The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Is Capitalism the best way of running a country?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 120221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




The best way to progress a society is by allowing people to compete and innovate, Which means that some people will come up with great ideas that will sell well, And some will come up with not so good ideas that don't sell well. As a result, The people with the good ideas will have more money than those with the not so good ideas, Leading to inequality in the amount of money that is shared between everyone.


The problem with your line of reasoning here is that once people have money, They can easily pay to suppress or destroy budding research on new technologies. They can pay off politicians to make those new technologies harder to research in many ways. They'll even go beyond the legal system and make threats or hold them up in legal battles as much as possible.

Why do you think cars haven't got extremely more efficient? Why have we been on fossil fuels for so long instead of switching to renewable resources? There are no legitimate arguments to not do so. They are called fossil fuels exactly because they cannot be relied upon.

Capitalism would work great in theory, But the problem is that humans are human. Capitalism in theory that you learn in econ 101 only works until you step out of the classroom and enter reality.
Debate Round No. 1


That's why we have antitrust laws against monopolies, And monopolies inevitably fail anyway because they get too big.

It costs money to develop cars that can use renewable resources. Electric cars are inefficient due to the need to recharge much more often than petroleum-fuelled cars. Even then, Electric cars are much more common than they used to be.

Capitalism does work a lot more compared to other systems though, That's the thing. The countries that are the most economically stable are capitalist. What would the alternatives be? Socialism and communism defeat all competition by making everyone's contributions equal.


1. No. Antitrust laws are barely functional. They can't stop de facto monopolies and they don't stop backdoor dealing. Most people have one or two choices for internet or phone service depending on where they live. These companies gobble each other up all the time, Or stick to their own zones of influence. Competing companies rarely get the light of day, And the market share of these companies is laughable.

Companies like Amazon are nearly completely unopposed and they will continue to be. The advent of the internet has made monopolies more likely. Anti-trusting your way out of these things doesn't work.

2. I'm not talking about just electric cars. The efficiency of cars in general is a more wide concept. Even then, Oil companies have halted progress towards renewables as best they can with lobbying and other shady practices.

Companies that see competition doing better than them do hostile takeovers of said companies then destroy them. It's laughably common. Are we trying to say that fossil fuel industry money has not lobbied and spread misinformation to try and stop renewables research as much as possible?

3. Companies hold patents in capitalism which they try to extend or renew as much as possible rather than letting them go public.

You see this a lot with different kinds of medicines. They slightly change the formula and claim longer patent times, Et cetera.

GMO crop companies are trying to claim patents for the DNA structure of their plants. They intentionally spread the seeds in non-GMO farmer's fields so that those farmers are forced to pay them for their patented product.

4. Companies sell products that they KNOW hurt the people they sell them to because they KNOW they will profit more than the lawsuits will cost.

Drug companies push drugs not intended for use on certain patients knowing they are ineffective and cause severe side effects. They pay off doctors to prescribe these drugs mostly via misinformation. The company that coated pans with cancer causing chemicals, Et cetera. These are all examples of capitalists using their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders as an excuse to hurt our civilization just to increase profits.

5. The right choice isn't socialism, Capitalism, Or communism. It is a mix of all of these things. The profit motive causes externalities. Extreme, Grand externalities to our society. For companies, If they know that 100, 000 people will be hurt by some action that they do and they'll lose X number of long term customers but they'll make a killing off of it, They'll do that action. Hurting society becomes OK if the profits are there. If you really want proof of these kind of actions I can dig up the 30-100 page reports of what some of these large companies do.

There are socialized systems in our country already. There are capitalist systems and socialist systems for the same product. When these things operate poorly it is largely simply due to insufficient funding from the government. I can point to other countries where socialist policies have been implemented that have been proven to work vastly more efficiently than capitalist policies in the US. Why are we pretending that if we take individual markets and socialize them that this is a full blown replacement of capitalism for socialism?

There are any number of things that we should require non-profit organizations to run rather than for-profit organizations. That is the entire reason we have the distinction between the two. When it comes to ethics, Non-profits destroy for-profits. Socialism destroys capitalism ethically in some cases.

Example: National Health Insurance.

Insurance works by pooling many people and dividing the costs between us all. We cannot shop around for the best hospital when we have an accident, A heart attack, Et cetera. Medicine should be a public commodity. In countries that socialize health insurance you see better outcomes, Happier people, Cheaper healthcare, Et cetera. Instead, In the US the for-profit companies have it to where if you ask a doctor or nurse what a procedure will cost they will have no idea. Each insurance agency artificially balloons the price of operations. What do you think a single saline bag costs in a hospital? It is beyond absurdity.

For the example of national healthcare, We have 30-50K people who die every year due to having no insurance. This is about a 9/11 event every month, Depending on how you do the math. There are many more who go bankrupt due to health costs. Underinsured number in the millions. And yet, We refuse to switch to a proven superior system morally and financially because of pressure from companies with a profit motive.

There are a huge number of reasons socialized health insurance is beyond preferable for our society. Far better.

