Government is sociopolitically motivated toward socialism.

Since this is the 'endgame,' I shall address most arguments point-by-point, divided into proper sections. Because it is the final round, and because I did not make an argument until Round 2, I shall present no new arguments here, but ask that my opponent present no new arguments this round either, since he has the final word.Fish AnalogyP1S1, 2: You may have misunderstood; I said 'staple' industry, not 'stable' industry. The two are drastically different.P1S3: You're missing the point, I think; the point is that in the analogy, fishing refers to profession of any kind, or self support. I don't think anyone will argue that jobs and the ability to support oneself are important.P1S4: Taxation by the government to fund certain programs is not theft. Technically speaking the government owns all currency; demanding that a person pay to live in a country and receive such services as the government may provide is completely fair.P1S7: I imagine that to some, it may seem that teachers have little or no competition. Most people have no idea what goes on in a teacher's life. There are so many people qualified to teach at some level that only the highest level professors do not need to fear for their jobs. If a teacher has any flaw, they can be easily replaced by someone else that does not have it. Teaching may be one of the most competitive jobs in any field.Free MarketP1S1: This is an entire other debate in itself, and Milton Freedman certainly makes a very good argument for you. I'm not sure which claim you're calling baseless (perhaps you should have enumerated this).The ResolvedOkay, so one of two things happens. Either people are basically good, and the business(es) that offer(s) fair pay for its(their) workers prosper(s) (which, by the way, in the case of the singular, is a monopoly), or people are basically bad, and companies all pay as low as they want, and people need jobs enough that they are unwilling to leave (because the grass is not greener in the other company). All you have successfully determined is that companies that do not pay roughly the same wages and benefits as others get weeded out. You have successfully explained minimum wage in a free market.Is my opponent suggesting that higher education is somehow a negative thing? Tuition prices skyrocket because of inflation. Degree value is lowered not because of skyrocketing tuition, but because of overpopulation; there are too many people and too few jobs, because (this is at least true in America) people have yet to come to terms with the serious dangers posed by overconcentrated population. Such concentration of population provides too many candidates for jobs in industry that is unprepared to grow (this is why stimulus spending is important). I will not focus any more on this topic, for it is also an entire new debate.A) Okay, so private insurance has competition. As long as a company offers a deal that seems a little better, even if it is only subliminal advertising, it doesn't need to worry about competition, and the individuals who really need the insurance, but are less profitable, can be rejected as brokers see fit.B) With great age does not come only physical frailty, but mental dilapidation as well. No company is going to hire someone as an accountant who is unable to crunch numbers or keep up with memos. What's more is that someone unable to financially support themselves is not going to be accepted by any insurance company (where's the profit), so they're up the creek with neither paddle nor boat. They're sure to sink, without government financial aid (unless of course somebody decides to provide them with a little charity).C) So what you're saying is that in an unregulated market, the few who are able to prosper and become the power elite would have enough money to voluntarily provide charity to those who are not so fortunate? Is this not a privatized microcosm of socialism?SocialismCapitalism and the free market emphasize the hypothetical individual; they are based on hypothetical free choice and hypothetical ability to propel oneself to the top or bottom of the society through free will and work. Socialism promotes financial equality, so that people lack the ability to either become socially superior to each other, or inferior. If my opponent wishes to discuss coercion and force, perhaps he would like to discuss forced imposition of capitalism and democracy upon other countries, resulting in fruitless bloodshed, such as the Vietnam War.Surely, surely my opponent, who lists "Libertarianism.com" as a source for evidence that the government can best help the unfit elderly support themselves by turning them out into the cold, is not suggesting that Workers World, an organization dedicated to unity and freedom from oppression, is not a reliable or justifiable source. If he were doing that, he would be sinking part of his own argument as well, and I know he wouldn't want to do that.ConclusionI see that my opponent and I find each other at a standstill. Our arguments have fallen into a monotonous dance over which social and economic theory is preferable, when in reality, either system can work as an ideal, provided it doesn't have a dash of the other. The problem with the current political system in certain parts of the world is that people are trying to do both, and experiencing the ensuing conflict that right-wing supporters of either policy would assign to subscribers of the other. Socialism is not greater than free market, and free market is not greater than socialism. They are simply differing ideals, each with pros and cons, and each functioning equally poorly or welly when improperly implemented. I will leave the decision as to whether or not my resolution and thesis, that government is sociopolitically motivated toward socialism, and that it is sociopolitically advisable, if not obligatory, for a government to provide at least some degree of socialistic benefit to its citizens, have been refuted/supported or not, rather than advising them how to vote.As for my opponent, it has been a great pleasure to debate you, InVino (relatively speaking, since I hate debates), and I hope we can do this again some time. You have been an admirably courteous and well-conducted opponent. I hope to engage you once more sometime. Until then, farewell.