Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people

Henceforth, my mentions of Capitalism will refer to the American, mixed economy system and/or the basic principles of Capitalism that the United States of America upholds. "-- It is proven, through incidents throughout history, namely the Great Depression, that when the government intercedes with the affairs of work that it's not that hard or destructive, obviously all those government run programs didn't do to bad because they pulled a country out of depression, even when money was almost non-existent. This was repeated throughout many countries in order to build the economy upward. This is a little bit of socialism, and renders your point of inefficiency and restrictions as worthless. " This is a highly incorrect analysis of the way this debate is going, since I'm not arguing for total capitalism and never indicated in any way, shape, or form that I wish to oust all government influence from the country. The word I used was "minimal". Not "nonexistent". Thus, in actuality, your point about this mode of government intervention is worthless. Please find an example that shows how complete and total government manipulation is superior to the invisible hand of the free market. "When the people have control, which is the government through your analysis, they don't have limits, they don't have to compete, and therefore can create as much of whatever they wanted or for what was needed. This can also drive quality up because this system would remove the urge to cut corners and make more money because it's for the benefit of the people, not to undercut a competitor." Competition is the driving force for progress. Without the urge to compete, there would be no will to progress. Yes, a perfect socialist group would be ABLE to create as much of whatever they wanted for what was needed, but both the need and the want, as well as the urge to create, would go down. The belief that the "common good" is enough to motivate people to do their best is hideously naive. Competition, ambition, the urge to have a better and more comfortable lifestyle is the driving factor for a person to work harder and work better. With socialism, this is much less apparent. A person working 10 times harder in a socialist state would receive little to no benefit in and of himself. However, in a capitalist state, he would reap much greater rewards. Cutting corners is a side effect, but there is no reason to assume that a socialist government would not do the same thing in order to conserve resources. Neither a capitalist nor a socialist government has infinite resources. Basic economics. Demand exists because they are not being met, people always need and want more. The government cannot made things out of thin air, it still needs capital, even in a socialist society. Thus, in order to conserve capital, the socialist government will also have to cut corners. The difference is that capitalism is self checking. If a person cuts too many corners to undersell a competitor, his products will become inferior and he will lose customers. With this constant process, competitors, powered by greed for self profit, will eventually create products which are both cheap and high in quality. "-- As was proved above, there is no limitation, the Government doesn't have to compete with anyone and can produce what is needed. Responding fast enough wouldn't be an issue. the groups of people that oversee production in certain areas deal with it, and thus there is always someone watching over it. This renders the rest of your argument moot." Also another poor and incorrect analysis of the way this debate is going. First of all, there was no proof. A proof is a valid and sound conclusion that follows logically from arguments, a thesis, and premises. You offer none of those. Second, my argument does not hinge on this one point so even *if* I were forced to concede the point, this would not "render my argument moot". Simply saying so doesn't make it true, otherwise, I could apply your logic, say I won this debate, then call it a day. Or better yet, I could say that I hit the lotto and tomorrow, I would finish this debate on my private jet to Tahiti. The government does indeed have a limitation. If a need for a product arises, it would have to go through a lot of government red tape to allocate funds, conduct studies, and pass judgment. However, in a capitalist nation, private businesses out to make a pretty penny would fight to provide the service to the public without all the messy bureaucratic nonsense. "-- I argue that the minimal regulatory role is the path to exploitation. Socialism's definition is control in the people's hands, Free Market is designed not at putting itself in the people's hands, but is tailored toward those that can undercut and have money. Free Market is about maximizing profit, not being the most beneficial for the people." This argument commits the "False Dichotomy" fallacy in which you egregiously assume that maximizing profit is completely separate from benefiting the people. Capitalism is a system by which the maximization of profit comes about BY WAY OF BENEFITING THE PEOPLE. Remember that profit comes from the rendering of goods and services and that the people have the ability to pick and choose from whom they wish to purchase these services. Two competing mp3 player makers, in an effort to get more profit, invest in technology and create mp3 players that people demand. Inferior products yield low profit, superior ones yield more. The problem is that you are mixing capitalist ideas with socialist ideas, and you forget that in a capitalist system, people actually have a choice as to where they can obtain what they want. In contrast, the general public is at the discretion of whatever representatives they elect to make the economic decisions. It would take too long comparatively to oust a representative who is not following the public's wishes on the price or quality of a good. In addition, there would be no other place to get a good other than the government since price and quality are fixated. This makes a capitalist society a TRUE system where the people rule, because the public dictates price, quality, supply, demand, output, resource allocation, without the government red tape. In addition, the drive to better oneself automatically benefits the whole instead of in the socialist system where you must assume that all people are willing to work at their maximum for a nebulous aim. "-- The American economy isn't even completely capitalist, it's actually got elements of socialism in it, a mixed economy. The big businesses in America don't want government regulation until they need government help for rules that benefit them and so on. If you can provide me with evidence that states that Socialisms fall sort, then I'll believe you. I feel you'd be hard pressed to find a true capitalist or socialist country on this planet." Then I retract that very last statement. Instead of saying that America has the strongest economy in the world because of capitalism, I will say that America has the strongest economy in the world because it rejects a totally socialist economy, which you support. By the way, please remember the issue at hand. You created a debate in which you declare "Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people" You did not declare anything about a mixed economy. Since I am arguing against your proposition, I will formally declare that a mixed economy such as the American economic system, is superior to a purely Socialist government that you have suggested. As such, I hope you shall respond to each of my arguments and also conclude with why you believe a pure socialist state is superior to a mixed economy.