Does Socialism work in a realistic society?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be debating for the 'con' side, meaning that I believe socialism can not function properly as a government system. My opponent will be taking the 'pro' side, meaning they believe that socialism actually does work as a government system.
First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
I'd like to begin by stating my reasons why socialism will not work in a realistic society, and they are as follows;
1. Socialism discourages hard work
2. Socialism restricts freedom
3. Legalizes theft in name of "redistribution of wealth"
I will begin by addressing the first topic. A security net is a system to make sure that people who are hard working, deserving individuals have the ability to exercise their full potential. But a socialist government system creates a security net that is so secure, that it's easier not to work than to work. Now let me ask you this, what is the reason we work? We work to make money. So is it right that someone who barely works is making the same amount of money as someone who works really hard? The truth of the matter is it's not. If this were to happen we would see a huge decrease in productivity. Someone who works harder and longer should be making significantly more money than someone who fools around at work and doesn't get their job done. Many people have said this before me, but socialism ENCOURAGES laziness. Even the people who naturally work hard at what they do will eventually stop working hard simply because they would be making the same money as others in their positions. It robs people of initiative, drive and ambition.
Moving on to issue two, Socialism restricts the freedom of individuals. Under a socialist government, everything from production to housing is government owned. This means that you do not have the ability to OWN your own business, as the government OWNS it. The reason for the government owning a majority of things is because they want to promote a "feeling of equality". Socialists want everyone to remain the same and equal, so everyone can own a business or no one can own a business. This undermines the spirit of entrepreneurship[, innovation, and competitiveness. Which are all things that are essential for a population to succeed and thrive.
On June 3, 2013 Police in Venezuela seized 2,500 toilet paper rolls, 400 diapers and 7,000 liters of fruit juice in an overnight raid of a warehouse. The Venezuelan Police essentially stole these items to "redistribute the wealth". What kind of functional society doesn't let you own as much fruit juice as you want? Why is it that the government had to steal these things so that they could redistribute the wealth of toilet paper and fruit juice? Socialism actually promotes this. Let that sink in, Socialists promote theft in the name of redistributing wealth.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the socialist ideal of a worldwide and local cooperation is good. However, the socialist model is not the way to do it, perhaps there is a better way to go about something like this.
Allow me to begin with the goal of the government: making its citizens happy.
Of course the government cannot control all aspects that make a person happy, they cannot force people to like you nor make sure that you grow up in a loving family. However, they can choose to influence:
1. How much money you make.
2. How healthy you are to a certain point (healthcare)
3. How you will be taken care of if you have ill fortune.
(source 1) Having more money makes people happy but the more you have the less more happy it makes you. For example: between having 50,000 dollars and having 100,000 dollars is a larger 'happy' difference than in having 50 billion or 100 billion dollars. Also, not everyone has the same chance on succes: if you grow up in a black ghetto you will have less opportunities than someone who grows up in a rich family and goes to Harvard. Socialism diminishes this stark difference by making education free and giving everyone the chance to unfurl to his/her maximum capacity. Moreover, some people are just not very smart, that is not their fault, that is not because they are lazy, that is because they do not have as much good fortune as smart people.
Non-socialist countries also do not have much of healthcare which means that people die who otherwise would have been helped in socialist countries.
In a extremely non-socialist country as the USA there is almost no social safety net to support poor people. I live in the Netherlands which is quite socialist and I can assure you that doing nothing and getting social assistence doesn't pay off: you get barely enough money to sustain yourself foodwise and some people cannot even afford to buy a house (and live on the streets). I think it is only humane to support people who are in between jobs because that is in 90% of the cases not because they are lazy but because they have no opportunities for jobs.
There is also a difference between socialism and communism (source 2). If you work hard in a socialist society you will earn more than other people, in contrast to a communist society, in which it doesn't matter how hard you work.
(source 3) if we look to the countries that are most happy the top three is: Denmark, Norway, Switzerland. All of them have a very good social security net and are socialist countries.
To sum things up, people deserve to be treated well regardless of their environment or intellect and this is only possible in a socialist society. The economy of the country will detoriate slightly but because the wealth is more evenly distributed the overal happiness of the country will improve.
(please excuse language mistakes, it is not my native language and I am only 16)
source 1: https://www.youtube.com... (note: the makers of the video confuse communism with socialism)
source 2: http://www.diffen.com...
source 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
I'm going to point out that the countries you have mentioned (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland) do not directly define themselves as socialist. The Netherlands, for example define themselves as a parliamentary democracy. None of these countries are directly socialist, they just have a few socialist idea's enacted into their countries. Every country inevitably has a few socialist idea's being put forward into their law, even the United States. It is not right for people to label these countries as socialist because the fact of the matter is, they aren't. Of course there are political parties that Socialists are apart of that may have significant success in the Netherlands, but that doesn't make them a socialist country. Even in the united States there is a socialist party. The ways the countries I mentioned work, are not the purest form of socialism.
I may have not gotten the point across correctly the first time, but I'm not talking about the social assistance aspect. I'm talking about physical jobs. For example, why should a bank teller make the same amount of money as a bank CEO? If I'm a bank teller than everywhere I go to work as a bank teller will be the same amount of salary to be earned, with no room for growth and development. This may be different in the Netherlands, but that is because they aren't defined as a socialist state. Other systems such as capitalism work much better in this regard, because if I don't like the pay scale of a specific bank I'm working at I can easily find another bank with a higher pay scale.
Thanks for bringing up social assistance though, this is pretty much what I was talking about before when I compared socialism to a insurance policy. Can't find a job? Great here's your welfare and food stamps. You haven't worked for two years? Even better, we'll keep giving you incentive's not to work by extending your unemployment insurance. As I said in my previous argument, this decreases productivity because people are willing to live a mediocre lifestyle. My opponent claims that it's not enough to support yourself, but it actually is. The government makes it enough to support yourself, because they believe that nobody should have nothing and that everyone should be exactly equal in some regard.
Socialism uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism.
The_Nameless forfeited this round.
softmer forfeited this round.
The_Nameless forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited less
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.