The Instigator
Cherymenthol
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
johngriswald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 10305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

Cherymenthol

Con

Whatever the specifics of the case in question, socialism always means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that capacity for decision making with an overarching plan by the state. Taken far enough, this mode of thought won't just spell an end to opulent lunches. It will mean the end of what we all know as civilization itself. It would plunge us back to a primitive state of existence, living off hunting and gathering in a world with little art, music, leisure, or charity. Nor is any form of socialism capable of providing for the needs of the world's six billion people, so the population would shrink dramatically and quickly and in a manner that would make every human horror ever known seem mild by comparison. Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison. In short, the wish for socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one would express casual support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for malaria and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents.

Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

I hereby stand in the Con position that Socialism in not a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism.

I offer the following definitions for the round:

Economic security: the condition of having stable income or other resources to support a standard of living now and in the foreseeable future. It includes
- probable continued solvency
- predictability of the future cash flow of a person or other economic entity, such as a country
- employment security or job security
Economic security tends to include the broader effect of a society's production levels and monetary support for non-working citizens
(http://en.wikipedia.org......)

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
(http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

Socialism: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

=====================================================
Capitalism means Freedom

Many Americans are confused about what "capitalism" means. They think it means "what's going on in America today." The government takes your money and gives it to a big business like Halliburton; that's "capitalism" in the eyes of many people.

Capitalism means freedom. It means you get to decide what to do with what you earn and own. If you want to go into business and produce widgets and sell them to consumers, you're free to do so under capitalism. Under socialism, the government tells you what you will produce. Under capitalism, your neighbor is also free to make widgets and compete with you. As a consumer, I am free to buy from you or from your neighbor. You must compete with your neighbor to get my business. If your widgets are the highest quality and lowest price, you'll get my business. If your widgets are not as good as those made by your competitor, or cost more, you won't get my business. Under socialism, consumers have to buy everything from the government.

If you're a great American, you'll work harder and more efficiently, and eventually get my business.
If you're a lousy American -- if you're a whiner -- you'll ask the government to force me to buy your widgets rather than your competitor's, or you'll ask the government to impose a tariff, making your competitor's widgets more expensive and less competitive, or you'll ask the government to require your competitor to get a license to make widgets. Whiners are not capitalists, as that word is used on this website. Perhaps you're a "fascist," or some form of "socialist." But you're not a capitalist, no matter how big your business becomes.

A true capitalist believes in free competition and free markets, and does not seek to succeed by using government force or coercion.

=====================================================
Worldwide success can be attributed to Capitalism

Millions are alive, and living longer, because of medicine developed under capitalism. Without our enormous psychic energy, productivity and inventions, oil would still be lying under Saudi Arabia, undiscovered, unpumped and useless. Coffee, bananas, tin, sugar and other items of trade would have no markets. Capitalism has made the world rich, inventing riches other populations didn't know they had.

=====================================================
History has proven its past that socialism does not work.

In the case of extreme socialism with Joseph Stalin, he would put his farmers in a ditch, if they didn't give up their crops to be distrubuted evenly throughout Soviet Russia. Socialism does not fit the needs of people, Capitalism does. History has proven it's past, and Socialism without a doubt, does not work. As Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous saying goes:
"Capitalism is unequally divided riches while socialism is equally divided poverty."

=====================================================
Private property is essential to the human race.

The right to own property is central to man's existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future. The lack of private property rights in much of Africa makes such borrowing and investment impossible, and is one reason for the continent's lack of economic growth.

=====================================================
Socialism is bad because it is condescending, inefficient, and immoral.
=====================================================

While appealing to many people, socialism is wrong. As famed French economist Frederic Bastiat put it, "The [socialist] state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government's and it will provide for you what it thinks you need.

Further, socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter

Finally, socialism is bad because it is immoral. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude.
(Source Sterling T. Terrell)

Thank you and I look forward to a response.
johngriswald

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

To start off I would like to start rebutting Pro's contention that "History has proven its past that socialism does not work."
The USSR is one of the worst case studies done on socialism. Socialism is one of those ideologies that is easily misunderstood, mostly because it has been associated throughout history with countries or governments that have not been able to effectively implement its best philosophical qualities. Specifically, Russia took socialism and made it what we understand to be communism. Because of the long-running (and very costly) Cold War between the United States and the USSR, we were mostly unable to appreciate anything about the governmental ideology of socialism.

My opponent has 4 main contentions for the support of capitalism.

1. Capitalism means freedom
2. Private property is essential to the human race
3. Socialism is condescending, innefficient, and immoral
4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism.

