The Instigator
armoredcat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Socialism is the Better State of Government then is 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 5 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 82629
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

armoredcat

Pro

My argument is, as stated, Socialism is better than Capitalism
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate and shall be arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is better than Socialism in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
armoredcat

Pro

Unfortunately, I have real things to do. I am very, very sorry for any time I have wasted. I was new here and was not ready.
lannan13

Con

As stated in the comments section I will be defending Anarcho-Captialism in this debate.

Contention 1: Capitalist Distributive Justice better than Egalitarian

Under Anarcho-Communism the form of Distributive Justice is that of Egalitarian. [1] The Egalitarian Distributive Principle hinges on the fact that everyone in society is made equally and that society’s benefits and burdens should be equally distributed amongst society. Capitalistic Distributive Justice, on the other hand, is that the benefits of society should be equally distributed amongst contributors. Though my opponent can agree that each should have equal rights it is the burdens and benefits that where we clash. The main problem with the Egalitarian principle is that it creates waste. The thing is that not everyone needs the same amount of benefits and burdens. For example, someone who is mentally handicapped cannot perform the same as a scientist who is not. The scientist may not need the same amount of benefits that the handicapped man does and they most certainly will be unable to contribute in the same way. While on the other side Capitalist Distributive Justice shows that people would be getting what they earn do to their contrabution and this would encourage more and more people to contribute to soceity and due to these desires it would result in growth of the soceity and its betterment even though people are working for their own desires.

Another flaw in Anarcho-Communism's Egalitarian principle is that of the redistribution of wealth in order to have an equal set of benefits for society. Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [2] In the case of this redistribution of wealth one must see that it is not benefitting society as it harming the richer to give to the poor. In this case we also do not know to what extent the Equality of redistribution must be met. To further this if the person behind the Veil wanted their place in society they would all want to be the least advantaged, but in turn they would become better off in this case. Though in order to balance this out in society it would discourage people from wanting to be rich so that they could receive benefits from the more advantaged and thus would wreck any type of society into one that has stagnated and has halted any type of progress or growth. Not to mention that at this point that it would result in any type of means of getting this money which can result in violence which once again would damage society, but yet show that this redistribution cannot actually flourish with Anarcho-Communism.

Contention 2: Individualism and the hard work.

There is no greater arguer of individualism than Alexis de Tocqueville who defines Individualism as fallows (yes I still accept Pro's definition, but this is part of my argument):

a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself." [3]

He later argues in his novel that America (in the 1800s) is great for its individualism as we are willing to risk all of our personal fortunes and earning to take a chance in business or the great wilderness of the American frontier. Unlike Europe at the time where people only past down land to the oldest in the family and that was it, in the US people took chances and defied society's discouragement to take chances to better the economy and better the world as expected by you in a democratic society.

As social equality spreads there are more and more people who, though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained and kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine their whole destiny is in their own hands” [3]

Tocqueville argues that this is necessary to be individualistic in order to maintain an independence and not being able to have to expect society to have to support you Ralph Waldo Emmerson agrees with this theory in his essay Self-Reliance, where he argues that it is the upmost importance that one must live by their own instant, because it is important that one stays independent. He also goes on to argue that one growth is determined by their independence from society and that one's own abilities to choose for one's self and make your own decisions make it important.

Contention 3: Anarcho-Capitalism works historically.

Whether you want to believe it or not, but the Anarcho-Capitalism has actually existed in small societies here in the US. One of the most famous examples was that of Pullman Company. Pullman was a company that made famous luxurious rail road cars in the 1800s. Pullman had printed his own company money and even made a town and living spaces for their employees. There they lived like any other town in the United States. George Pullman did this in order to help ease his workers and help them amongst their tension and the society worked. Everything from schools, to food kitchens, were all provided in the Pullman society were the poor in his town were well careful as the town was rated one of the Healthiest places in the world. [4]This had even gone to the extent of showing that Pullman had cared so much for his workers and was viewed as such a visionary that he dwarfed the power and reformations of Otto Von Bismarck. [5] The town also reached a value of over $5 million in worth in the early 1890s.

