Government is sociopolitically motivated toward socialism.

First off, here is a very important definition that is central to the resolution:Sociopolitical: (adj) Combining social and political factors. [1]---A Review of the Prior DefinitionsWhat does it mean to be "sociopolitically advisable"? Well, "political" alone means "of or relating to government." [2] Obviously, it is redundant to call the government "politically advised," since we would be basically saying the equivalent of "the government is advised by the government." Hence, one cannot contest that, by its being a government, a government is advised politically. What one can strongly contest, however, is the idea that a government is socially advised to engage in socialism. (We are now discussing the "social" facet of "sociopolitical advisability.") "Social" means "of or pertaining to human society." [3] Do the interests of human society uphold the idea that the government should provie socialist benefits to citizens?---Some Clarifications and a Continuation Fish AnalogyThe opponent suggests that the idea of "[the] government should hand care for the people to people" is "a foundation for Capitalism and is part of most Libertarian ideology." Capitalism is founded on private ownership of the means of production; the concept of Capitalism is not founded on government invervention, and if anything, it veers away from it. And Libertarian ideology is founded on the idea that government intervention should be minimized, for social and economic purposes. The doctrines of Capitalism and Libertarianism do not even vaguely reinforce the point that it is the government has the responsibility to provide direct care for people. A continuation of the fish analogy: Let us say that you know how to fish, but the man next to you does not. A fishing trainer walks up to you and steals money from you to fund the other man's fishing lessons. "Well, it's only fair," you might say. "He doesn't know how to fish, after all, and I do." But let us say that you live in a society where the ability to fish is of little to no value. Now you are being mandated to pay for a service for another person, even though you are against the provision of that service. In this analogy, in case you didn't guess, you and the other man are common citizens and the fishing trainer is the government. What it shows is that taxation is not an act that directly enforces societal good, as people often think; rather, taxation is a forced payment out of your pocket to fund the activities that the government believes are in society's (and your) interest. Are these obligatory payments necessary for a functioning society? Let us explore the free market ideology.---The Free Market: An Alternative If we ask an average American citizen, "Do you think social and economic intervention by the government is necessary?", he or she will most likely respond with a "yes." But if we ask, "Would you be opposed to lower taxes?" or, better yet, "Do you want some of the things you buy to be chosen for you by someone else?", then the answer will almost always be a resounding "no."Clearly, the former and the latter are in conflict with one another. While they hate to give up their hard-earned money, they can't picture a world without heavy government intervention. There is, to some extent, a socially upheld notion that government intervention is the default means of solving economic and social dilemmas. And through upholding this notion, we all pay through what we go to work every day for: the cash in our pockets. The alternative is a free market society. The private sector, through natural competition, would be able to regulate the system and many social and fiscal problems would be mended. For example, the social issue of employment discrimination would mend itself, since businesses that choose to not employ talented minorities will work against their interest and ultimately lose against competition. Economic problems such as monopolies would be naturally destroyed; if we look back, virtually all instances of monopolization have been cause by government influence, throughout history. ---The ResolvedShould the government be able to take over means of production? Through our fish analogy earlier, we see that when the government performs a service, it is taking money out of our pockets, regardless of whether or not we believe in the service. This conflicts with the rights of an individual to choose what to do with the wage he or she receives from his or her contribution to society. Those who cannot take care of themselves can be upheld through private, non-profit funds; most, however, would be able to succeed in a market without a minimum wage imposed upon them and without a system of welfare that often incentivizes not working over working through offering benefits that come with more fiscal benefits than many job and with "security" that many jobs cannot provide, due to the risk of losing the job. Moreover, I believe "socialistic benefit," a term my opponent uses, is contradictory. Socialism, a doctrine that contradicts natural human rights, cannot be beneficial as opposed to a free market when introduced into a large-scale society with a large economy. ---It is not advisable, pragmatically or ethically, to enable the government to benefit citizens through socialist practices, nor is a government obligated to benefit citizens through such a means.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...