Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con)

The fact that you don't acknowledge the failure of the Soviet Union as due to Communism shows a gross misunderstanding of history. The Soviet Union was incredibly corrupt, that goes without saying. But this massive corruption and suppression of its people was actually the only thing keeping the nation afloat. Once General Secretary Gorbachav instituted his Glasnost and Perestoika reforms in the 1980's, the people realized just how horrible the entire system was. People didn't risk their lives to cross the Berlin Wall because the government was corrupt, they did it because they knew and understood that life in the West (under CAPITALISM), was much better than the poverty and inefficiency created under communism. One could certainly argue that the United States government is riddled with corruption and inefficiency, but the economy has been, and remains to be the most prosperous in the world. Who is in government has very to do with whether or not the system is effective or not. How you can advocate for a system in which people live their lives in leisure without working at all puzzles me, both in its philosophy and in its pragmatism. Since we are both High School students, let's substitute money for grades, as it is more immediate to our lives at this point. Schools, in many ways, are set up much like a Capitalist system. Some people get A's, others C's, and some F's. If the school were to redistribute the grade percentages so that everybody got a C, why would anybody getting A's continue to work hard for the same grade as the person who does nothing? This is the number one problem with the system oh are advocating, it punishes success and rewards failure. As a result, any sort of incentive to work hard for anything is negated. This is not an opinion, this is a common sense fact of human nature. I know that you have said that you are not in favor of complete redistribution, but the result is still the same, only on a smaller scale. In regards to Bill Gates making 72 Billion dollars a year, I do not think you understand why Bill Gates started Microsoft in the first place. He did so to make the enormous amount of profit that he did. If you cap the amount of money that an entrepreneur is allowed to make, the less people will be willing to take the enormous risks that comes from starting a business. We see this in every single country with high income redistribution; businesses (and thus the wealth) will always leave to a place where they are allowed to prosper unhindered. Why do you think places like the United States and Switzerland have the highest amounts of small businesses in the world? Because people in those countries know that they will be rewarded with material prosperity for the sacrifices they've made. In regards to your suggestion to raising the minimum wage, let me speak from experience. A family friend of mine owns a small Pool Supply business. Last year, he employed about 10 people, all paid at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. When the State of Illinois raised the minimum wage to $8.25 an hour, he had to lay off over half his workers in order to cut even again with his profits. My point is, a higher minimum wage is good for people who manage to keep their jobs. But what will inevitably happen is that jobs will be lost. In conclusion, Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the only system compatible with a truly free society. I believe that every human being is entitled to the Rights Enumerated in our Constitution: Freedom of Speech, Religion, Defense etc. The difference between these rights and socialist rights TO things (healthcare, for example) is that the rights put forward by our Founding Fathers are to the detriment of nobody. Once you start saying that somebody has the inherent right to someone else's service, you start to infringe on the basic liberty of choice. People may not always succeed under a free market, but only in a true free market economy, does the competition make it nearly impossible to be exploited. It is the philosophy of opportunity. Socialism, by contrast is the philosophy of failure. It promises utopia, but brings nothing but poverty and stagnation. It stifles man's basic rights to property and the pursuit of happiness, all in the pursuit of a pipe dream. Socialists will never understand that a rich man does not get rich at the expense of others, but does so while bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who want it. A country like the United States does not have people at their border desperately trying to become Americans in spite of capitalism, but because of it. Even before there were any social programs in the United States, people knew that the free market would provide the opportunity to better themselves, and most importantly, their children. If you want to government to handle every one of your needs, be my guest. But I as an American understand that this country was founded by people who understood the oppression, and lack of mobility that comes from an all-encompassing state. I will leave you here with a quote from somebody who understood this danger better than you and I could ever hope. "If ye love security better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams I thank my opponent for his good conduct throughout this debate, and encourage him to keep pushing for what he believes in. Although we disagree on almost everything, sir, it is clear that you are very knowledgeable and passionate for what you believe in.