Capitalism alone in any of its forms does not allow for the best possible society. A hybrid system, A mixed system, Works best. To deny this is to say that there are no markets in which when you do the math morally, Financially, QoL, Et cetera, Whatever your metrics are, That socialized systems will be superior in. This is a claim you cannot make. You can certainly try, But you have to somehow explain to me how externalities don't exist, How private companies would be better than public options in all the ways we currently use public options over private companies, And how human QoL would be inferior in a system where we shared resources equally among all of our citizens.

Capitalism works when resources are scarce. When there is no choice but to ration those resources to all of society. Socialism works well when there is no scarcity. Socialism works to prevent the hoarding and denial of resources that capitalism inherently requires. We have no shortage of food in this country. We have a distribution problem, But we also have the problem of capitalist companies throwing food away or leaving perfectly good food on the ground in fields because it doesn't "look pretty. "

The notion that capitalism has no failures or that those externalities and inherent evils don't add up to make the market operate in an inferior way to socialist systems in at least some markets is an excessively absurd position to take. Please don't do this to yourself.

If you do insist on holding to capitalism over socialism in all cases, Please explain to me why national health insurance is inferior to private health insurance. Please explain how a US with only private for-profit schools would be superior to public schools. Private water companies superior to public water companies, Private roads superior to public roads, Private military superior to public military. A world with only bookstores superior to a world with libraries, Et cetera.

One of the ideals of civilizations that is of utmost importance is "Freedom. " Freedom inspires people to be better people. Freedom shows them there is a path forward if they wish to walk it. This is not something that is inherent to capitalism alone. I'm not arguing for communism here. I'm arguing for socialized systems when they are superior or equal to capitalist systems. There is no loss of freedom when capitalism is converted to socialism. Only the freedom to be superior to other people so much that you can deny them basic necessities. You can argue this is freedom for the rich, But I can argue that it denies freedom to the poor. In reality, Behind every rich person there are thousands of poor people that propped them up for them to get there. There is a necessary exploitation of workers for someone to get rich in capitalist societies.

I've touched on many points. I personally can get more clear in the way I present the subjects, But it is an extremely difficult conversation to have in so few words and so broadly. If we're comparing the best systems it is hardly a socialism vs capitalism argument alone. Socialism has many benefits, But you don't seem to agree that capitalism has cons.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 2


emsiblook forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
1. Wrong on almost all counts. Socialist systems exist in every government and they work well.

2. Your DMV might be bad. 14 or so years ago when I went to the DMV it was a multi-hour wait. Nowadays its ten or twenty minutes at best. Efficiency isn't as big of a problem as you might think. You can't say "look at how inefficient the DMV is" when there is no capitalist equivalent system to compare it to. That is an absurd statement. It is literally comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
Have you read the book the giver? I hope you have because it is a great book. It's a perfect example of the only way socialism can be done successfully. I believe that capitalism takes advantage of the fact that humans are naturally evil. If you want fossil fuel cars to go away without passing a law that would destroy the economy, You're going to have to do a few things first.
1. Invent an open-source, Hyper-efficient, And cheap electric engine (to encourage electric cars)
2. Invent cheap solar panels that would make it cheaper to go with solar (or any other renewable rescource) to power your hyper-efficient engine.
3. Publish these designs for free usage to any company.
Do these things and you will have companies BEGGING to go electric.
Ever been to the DMV? I presume you have, And you know how inefficient government is. A socialist society to work it would have to be entirely government-run. Imagine how efficient that would be?
This video goes into more depth. Https://www. Prageru. Com/videos/if-you-hate-poverty-you-should-love-capitalism
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
Yeah I agree, I hold the same views as well. I was just clarifying.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago

Everyone is against laissez-faire capitalism. No one seriously supports it.

My personal economic views, With some background in economics, Would be that capitalism should be utilized in markets where scarcity is impossible to eliminate. There is no reason to not blend the two systems. Saying one has to be in favor of capitalism or socialism in an exclusionary way is fallacious. It is black and white. A false dichotomy. It is entirely possible for us to socialize markets that can be proven to work better under socialism (national health insurance for example) and for us to leave as much as we must to capitalism.

That being said, This also depends a bit on your definition of socialism. Most people don't have a clear definition of it. Public ownership of businesses would be excellent. Failing to acknowledge this is to ignore all of the evils of capitalism and to fail to acknowledge all the benefits of socialized businesses.

Socialism is also inevitable. If the capital owners are able to automate 100% of their businesses, There will be no work. No pay for the people. No one to buy the products.

I am pro capitalism and pro socialism. I believe in a hybrid system. All necessities for humanity should be socialized. Businesses run more ethically if they are socialized. We aren't talking communism here. Luxury markets outside of necessities should be more free game for capitalism.

In the end, The goal of society should be to convert as many goods from scarce to abundant, And to have free reign on them.

An example of a working 'socialized' market that co-exists with a capitalist market would be libraries.

Comparing the morality of socialized businesses versus capitalist businesses, The socialized system wins on all counts. Comparing the efficiency, Capitalists MAY have an advantage in markets where the externalities of the market don't outweigh the added efficiency.

I'm for capitalism and socialism done right.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
- Are you just against laissez faire capitalism? Or capitalism all together?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
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's substantial arguments which point out various flaws in the capitalistic system such as the human condition are not refuted by Pro. Pro had very little to offer to debate and the points that were brought up (such as the antitrust laws) were thoroughly debunked by Con and therefore the motion fails.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.