REBUTTAL
1. Capitalism means freedom
Sure capitalism means freedom for those that have money or are born with the most intelligence. However if you happen to be poor, or happen to be born with less intelligence, your amount of freedom decreases substantially. Want to get a college education to get ahead? Forget about it, you don't have the money. Born with a lower IQ, say hello to minimum wage. In socialism, no matter what you are born with, you will be taken care of. In capitalism, if you're unlucky, or you don't know the right people, or you are born without as much as intelligence you are thrown to the dogs. Sure you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want. Anyone can be the CEO of a company...except you have to have a father who knows the right people, except you need to go to the right college, which means you have to have the right SAT score and have a large pocketbook to pay the loans. In socialism, you are given a job you can handle and are all paid the same amount. If you're smart enough to be a doctor, you're a doctor. If society demands more doctors, more students are given the jobs as doctors. If you're smart enough to be a factory worker, you're a factory worker.

In capitalism you're penalized for the qualities you are born with. In socialism, they use what you have to contribute to the common good. In Socialism, everyone has the freedom (money). In Capitalism, only the rich, naturally intelligent, and ruthless succeed.

2. Private property is essential to the human race

"to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future."

My opponent is advocating that economic success depends upon borrowing money? Is my opponent advocating that the accumulation of debt is a positive quality and that it even furthers a countries success? Unfortunately, Africa is not a solid enough example to make such an audacious claim. I'm going to have to ask you to produce sources and provide logical reasoning.

3. Socialism is condescending, inefficient, and immoral

Socialism is condescending -
To begin, socialism is bad because it is condescending. Socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours, now it is the government's and it will provide for you what it thinks you need."

Really? According to my opponents definition of socialism, the government does not buy or deliver the goods it thinks a citizen needs to them. Socialism is where the government controls the means of production and the pay for work, not the distribution of goods.

Socialism is inefficient -
"Socialism is inefficient because it makes economic calculation impossible. This fact is really common sense (thanks to an economist named Ludwig von Mises). With a central government owning all (or any) means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter"

My opponent has failed to show me in a logical manner or factual manner how a lack of profits, losses, market prices, market, or competition leads to inefficiency.

I can point to many examples of nonprofit organizations that are extremely efficient.

Socialism is immoral -
"See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude."

So by my opponent's logic, if the law allows one person to make profit at the expense of another individual, that this is immoral? In this instance my opponent has proven capitalism and not socialism be immoral.

4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism.
My opponent builds his argument on the entire theory that people will not invent anything if they are employed by the government. However he gives no reasoning as to why their capability of inventing new processes and things will be inhibited by being employed by a governmental agency.

My opponent has failed to give any logical proof or examples that back up his numerous contentions. As the pro in this debate my opponent has the burden of proof and thus must proof why socialism is inferior rather than using quotations and illogical assumptions that have no factual backing to forward his affirmation.
Debate Round No. 1
Cherymenthol

Con

Cherymenthol forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Pro

Unfortunate, extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Cherymenthol

Con

I apologize for my forfeit family troubles but seeing as no new arguments were presented Their was no loss in me forfeiting a single round so alas the debate continues. Also no more new arguments/ evidence please.

First off my opponent has already lost the round for three reasons:
1. My has adequately negated, the burden for the negative as specifically stated in the resolution was to prove that the merits of Socialism are better than those that the Capitalism has to offer, and as a result we have nothing to compare Capitalism to than itself and the arguments I present. And because their has been no good of socialism presented in a case, all I must do is prove one part of my case true in order to win.

2. My opponent provides no solvency so we can vote for the Affirmative prima facie because even if all his arguments are true Capitalism still remands the only economic choice we have.

3. He never explains how Socialism even achieves Economic security, as I have.

On to the case

"The USSR is one of the worst case studies done on socialism..."

This entire argument is merely saying that socialism is misunderstood he however does not give evidence to support how it was misunderstood, as well as the fact that he only addresses the USSR. And Second of all if we are to say somethings not bad its misunderstood why not go ahead and say homicide is misunderstood their is reason behind the murder of an individual. So when we justify history as a misunderstanding we basically are consenting to accept every misunderstanding as the nonexistent good my opponent is claiming.

My opponent has failed to attack the Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. card I present, as a result we can assume the empirical evidence presented its entirely true, and if not entirely true, enough so to point out why Socialism is evil.

1. Capitalism means freedom
Sure capitalism means freedom.."
In response:
1. He agrees first of all and secondly he later goes on to say the con of Capitalism is the fact that it only allows the hard workers to prevail, considering how A) he doesn't back it up with any reputable evidence, and B) He libels Capitalism to the maximum potential by making absurd claims against it, and C) He never touches upon the American card, so we can extend that argument and thus another reason to vote.

