Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

RESPONSES 1"My opponent says "that this socialism... cannot be established or ma[i]ntained without government force." However, this is only true if majority of people in a country are in favor of a market economy or some other non-socialist economy. If a majority is in favor of a socialist economy, then it will be very difficult for anyone to maintain private ownership of a company. For one, the people themselves can enforce the rules by rising up against anyone who tries to open up a privately-owned business. A militia can ensure that the society continues to be socialist."This would be no less than a tyrannical mob rule, if I want to produce my own goods and demand payment for them, the "general poplation" has no right to "rise up" against anything since I am not forcing anything on them. I would pose no threat to them by producing my own things. This is why I support the absolute right to gun ownership and the legalisation of machine guns and semi-automattics,. that way if such a mob tried to destroy my property I could defend myself. "I admit, it takes a lot of conviction from the people themselves and activism on their part to maintain such a socialist economy. I concede that if majority of the people want a market economy, then there's no way to have socialism but through government force. Since I'm also an advocate of democracy, I have no problem with a society that majority want a market economy, that's their choice, but I think if people were educated on socialism, and if socialist attempts were allowed to continue without outside forces over-taking them, there would be more examples of socialist successes and more people would likely go to socialism."If you want to go form a socilist factory or a socialist community, you can do that under a capitaist model, but you'll most likely go out of buisness due to innefficent production. "I would like to address this next point made by my opponent: "Firstly, if competition, how can there also be only 1 or 2 people in charge of the system." When I said a few people are in charge, I meant a few people or one person is in charge of a single company. There are of course multiple pharmaceutical companies and plenty of competition. I apologize if that was not clear. In addition, my opponent stated that "The only way to prevent people from making these antibiotics is with government force. " However, I would argue that under a socialist economy where workers own the businesses and make the decisions, they would probably be more likely to vote for developing a solution to this problem. Perhaps not all of the cooperatives would do this, but I would say at least a few of them would come to realize the need for benefiting society, rather than themselves."If all of the profits went to the workers, then the worlkers would make whatever decision they thought would best serve their intrests. So- same results, people serve their own private intrests, "When one or a few people control the company, they are more likely to do that which benefits themselves, but when workers are in control, they will do what benefits the workers which is more likely to benefit everyone since more people are involved in the process."No, the workers would make those same decisions since they would earn more money. RESPONSES 2There isn't much information about Yugoslavia, or its quality of living, but from what I can tell it was under the Soviet Bloc and whithin the Rubble Zone, which apparently used to be a big currency. Either way Yugoslavia wasn't such a great prospering economy, they mounted up huge sums of debt, always had a trade deficit which grew exponentially, and their economy didn't really grow that much long term when compared to cpitalist nations: Bolivia isn't all that great either, their GDP per capita is only 3,095$, {1} compared to Switzerland, who's GDP Per Capita is 80,000$, the highest in the world. {1}. http://data.worldbank.org...