, given the self incrimination it requires. Besides, there are taxes you can raise that do not require the ridiculous tax code we currently have, but all this is off topic. "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." For one, the problem of organization of charity has been solved already...that should be obvious as there already exist many private charities (and they have existed for quite some time). The government is hardly a model of efficiency. In fact, that is the main reason to keep the government out of anything that can be handled by market forces. If anything, the government effectively organizes inefficiency. The Salvation Army seems to have a lot of volunteers, and you don't actually need volunteers as Goodwill and Arc Thrift Stores demonstrate everyday. "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." Wow! I am really disappointed. The Constitution is practically a model of a libertarian government. It worked quite well, for those it applied to, until people of your ideological bent gained power. I would safely bet everything I have that if we were to follow the original interpretation (now that we have established the equal rights of all individuals) that our country would be in an enviable position compared to now. The fact remains that liberty is the exception and not the rule to human existence. This is hardly a damnation of its efficacy. By the way, communism was never a great theoretical idea. Marx completely mistook where valuation comes from and so founded much of his theory on a fallacy.

I believe the Welfare state, the government rule giving benefits to those in need of support through benefit payments and services, is outdated and in need of a replacement. First of all the welfare state is about merit goods i.e. goods that give significant benefits to the individual consuming them and to society as a whole. However people undervalue these and what I mean by that is that if these goods/services cost they wouldn't be bought by everybody. A few examples come to mind for example, education. It is free but some people wouldn't buy it if it did cost. So, the costs to the government or the nation as a whole for that matter. The welfare state costs an awful lot of money to the government, peoples hard earned income is being distributed to some people who claim to have a disability or in desperate need of income but in actual fact are taking advantage of this badly formed concept and claiming benefits they don't need. Also I believe some people may be overlooked by the government when they do meet the criteria to gain these benefits because the background search of some people is not thorough enough. This has become a problem as a lot of people have discovered this 'loophole' and are taking advantage of it. The alternatives to the welfare state include increasing the role of the voluntary sector. This means making people responsible for other people and caring for each other as a community. This may not seem like it would work but I believe a system could be put in place so everyone has to contribute to the community. I also believe some adjustments could be made to the welfare state such as making it universal although this does have its drawbacks. In conclusion I think everyone should play a bigger role in shaping our community and caring for the elderly and the unable instead of just giving them a bit of money in which the government expect them to know what to use it for.

I do not support free healthcare because of this thing called the Non Agression Principle, which opposes any move which would increase the government's influence on the lifestyles of our citizens. Now that we both defined why we believe what we believe, we can start debating the subject.

The only reason that those people who went to school became successful is because of the way our system is made. If money was given equally, everything would change. And I would like to remind you that I am debating to the fact that SCHOOL should be abolished. When that happens, people will educate themselves there own way and most of the people will be happy and poverty will decrease. Of course, this sounds crazy to a capitalist like you, because all you care about is money and yourself.

You look at any back wards third world antion to see the result of such an absurd proposal the more education you have te more money you make the more uneducated people you have the more people will be on welfare and unemployed, Seriously are you on drugs?