Sources
1. (http://www.spunk.org...)
2. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
3. (Translation by Lawrence, George (1969). Perennial Classics. Quotations are from Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 2-4. Page 506 and Page 508)
4. Wilson, James Grant; Fiske, John, eds. (1900). "Pullman, George Mortimer". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton.
5. "The Parable of Pullman" at the Wayback Machine(archived May 13, 2008), Kent Law Journal, 2008
Debate Round No. 2
armoredcat

Pro

I suppose that I may be able to try with the time I possess to deliver an argument.

Socialism Basics
Socialism operates under the general means in which humans and citizens run the services (i.e. electricity) rather then buying them from companies. This also means that they do not possess private property. In Democratic Socialism (Main Socialism) it may work under a Capitalist regime or a Socialist regime through either changing the basics of the government and slowly making the changes of another anarchy. Democratic Socialism is very operative under the fact that it chooses the elected leaders of each individual society, and that it will establish government accordingly. So, this will mean that the common misconceptions regarding the flaws of Socialism using the example of the Communist regime (The Soviet Union) will be wrong as Communism is not Socialism, and Communism under The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did these by force rather then by democratic election. China, another large country is not Socialist, but rather communist.

Utopic Socialism demonstrates the goals of Socialism by showing the ways in which everything is done correctly.

Why Socialism Holds Up and Countries
As Socialism, we will see as previously mentioned that humans run the services. This eliminates a common misconception made that Socialism has equal money distribution, but this will make the differences of money smaller. The reason why money differentials doing so is good is because look at the average Capitalist system, in how the amount of poor people is in constant corruption of the system, as poor people are hungry and starving, whereas the middle class is doing relatively well depending on the situation, and the poor cannot provide a home for themselves, much less provide daily things that middle class buys that they may not even need. The rich class and the middle class both have a common similarity; they can almost always supplement themselves with food and shelter. In conclusion, decreasing the difference in economic equality will provide a large amount of poor people with the needs that everyone in every country deserves. We can also see that the rich class if brought down by these new economic distributions may even stay that way depending on the place, and the middle class can be good.

Now, when we think about the worst regimes deemed Socialist we can obviously firstly think of: The Soviet Union, China, (Not terrible but having many human rights issues) and North Korea. According to Wikipedia, China disregards the democratic system, which means the terms are made by what the government conceives to be better then the country. Another thing about China, as well as the Soviet Union, and North Korea, is that they are Communist, which is different from Socialism. All three of these disregard the free Democratic Socialism.You will then see a well operative system of Socialism which is in Finland. Finland has a 100 percent literacy rate, the best education in the world, which is in fact better then the United States of America. Also, Finland traditionally operates under a Democratic Socialist regime. This is proof that Socialism in it's forms can operate well.

Previous Argument
Firstly, you decide to say the falsities of the Egalitarian Principle. This you say is false because the mentally handicapped, for example, will not operate as well as the scientist. There is a flaw in this example as these handicapped people are people whom should not be economically discriminated. For the reasoning of the other people who decide not to work and thus get equal distribution is not in line with the basics of Socialism. These basics state that everyone gets control of production, rather than everyone gets equal in these things. So, therefore these people who do not contribute to society will not do much better than they would do in Capitalism.

Also, you say that creed, race, sex, religion, political views and generation does not matter in this principle. Shouldn't that be how it should be? Of course, I am unsure as to what Cons argument is, but the indifference between these things through social and economic society is a good goal.

The next thing you said was that you would be harming the rich to give to the poor. I believe this is a well-operated system as the greater injustice is not to take away from the rich, but it is the death of the poor and those who cannot supplement themselves with the basic needs human have to survive. Then you said this would discourage people from becoming rich, and this would then put things into a halt. Anyone will not be arrested for having a certain amount of money, but the government will regulate it so that they do not gain too large an amount of money, and I am unable to see how this would stunt the growth of society and make it unable to flourish.

I will finally remark on Cons flaws with the Egalitarian principle that this principle is not necessary to all sorts of Socialism.

I will also remark the confusion I may be seeing in how I never stated a definition of this individualism, and where this goes in the argument. Individualism if used, will show that society may be able to be destroyed by the individual, being inferred to how the individual may make bad decisions, and as there may be uneducated people, partly uneducated because of the individualist semi-disregard for the economy and thus unknowing of the economy, will, if the individual makes bad decisions, the society will be ruined making it a large risk to follow individualism.