2. He doesn't refute the fact that individuals must buy form the government as well as he claims, all individuals are payed the same and when your smart enough your forced to be a doctor and do more work, and when your smart enough your forced to be a menial. However the impact of which is hard work is no longer rewarded as it customarily has. Therefore extend both the impact I point out and the claim my opponent makes.

2. Private property is essential to the human race

"to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future."

Doesn't negate that modern medicine invented under capitalism saves lives. Therefore the inadvertent result of this contention is Capitalism saves lives, so we drop the private property is essential to human race aspect and adopt "Capitalism saves lives"

3. Socialism is condescending, inefficient, and immoral

According to my opponents definition of socialism...

The government does actually limit liberty by paying equally and taking out the pay for hard work the government is assuming the education required to perform menial tasks is equivalent to that of a doctor when it comes to all aspects of life, including saving and spending. therefore when we pay people evenly we re not allowing their liberty to spend earned money that they earned. No we are only assuming everyone has the capability to spend and save equally, and because they don't Socialism is condescending to the very intelligent.

Socialism is inefficient -

My opponent has failed to show me in a logical manner or factual manner how a lack of profits, losses, market prices, market, or competition leads to inefficiency.

I provide plenty of Empirical evidence that is very logical, as a result I can't see where he is coming from here.

I can point to many examples of nonprofit organizations that are extremely efficient.
"He hasn't done so, and no new evidence is allowed so we must dismiss the refutation."

Socialism is immoral -

I thank my opponent for TAKING ME OUT OF CONTACT... he has abused me by trying to portray me as a hypocrite I say it is immoral to take form another, which is stealing, the sentence before. So please not only dismiss his argument but his credibility.

4. Worldwide success can be attributed to capitalism.
My opponent builds his argument on the entire theory that people will not invent anything if they are employed by the government. However he gives no reasoning as to why their capability of inventing new processes and things will be inhibited by being employed by a governmental agency.

"My opponent has failed to give any logical proof ..."

I have no obligation to support analytical evidence to support my side when i presented adequate empirical evidence to support my contentions. Furthermore on the subject of illogical assumptions to reprimand me for them would be blatant hypocrisy oh his behalf when look at his UNWARRANTED refutations.

Thank and And I urge a Con ballot because I have clearly been able to pass at least one, if not all of my arguments past the solvencyless, inadequate "case" of the PRO.
johngriswald

Pro

I thank my opponent for completing the final round and hope her family issues have been worked out favorably.

My opponent clearly fails to understand the scope and aim of my arguments.

The resolution was "Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than capitalism". My opponent assumes that showing positive proof for Socialism is the only argument. However my opponent fails to recognize that the two following statements are equivocal in meaning: Socialism is a better means of achieving economic security than Capitalism. Capitalism is worse at achieving economic security in comparison to Socialism. Therefore, as the pro in this debate, I have the option of showing how Capitalism does a worse job of that achieving that security than does socialism. This is an option I have chosen to pursue as my opponent also centered her arguments in that way in R1.

Implicitly my opponent has given us the definition of "economic security" (as it is an extremely broad term) through her contentions in Round 1. By negating more than half of her contentions, I have thus negated the phrase "Capitalism is worse at achieving economic security in comparison to Socialism." and therefore proven the affirmation.

Only in a case of X is better than B can you use negation as proof by negating that B is better than X.

My opponent fails to understand that in a X is better than Y debate the burden of proof falls equally on both sides. By defending capitalism and negating her points I have shown Socialism to be the superior of the two choices.

Thus it is the final round and my opponent has done an excellent job of allowing me no counter arguments.

1. I have been denied an entire round due to a forfeit.
2. My opponent has axed any counter argument I would have to her rebuttal of my refutations of her contentions which were subsequent proofs for my affirmation in the final round by stating: "Also no more new arguments/ evidence please." Since there is equal burden of proof and my opponent has made an attempt at rebutting my rebuttals to her contention, then I too have that power.

The main debate consists of proving six contentions for either side, these are freedom, private property is essential, condescending, inefficiency, immoral, worldwide success.

