America needs more socialism.

EconomicSocialism, in any sense, has instituted an economic decline in every nation that it has been introduced in, so long as that nation was industrialized beforehand. In fact, the public ownership of the means of production is not only a moral quandary, as it justifies the usage of force against private owners so as to redistribute said property, but it also creates an economic debacle. Monetary systems in Socialist nations favor fiat currency based upon the predilection that the current fiscal system cannot hold as the demand for money is very low, as heavy taxation burdens make money itself, as a tangible and perishable good, less useful than before. Instead, the means of exchange shifts towards stock options in the case of the wealthy and affluent, and tradeable goods on the case of the non-wealthy, meaning the lower middle class to the working class. This would entail a distrust in the monetary system, which is not only self deprecating to the collective well being as well as the individual well being, but it also leads towards an economic spiral in which the end result shall be equality, in the strict sense, but the egalitarian society shall consist of destitute and remorseful people with little to no belongings.In another sense, the fiscal system, which is every bit as important as the monetary system, will destroy itself much quicker. In fact, when the tax burden is so high as to stop the desire as well as the ability to create profit, so will the desire and ability to learn a trade or a certain set of skills that are pertinent to the creation of this wealth. This achieves a system in which the vast majority of skills and pedagogical abilities happen to arise from manual labor, meaning a vast number of laborers in the working class, rather than doctors, businessmen, financiers, economists, scientists, etc. The reason for such arises from the lack of incentive, which is every bit a human fact as it is an economic one, as one ties into the other. When individuals lack the incentive to create wealth, they will no longer do so. Thus, the only “wealth”, in the monetary sense, that will be created, will arise from government fiat, which starts inflation. Nations such as Zimbabwe and Venezuela are perfect examples of corrupt, economically unsound nations with very poor monetary policy, as Venezuela is in economic and political disarray, while Zimbabwe tops 50% inflation per month.[1]PhilosophicalAs this is an opener, I will steer clear from refuting my opponent’s argument and focus on writing one of my own. Firstly, I would like to make the distinction between a negative and a positive right. A positive right is a right which creates a debt for your person, meaning you are owed some service or product as a result of the Constitution in that specific country. For example, a positive right to Life means that every person within your vicinity is required, by law, to protect your life and your well being with their own as you are entitled to such. It also means that they are required to pay vast sums of taxes to pay for and provide health care programs to whomever is owed such a right.A negative right, on the other hand, is a right to be left alone. It’s a right that doesn’t impede on the rights of others, meaning my right to life as a negative will not impede on anyone else’s right to property or liberty, as they are not required to defend my life with theirs, nor are they required to pay for my health care and medical needs.The vast distinction here is what created and influenced the founding fathers with the United States Constitution, which is based upon the predilection of negative rights, not positive. The right to life, liberty, and property in the U.S. Constitution is the right to not be killed, meaning it is illegal to murder, the right to purchase health care without the government stopping you, and the right to do as you please without impeding on the rights of others (meaning you cannot kill, steal, or harm in any such way), and lastly, the right to own property and the right to not have it taken from you by anyone, including the government. A positive system would mean that the right to life, liberty, and property, all place obligations on other citizens to provide for, meaning I am required, by law, to pay for your health care, food, housing, and other necessities, which is not only tyrannical but economically inefficient and unsound.I await my opponent's response. Source(s):[1]http://www.cato.org...