This Capitalism was also only in the Pullman Company which was small, which questions how well it could be done on a grander scale. Finland, as aforementioned has been in these very high living standards in a much bigger place running under Democratic Socialism.

Sources:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
https://en.wikipedia.org...
www.heritage.org/index/country/finland
https://www.google.com...
blog.peerform.com/ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
https://www.google.com...
lannan13

Con

My opponent's last round was fundimentally flawed and must be thrown out of the debate. In the comments section he permitted me to use Anarcho-Capitalism, but then my opponent, in his last round, argued for Democratic Socialism, not Socialism. What's the difference you may ask? Socialism is equality in Society while Democratic Socialism is that of equality in Society under a democratic system of which shall move to a Communist government in 15 years. [1] We can see that not only all of my opponent's examples refer to Democratic Socialism and not Socialism which is what the resolution shows he is defending. Meaning that my opponent has made an argument for the wrong type of Socialism and all arguments that he has made must be thrown out of the debate. Not to mention that since the next round is indeed the final round my opponent, via debate ethics, is not permitted to bring up new arguments outside of refutations. With that said Socialism is still distributes the benefits and burdens of soceity whether my opponent wants to accept that or not. It's in the very own definition even if we move to Socialist Distributive Justice.

When it comes to Finland, they're not a Socialist country that we make them out to be. They have overly high taxes, but that's because of their low income. They also have high public debate and the US has higher tax rates on the rich than Finland does. [2] Finland tried this "Socialist" expirement and they fell hard in economic standing in the world and ditched that system. If you classify Finland as a Socialist Country then the US is a dead red Commie.

My opponent dropps my John Rawls argument here.

My opponent is highly mistaken here as even Bernie Sanders has pushed for a 90% tax on the rich and doing such a thing would collapse the US economy. Such a purposal is purposterous and we'll see a collapse of the US like of that in Atlas Shrugged.

I have already disproved my opponent's argument here.

I extend all arguments across the board.



Sources
1. (http://www.differencebetween.net...)
2. (http://thefederalist.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
armoredcat

Pro

armoredcat forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by armoredcat 7 months ago
armoredcat
Thanks for voting. This was my first debate, and I thank everyone for your feedback. I accept that Con had the better arguments and conduct, and agree with your choices. I'll improve my conduct next time.
-armoredcat
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
That's alright. I'll need you to blitzkreig your next round after I post mine. I'm gone this weekend and I would like to finish the debate strong.
Posted by armoredcat 1 year ago
armoredcat
Thank you for letting me know. So sorry for how inconsistent I have been. I can confirm it was accidental, and not me being lazy or anything similar.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I'll end up posting my argument tomorrow assuming the world doesn't end.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Well that's kinda unethical debating for the site. You still have a few more rounds to respond and such.
Posted by armoredcat 1 year ago
armoredcat
Yes, I was able to manage. I was under a lot of stress at the time that I began to write it first. I am doing better, and as I said before, I am new to the site. So, I would like to continue the debate.
Should I replace the argument I missed in the comments?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I thought you didn't have the time for the debate?
Posted by madeinamerica1983 1 year ago
madeinamerica1983
This is easy where in history has Socialism ever worked and thrived? If you say Russia or China I will Laugh because they are as capitalist as we are because socialism doesn't work. Granted the idea sounds appealing but in reality it just does not work.
Posted by armoredcat 1 year ago
armoredcat
You may begin the argument in the first round if you would like, or make it for acceptance, either way is good.
Posted by armoredcat 1 year ago
armoredcat
Any form of it is welcome, so yes you may.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
armoredcatlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture
Vote Placed by Sam7411 11 months ago
Sam7411
armoredcatlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No question here. Pro wasted and forfeited a round, as well as argued for Dem. S instead of Socialism. Con had permission to argue for AC. Also, the fact that many associate the USSR and China with socialism, which Pro pointed out, obviously demonstrates the consequences and what would really happen. Basing your argument on a Utopic situation is logical fallacy because one must realize the application of Socialism. The world isn't perfect as most are aware. Both used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
armoredcatlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Sdio 12 months ago
Sdio
armoredcatlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that Pro was arguing for DS instead of just S, but Con argued with AC instead of just C, which was what the title said. Pro loses conduct for wasting a round and the forfeit. Con provided great rebuttals.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 12 months ago
Midnight1131
armoredcatlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF