The Instigator
Bhas
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
106627
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism is superior socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Bhas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 7126
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Bhas

Pro

Capitalism is far superior to socialism because it offers individuals the freedom to vote with their money what they value most and at what price they value it.
106627

Con

By socialism I am using my definition (tell me if you meant something different)

Socialism: A form of government where all basic services (water, fire, Health care, etc.) are regulated by the government while other services are owned by the people.

Socialism is superior to capitalism for a few reasons.

National Health care:
Having a nationalized system of health care would provide many benefits to the people. No one would be turned away because they cannot afford a treatment or procedure. Health standards will be determined by the government keeping safety out of money-minded companies. Health care is vital for the survival of any country, it deserves to be kept close to the government to avoid danger.

Progressive income tax: (not necessarily socialist but is commonly associated with it)
Having a progressive income tax allows people from lower income families an opportunity pull themselves out of debt and into the middle class. Coming from a middle-class family I would pay more in taxes if it means I can help a struggling working class family. Most people would help a neighbor or family member in financial trouble, progressive taxes just lengthen that process.

Other basic services follow roughly the same path as health care. If about 50% of businesses fail in 5 years [1] then why would we entrust our country's most precious services in private corporations. Simply put the government has more experience in dealing with business.

When dealing with socialism or any other system of government it is important to state boundaries. In socialism it can be difficult to promote progressive taxes without promoting class war. That is where many previous socialist countries have failed (most failed in additional ways to).

This is my first debate online so please tell me if I have done something incorrectly
Debate Round No. 1
Bhas

Pro

Yes your definition of socialism does fall in line with what I meant.
Ok let me start with National Health Care:
You made the following assumptions in you argument:
A)No one would be turned away because they cannot afford treatment or procedure.

Technically this is true but it does not address the fact that people would be turned away for one simple reason; Scarcity.
Since there is not enough health care providers and services so that everyone can have as much as they want when they want it must be rationed. In a nationalized health care system the law of unintended consequences follows an the government not the individual determine what ailments constitutes medical services. Therefore an individual with terminal cancer might not warrant the allocation of scarce medical resources (from the governments prospective) since their condition is terminal and irreversible. If that same individual, under a capitalist system, determine that that there is value to receiving treatment then they are free to bid on those service in the open market.

B)Health standards will be determined by the government keeping safety out of money-minded companies.
This assumes that because a company is money minded that they would sacrifice safety for a short term profit. A company that is responsible to its shareholders and litigation would in fact have more of an incentive to provide the consumer with a safe product or service as opposed to a government in which all incentives have been removed since citizens cannot sue the government and politicians are not held responsible once their term has ended.

Another law of economics is that people consume more at lower prices; therefore free health care service would overburden the system with minor medical issues and again going back to allocating the scare resource of medical care, some individuals would be turned away.

Now as to a Progressive Tax:
A)A progressive Tax is Immoral
A progressive tax requires some people to pay more in taxes so that other can pay less. Therefore those who pay less are able to do so because those who pay more are forced by law to subsidize them. Laws as we know are enforced by the government's ability to deny those whom it governs their freedom. A person's freedom can only be denied if that person fears death more than they fear the loss of freedom. So in effect those whose income is taxed involuntarily are forced at the point of a gun (i.e the government) to provide for others. They become a slave to those who they are forced to support. No one would argue that it immoral to make a slave of another human. Therefore a progressive tax is immoral.
B)A progressive Tax offers Working Class families less opportunity to move up

Whenever individuals are taxed in order to subsidize the lower taxes of other individuals we often see the benefits applied to those who are the benefactor (i.e. the Working Class). What is not seen and often ignored by politicians are the opportunity cost of not allocating the taxed resources to their alternative uses.
If those in the middle and upper class tax brackets were allowed to spend their dollars as they wish, incentives would be created in the market place for competition of those dollars. Competition for those dollars would create job which would in turn create value in the society for all classes. The more jobs that are created compared to a scarce supply of employees the more employers will have to compete for those employees. This competition will drive wages up benefiting employees in all classes.

This is also my first debate. You did well in your response.
106627

Con

106627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Bhas

Pro

Since my opponent's account is not longer active I'll assume I've won the debate!
106627

Con

106627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Bhas

Pro

Glockenspiel!!!!!!!
106627

Con

106627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Bhas

Pro

Bhas forfeited this round.
106627

Con

106627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted PRO.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
He's defending the third way, not socialism.

And what is basic? A car is basic. Food is basic. Electricity is basic. What does he mean? Arguably everything is basic if you consider power basic.

PRO should've immediately challenged CON's definition of socialism.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
It was a joke
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Yes, damn the bourgeoius for inventing these computers you're using to access websites you love :)

That said the resolution is missing a "to," as it stands it states that capitalism is a form of socialism.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I take con.... But we'll see how the debate plays out...
Socialism is a MUCH better idea... problem is people are greedy... Damn Bourgeois
Posted by mrw 8 years ago
mrw
I am for con. Socialism is superior to capitalism. The only problem is that humanity is an exception.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Bhas106627Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70