Government is sociopolitically motivated toward socialism.

A Continued Continuation of the Fish AnalogyThe problem with your conclusion is that it assumes the analogy is set in a comprehensive background of professions. I would suggest that it refers to a hypothetical community in which fishing is the staple industry, and not knowing how to fish is not knowing how to survive. Fishing can be viewed as representative of profession, and the teacher as the government. In this scenario, it is fully justifiable for the government to teach the man to fish, and if the neighbor doesn't endorse the man's learning to fish, that then becomes ethically questionable, since he is analogously wishing that not all members of the community are educated to the standard of eligibility to work. Given his ethically questionable stinginess, I think it is safe to say that whether he wishes to help pay for the other man's education or not is beside the point; he received his own education by governmental tax spending, and whether he wants to or not, he is obligated to help pay for others' education as well. Ideally speaking, a common proverb doesn't need an extraneous Ebeneezer Scrooge, but thank you for playing devil's advocate; it simply gave me the opportunity to further explain my point.The Free MarketAs I believe I have said, I will not deny that fully-realized Laissez Faire economics have the potential to work, in an ideal world, just as fully-realized socialism has the potential to work in an ideal world. However, since the world is not ideal, neither economic ideology works successfully in full realization, and we are, I believe, at an impass on the subject.To answer how a free market can become mob-controlled, it's simple: without government regulation of the market, robber-barons, who control the economy privately, and run a monopoly on business, simply because competition stands no chance, rise to power. As long as they violate no laws, said robber-barons would have free reign to do just that: reign over the economy, and the government would be helpless to interfere, unless it were to suddenly start regulating the market. Such is the end product of Laissez Faire, if not executed in its foremost ideal, which is not possible. If my opponent can give an example in which complete Laissez Faire has functioned successfully, I welcome it.The ResolvedMy opponent makes a valid point when he claims that without minimum wage, people would be payed as much as their labor earns. This is certainly true, in an ideal world. However, in the non-ideal world that is, without government regulation, there is nothing to stop an employer from paying as outrageous a salary as he or she wishes, and nothing would stop him or her from continuing to do so indefinitely, provided that jobs were needed enough.To answer my opponent's claim regarding the harm of the minimum wage, the reason minimum wage has increased the amount of unemployment in teenagers is that it sets a sort of minimum quota for qualification to work, and, accordingly, presses the people to meet at least that quota in qualification. Teenagers are accordingly somewhat excluded from such employment because they do not meet that qualification (Krumm, 1981) [5]. That may seem a cynical approach to economics, but only on a superficial level; if one examines the implications of this system, one may find that this forces people to obtain a certain level of education. I surely hope my opponent does not wish to argue the value of education.A) The problem with private disability insurance is that private insurance, as being unregulated by the government, would have no obligation to accept anyone at all, let alone provide fair insurance, returning that poor veteran to the same sinking boat from which he started.B) Even by reducing taxes, that does not change that the elderly still cannot find a job with which to support themselves, since no employer who did not have charity on his/her mind would hire someone less fit (such as an elderly widow) as opposed to one of the vastly more populous highly fit youth qualified for the same job.C) My opponent has a fair point when he suggests that in this scenario, the victim would do best to turn to private charities. I would point out, however, that private charities are often simply ploys by the wealthy to write off some taxes, and are less beneficial to the needy than would like to be believed. Even if we do assume that charity is a good alternative, is charity, whether privatized or government-operated, not a form of socialism?I see we are also at an impass for these scenarios, for, just as my opponent claims that government intervention causes the suffering of the sample individuals, I claim that government intervention mends it.SocialismMy opponent refutes socialism by claiming that it benefits a hypothetical collective, yet then commits the fallacy of claiming that free market capitalism benefits a non-hypothetical individual. What makes the collective of socialism any less real than the individual of capitalism? My opponent may be correct that Laissez Faire benefits the few who have the ambition, ability, or unearned privilege to rise in wealth above the others, but capitalism is hardest on the common man, for whom socialism is the ideal economic plan."The super-rich demanded, and got, trillions of dollars from the government to shore up their banks and other financial instruments.But for millions of workers and dispossessed, the bottom has dropped out of their lives. More and more they are realizing this is the product of capitalism." Workers World [6]Free market is greater than socialism, if free market is ideally executed (which is not possible) and socialism is not. If not ideally executed, free market is only greater for the privileged, and socialism is better for the commoner.Sources:[5] http://web.archive.org...[6] http://www.workers.org...