Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

RESPONSEPrivate ownership includes both your household and the ability to own a place of production. Now, I'd like to point out that this socialism that my opponent talks about cannot be established or mantained without goveronment force. Without that the ownership of production will remain in the hands of whoever controls what at this moment. Enable to make this transition the goveronment would need to impliment violent force againsts its citizens, and usurp (steal) property and give it to another. And if such an economy was established, and there were little or no goveronment as my opponent wants, then eventualy individualists such as myself will, sooner r later, decide to go form our own capitalist companies and be self-employed. These companies would be far more productive and efficient than those Socialist establishments and would hence drive them out of buisness, marking the end of Socialism. The only way to prevent this is with goveronment force. I also want to point out a fallacy in my opponents response:"While competition has resulted in a lot of advancement, it is also being detrimental to humanity. For example, there is a rising superbug bacteria problem due to the over-prescription of antibiotics. Since pharmaceutical companies are competing with one another, instead of working together cooperatively, and they are controlled by one or a few people who are only interested in profit, they go for the short-term profit method of selling as many antibiotics as possible. Because it's more profitable to sell the antibiotics rather than try to come up with a solution to the rising superbug bacterial problem, it is exacerbating the problem since very few companies are wanting to spend the money to solve the problem until it's too late, since other companies are still selling antibiotics."Firstly, if competition, how can there a;lso be only 1 or 2 people in charge of the system. Secondly, these vaccines can only be dispensed into society if there is a demand for them. The company can only sell them if people are buying them, and if people are buying them then cooperation between 1 buisness and itself isn't going to change anything since people will simply make alternative antibiotics at home. The only way to prevent people from making these antibiotics is with goveronment force. A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOSay there were a city that followed the socialist model that my opponent is proposing, and there wre also another city that followed my capitalist structure. Under my proposition companies will cmpete and build more infarstructure and produce more goods at lower prices, employing more people, creating more wealth, and lowering the cost of living. This is because entrepenuers will have an incentive to produce more wealth and build moe infarstructure. Whilst under the socialist model no one will build more infarstructure since everyone is a worker. These workers will most likely raise the cost of their goods to earn more money, rather than producing more stuff. A socialist economy is a stagnate economy since all of the factories and production are already built, and will not advance past their current state. It is basically putting more focus on equality than production. EXAMINING THE RESULTSIn round 1 I gave the examples of Japan Switzerland and the United States during the 1940's-late 60's, the United States was the first country where its ordinary citizen had access to electricity and running water, Switzerland has the highest average wages in the world, at 6,500$ a month, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any nation, which reflects their quality of living and quality/avalability of healthcare. {1}The GDP Per Capita in Switzerland is 80,000$, which is larger than any other nation. {1}. http://data.worldbank.org...