Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Sorry how my last argument was a little short. I'll try to make it longer here. First, I'll answer your stuff from round 1. 1. You claim that no government, no matter how strong, has absolute power. I disagree. If a government is strong enough, it can have absolute control over its people. In Nazi, Germany, anyone who said they were Jewish would get thrown in the coop. However, I agree that resistance is a good way to bring the fall of a tyrannical government. If enough people break out of their brainwashed stupor and observe the many flaws with their current system, they can overthrow the people who oppress the without any fear of punishment, because the government will be gone and there will be no one to administer the punishment. We simply don't notice that our capitalist society is a form of insane dystopia, and once we realize that, we can start working towards a communist utopia the way I describe it. Now, as for the parking ticket thing, I am not suggesting letting poor people go completely scot free for breaking parking rules, I only suggest that the amount of money charged should reflect the person's income. For poor people, the cost should be reduced in half. As a side note, the amount of illegal parking places should be reduced, too, because sometimes people park absentmindedly, or don't look at a small detail, and can't eat for a month. A reduction of parking meters would also be nice. In fact, all parking should be free. You should not have to pay to park your car somewhere. Parking has no actual value besides getting out and resting. That would make a lot of sense. You say there are a "huge number of ways" that people can become rich. I don't think so. For people who have been on SSI for a while, going back to the workplace can be very stressful. Our working system is very flawed. I think that people should only have to work if they want to. Not that they shouldn't be productive members of society, but in the past century, jobs have gotten more and more stupid. In the old days, there was a wide range of jobs for anybody. You could make pottery, sell fruit, write novels, or paint. Today, though, people sit in cubicles and push buttons, which has pushed most of humanity into a stupor. There must be a wider range of jobs, that people can truly enjoy. Your conception of a communist society is a bit striking, because, like most ignorant people, you confuse fake Stalin communism with real Karl Marx communism. In real Karl Marx communism, the government has even less power than in our current system. They do almost nothing. In a communist society, people don't try to become powerful, because, as I said earlier, power is harshly punished in a Communist society. And, finally, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on money, but remember, money has very little impact here. I know it may be hard for your primitive mind to imagine a world without money, but it is a very possible thing. Turn off your bias and think for a moment about a world free of currency would be like, and don't bring up money again, unless we are talking about a lightly socialist government where money still has some impact. 2. Laws can prevent anything, and in the case of this society, rules would be strictly enforced. In our modern day capitalist society, rich people are given an unfair advantage when it comes to prison, not much, but it's there. In my new utopia, the laws would benefit the poor instead, and once both rich and poor reached a state of equilibrium, then the laws would become more just for everyone. In the beginning, though, harsh taxes would be imposed on those who serve as an obstacle to freedom and liberty. My helicopter thing was only a fun little fantasy. If everything was more organized, then poor people could just have the money split up equally between them. The helicopter thing could be a bit sloppy, because some middle class people could get some money. On second thought, it was a bad idea. Instead, how about this: Let's say a millionaire has 4 million dollars. Half of the money is split equally between poor people who assert that their income is less than twenty thousand dollars a year, and the other half is sprinkled with a helicopter. Or the four million could be split up any way between the two methods. One fourth is sprinkled, and three fourths is given to poor people. Whatever works and makes people happy. It doesn't really matter who gets what. What does matter is that the money gets taken away from the rich people and goes to people who need it. Your "Shoe" metaphor seems to be some kind of illustration of inflation, am I right? I know about inflation, and the way you illustrate it, in terms of shoes, is bizarre. I know about it, sure, but imagine that, in this new society, the government creates new money at a reasonable pace, but stores are not allowed to raise their prices any. Even if the streets are over flowing with money, the people must keep their prices low. Inflation may be a natural process, but it can be prevented by law, just like rich people can be forced to give up their money to poor people. Laws can do anything. 3. As I said, the hamburgers and the TVs only served as an example for some products that might be sold in my new utopia, and the way you talk about them shows that you, as a person, have a strikingly low intellect. Either of us can make either product. The point is that they're just given out for free, and you must accept that. To compensate for products being given out a bit more rapidly, we simply have to look for new ways to make TVs and raise more cows to make hamburgers. We might even come up with a reasonable meat alternative. In times of scarcity, such as a communist society, people must look for new ways to create stuff. as the old adage goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention". There are no disadvantages to a society where everything is free. People will not turn over to laziness, they will provide for themselves and others, simply because they can no longer be dependent on the government. People who used to be rich will no longer be able to look towards the government for help, they will now have to do things for themselves and become hardworking people. Communism does not encourage laziness, it discourages it. While the laws in the new utopia will be harsh, and punish those who indulge in greed, the legal system will still be fair. There will be a court, and if the accused took what he needed, then he will be let off the hook. Also, these jail sentences will not be unnecessarily long. If a person takes five hamburgers or something like that, he only needs to sit in prison for about three weeks. Not so long that he goes insane, but long enough for him to think about his actions. In today's legal system, some people get a whole year for stealing a pack of gum, which I think is a little harsh. the punishments for greed will be consistent, though, so people who take too many things too much of the time will be sent to jail for a little longer. It just makes sense. 4. You refer again in this section to the cost of production, but remember, in this society, production is not an issue. You also assume that high quality goods can be sold for a low price, which, I'm afraid, is not possible in this society. Companies will never sell high quality things for a low price, because they can jack up the price as much as they want to. Look at Apple. They sell a flat hunk of wires for half a thousand dollars. For a poor person, that could be a quarter of a year's food. Do you really think they would be willing to pay for that? The quality of a product is in the eyes of the beholder. If a kid can have fun with a yo yo instead of a video game, then everything is fine. And, as for your little question at the end, people who want to feed people in jail can feed the people in jail. Someone will. And now, for your three questions. Assumption 1: Do we live in a perfect world? No, we actually live in a disguised dystopia. But communism will help us move away from that dystopia. Assumption 2: will people work hard and disgusting jobs volunterrily for nothing in return? Yes, because they actually do get something in return. Because they give things away free to other people, they can get things for free. Assumption 3: will this actually result in less poverty? Yes, when rich people lose money, poor people gain money. This is very simple math. Assumption 4: Do we have an unlimited number of hamburgers so that everyone gets food? Yes, if we focus on getting enough hamburgers. And, as I said, hamburgers are only an example. We can eat whatever the hell we want to. I choose the system on the top. They won't necessarily threaten you with guns, just do something to prevent greed. The system on the bottom is a false view of capitalism, because nobody will ever spend less money, it's against human nature. If somebody doesn't have money, they have to sign a contract to push buttons for a month or so, which shouldn't have to be done to eat. I suggest that the government doles out some money to people who need any, just twenty or so dollars at a time. Your round 4 argument is childish and inane, so I don't think I'll talk about that. In the last round, I would like to discuss the Cold war a bit, then we'll wrap this whole thing up, once and for all. Thank you, sir. I await your next argument, about the cold war. You can rebut my arguments here if you want to, but only minimally. Until then, I'm here, ready and waiting.