Capitalism is a more effective principle than that of socialism.

Hello,

This is my first time debating, so you may give me some tips and pointers along the way. My stance on the bill is as follows: I believe that capitalism IS a more effective principle than that of socialism.

I would like to start off with some definitions.

effective - adequate to accomplish a purpose
principle - a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Socialism - an economic system based on state ownership of capital
more - comparative of much; to a greater degree or extent

Socialism is a more effective principle of achieving a command economy. This is because state ownership over private ownership is definitely achieving a command economy.

I apologize for the confusion.I agree, socialism is effective at creating a command economy. If you'd like, you can defend the case that a command economy allows for a more prosperous nation than capitalism. I will defend the con side of that statement.

Some definitions:
Command economy - an economy where capital is controlled by the state government
Capitalist economy - an economy here capital is controlled by private citizens
Prosperous - successful, particularly in terms of wealth

Thomas Jefferson once said, "A wise and frugal government shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

My first contention: A prosperous economy is fueled by incentive.
A prosperous nation must allow for progress. In a free-market capitalist economy, companies are constantly competing with each other to make more affordable, better-quality products, with hopes that they can eventually rake in the most profits and expand. But when the government seizes land and distributes it, what incentive is there for people to work? In fact, they aren't even working for themselves, but rather for the government. In contrast, a capitalist nation allows people's work ethic and ingenuity to dictate their income. This allows for incentivization, a fundamental component of any successful economy.

My second contention: In a socialist nation, the people work for the government. In a capitalist nation, the government works for the people. Capitalism puts trust in the people to make their own economic decisions, while socialism calls for an overstepping government to make those decisions for the people, the very ones from whom their power is derived. As Thomas Jefferson put it,"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And when the government oversteps its boundaries, it deprives its people of the fundamental rights inherent in all

I will concur with the definitions of command economy and a capitalistic economy. Prosperous however i would not necessarily deem as effecient, although it could certainly intertwine with it.

His first point incentive.
This is an interesting point. The goal of both socialism and capitalism are prosperity and freedom. That is beyond refute.

You are under the assumption that better-quality products occur during a capitalist economy. Well, That would be wrong, unless I am mistaken, there was a birth control pill that caused birth defects in newborns. Now, in a capitalist nation, it would be buyer beware and this would be allowed. However, because of the government regulation and control the birth defect pill is off the shelves thanks to the FDA and other beaurcratic agencies. What socialism does is
it eliminates the role of capitalists and entrepreneurs, workers under socialism "produce for themselves." Therefore, it is held, socialism actually maintains or even stimulates incentives. The issue of incentives is vitally important. But the traditional way of presenting this issue is misleading. The real issue is not the presence or absence of incentives. Inncentives cannot be eliminated. They are omnipresent. Every politico-economic system generates a set of incentives. The real issue is whether a particular set of incentives is "right" or "wrong," i.e., whether it is appropriate to attain the goals sought or claimed for it by those implementing the political and economic policies. To claim that sociailism does not have incentives is ludicrous.

His second point. People work for the government and that is bad essentially is what he is saying. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, so let me quote Thomas Mann "Every reasonable human being should be a moderate Socialist." Socialism, oversteps no boundaries because rights are a contractrual thing existent only upon the respect for them otherewise God would draw property lines.

I have no more character space, but will po

My opponent first attacks capitalism, claiming no restriction is dangerous to citizens (i.e. Birth defects). Instead, he believes, government should decide what is "good" and what is "bad" for the people. But with this statement comes my question: According to socialism, what if the "omnipotent" government "chose" what products you had to buy, what job you had to apply for, what house you had to live in?
Capitalism places trust in the hands of the people, rather than in the hands of the government. Capitalism trusts people to read the label and understand the health risks of potentially dangerous products, and does NOT let the government make OUR choices for us, as is the case in socialism.
My opponent's next point deals with incentives. He claims, "Workers under socialism produce for themselves." I believe that the economy if fueled by incentive, and people will NOT work if they do not reap benefits. People simply do not work for the betterment of others, just to be altruistic. Society simply doesn't work like that. That's why a capitalist society is more efficient at creating a prosperous economy. When a person fails to make enough money to support his family, he becomes incentivized to produce, to work, to better the economy. And that is where successful nations arise: incentives. If a failing worker receives money due to redistribution of wealth, she will have a negative incentive. This means that the person will depend on the wealthy to "do their work." These people that do not work do NOT contribute to the economy. But the good news is, incentives DO exist, and most people are like the first person I described (capitalism), as opposed to the second person I described (socialism).
My opponent then attacks my point regarding people working for the government under socialism, rather than the other way around, as in capitalism. I implore you to re-read the last sentence of the first paragraph, and to ask yourself: How is a socialist government NOT overstepping

No restriction is dangerous. Even, the most primitive person on this site or able to use the internet is capable of seeing that.

You throw a what if situation out there and it is beautiful but what's even better is socialism does not control what you buy, what job you apply for, or where you live. It seems to be a straw man attempt because I used the word omnipotent government which is any form of government essentially.

That is a truthful claim I assert about the incentives. My opponents example is awfully horrid to the human race as a whole. If we all thought like that America, would have far fewer than the 300 million people it does today and even more disease would run rampant. Also, people who do not work DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY, they make have a negative impact but they have an impact.

You are correct incentives exist for the betterment of the common good. Which as stated previously is achieved through socialism. As I said the goals are different than in capitalism but do acheive the same ends prosperity and freedom. The government may set the economic goals and your incentive to get there is to achieve the common good for everyone and not to be a selfish or elitist.

He failed to attack my point on rights being contractual. This is important because it shows how socialism oversteps no one rights and no boundaries to achieve the common good. Due to the character limit I cannot go in depth as I would have liked on either of the arguments.

Once again prosperity and freedom go to all instead of the elite few in socialism. Therefore it achieves the better economic principle and is therefore a more effective principle.