1. My opponent uses misquotes my rebuttal in a weak attempt to affirm her position that capitalism provides more freedom. My entire argument that money equates freedom when it comes to basic economics. Under capitalism, the upper class control the majority of the wealth, while under socialism the wealth is shared evenly. Thus more individuals as a whole experience freedom. As the majority of the populous as the average working man has more wealth/freedom under socialism than under capitalism. In capitalism you are restricted from gaining freedom my natural intelligence (IQ), your parent's financial situation (funding for better education), and who you know (determines which job and pay you receive). Wheras under socialism you aren't restricted based upon the situation you are born into. In economics money equates freedom. Comparing socialism and capitalism, socialism provides more freedom to the average person than does capitalism based on the sole point that wealth is shared rather than unevenly distributed.

My opponent fails to even attempt to defend this attack capitalism and instead labels it as "libelous and absurd" however she fails to give any reason of why it is such? It is implicit in the definition as well as by simple logic the points I have made.

2. My opponent fails to explain, why her contention that private property is essential to the human race. She then relies on the burden of proof to give her the argument by default. I do not have to provide any sort of solvency as it is well-known that private property is by no means essential as there have been numerous past examples of societies that have no private property, however they do not dissolve due to this matter. Such would be making an argument that "it is essential to the human race that everyone have their own house" which is an audacious claim which clearly holds no water.

3. My opponent automatically assumes that those who are born with more intelligence should automatically receive more than those who aren't. My opponent also assumes those who become doctors have to pay for their own college and are given no money during college. This is false. Those who go to college receive free college and are given the same amount of pay as those who are working. It is not condescending to give the same amount of money to those who are born with less ability. How on earth can you be blamed for your natural intelligence? In capitalism however you are faulted for the situation you are born in. It is capitalism that is condescending and not socialism.

Furthermore by not rebutting my claim that she was wrong about socialism controlling the distribution of goods then it is safe to say that she has accepted the fact that she was wrong on this issue, and instead made an entirely new argument.

4. "I provide plenty of Empirical evidence"

You provided two sentences on the subject your entire debate which essentially say that it makes "economic calculation impossible" This has no explanation nor any logical meaning whatsoever. Worded differently my opponent's entire argument is Socialism is inefficient because it isn't Capitalism. The argument makes absolutely no cents (a pun) at all. Socialism is more efficient then Capitalism because it allows distributes wages evenly, so no one has more power or control than their neighbor.

5. "He hasn't done so, and no new evidence is allowed so we must dismiss the refutation."
I have not done so because they come to mind without saying. The Red Cross, The Boy Scouts, The Girl Scouts, The Salvation Army, etc.

6. "he has abused me by trying to portray me as a hypocrite"

Really? I abused you?

"please not only dismiss his argument but his credibility"

your entire definition of morality was: "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." This amounts to nothing more than compulsory servitude."

If I use your definition against you, then it is not my fault at all but yours for a poorly worded definition/description of morality in application to economics. I stand by my position that Capitalism is more immoral (by my opponents definition) than Socialism because it allows people to make profit off one another.

7. "I have no obligation to support analytical evidence to support my side when i presented adequate empirical evidence"

You do have obligation as this is a better/worse than debate and the burden of proof falls equally on both sides. Your argument holds no logic, and I'm positive you are mistaking the words "Empirical Evidence" for the words "Baseless Conjectures".

My opponent has provided no real arguments to further her side while I have used logic and simple reasoning to promote Socialism. Throughout the Final round my opponent has claimed to have plenty of "empirical evidence" however I have read her words over and over again and can find nothing but baseless conjectures that use no logic or reason.

I have proven plenty of my opponent's conjectures to be false. In this debate the burden of proof is even. As I have done a better job with my arguments by using logic instead of using the burden of proof card to win arguments by default, I urge everyone to vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Ouch.
Posted by johngriswald 6 years ago
johngriswald
You're so unbiased an objective, I wish I could be like you.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
RFD
====
CONDUCT: You called me a woman, I am a man. I don't appreciate it.

SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: tie.

ARGUMENTS: Schemantics used in last speech pushed me over the edge also the skirting around the meat of the debate creating less class.

SOURCES: Empiracal trumps nothing.
Posted by johngriswald 6 years ago
johngriswald
I still don't get how LD fits in here?
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
THe second was too you the first was to the comment chat that was underway.
Posted by johngriswald 6 years ago
johngriswald
I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Two Things...

I have not seen the forums, its just from the limited profiles I have seen, evidently I was wrong.

This is not LD, new arguments refutations are allowed.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
O good. I was wondering...
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
I don't hate capitalism lol, I love capitalism. I misread what side of the argument I was on lol. Oh well, a good debater can debate for what he disagrees with.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
mmm I don't think most people on this website hate Capitalism. I think it's by far the other way around.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dogparktom 6 years ago
dogparktom
CherymentholjohngriswaldTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
CherymentholjohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
CherymentholjohngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
CherymentholjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60