It's time for the workers of the world to unite

Thank You Brian for the warm welcome. I am really enjoying being on debate.org debating various topics with interesting people. I am surprised that I never found this site before.Here are my responses to your arguments:While many corporations do try to extract the maximum amount of money from customers, it doesn't change the fact that customers can go to a different businees which provides better customer service. In order to stay in business, the first corporation will then be forced to provide better customer service and improve customer relations or go out of business. Case in point: Blockbuster vs Netflix. Blockbuster had terrible customer relations and charged an insane amount of late fees. Netflix came along and charged no late fees. Blockbuster had to file for bankruptcy and close many of their stores. They are still in business but they changed many of their policies to be more customer friendly in order to compete with Netflix. [1] Pro didn't say why corporate philosophy is not appropriate for public services. I say that being able to choose the best service actually helps the financially disadvantaged members because they can shop around for the cheapest price rather than a one-size fits all price.Pay rises for workers in educational and banking institutions might work. However, it is very difficult to measure who helps society the most. However, if customers are given a chance to choose, then all institutions will try to attract them by giving them deals that will help them the most. More customers means more profits for the institution. It will be a win-win. In the United States there are limits on the maximum donations that an individual or corporation can make. It is $2500 for an individual donation and it is a federal crime to evade donation limits through straw donors. Thousands of people donate to their candidate and it would be impossible for all or any of them to influence the politician. Your argument about influence might be true for very large donations but a donation cap like that in the United States solves this problem. With that in mind, it would be inefficient and immoral to prevent volunteers from donating while forcing people to pay higher taxes to fund the elections.Wealthy families are wealthy because they earned the money. They have an absolute right to pass it along to whoever they choose. It would be inappropriate for the government to step in and take a slice of that pie just because they feel that a "previlieged few" have too much money and that it needs to be redistributed to people who weren't so previleged. The government can always get the money to fund education by giving student loans that need to be repaid. I don't understand why people can't "afford" internships. People get paid to do internships (at least in the US). They don't have to "afford" them.It would be nice for everyone to have access to libraries and museums. But this doesn't take away from the fact that not only are they paying for them through taxes, but all the poor people who never use them are also paying for them through their taxes which they might need for more basic things like food and shelter. If you are saying "tax only the rich", then I would argue that the rich have no obligation to pay for the maintenance of libraries and museums. What is morally repugant is forcing the rich to pay for free internet for poor children. If they want to donate money to charitable causes such as One Laptop Per Child, they should be highly encouraged to do so. But in a free country, the government should not force people who honestly earned their money to give it up if they don't want to. How then will people find the motivation to work hard and be successful if the government can take their money away at any time? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org....[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...