Government is sociopolitically motivated toward socialism.

A Review of the Prior DefinitionsThank you for providing a definition: I would have done so, had I thought everyone was not already familiar with the general denotation of sociopolitical. You'll pardon, I hope, the slight redundancy of the resolution, yet I posit that it is not a weakening redundancy. After all, saying that government is motivated, as government, to do something, is explaining that government's motivation toward the action in question (in this case, socialism) as a characteristic of its state of being.Some ClarificationsThank you for making your clarifications: now time for mine. I believe you have simply misunderstood my meaning. When I refer to 'handing care of the people to the people,' I mean bestowing the responsibility of care for the people upon the people, the opposite of the meaning you indicate having interpreted. I apologize for the ambiguity, which I now see. It had never crossed my mind.A Continuation on the Fish AnalogyAh, but now you are describing communism! Forcefully paying for one man's thing with another man's money is a communist approach. In socialism, everyone would contribute enough, and equally, to offer fishing lessons. The government would not be nearly so aggressive. Let us also remember that, technically speaking, all of the money is the property of the government, and the government is the property of the people. Currency belongs to the citizenry only by extension. Anyhow, in my ideal, there would be no currency at all. Since that is, however, unlikely to happen any time soon, we shall envision remember, hopefully, to distinguish between moderate socialism, and right-wing communism.The Free MarketThe problem with sampling the average American citizen is that, no offense, the average American citizen is a little stupid. Most of them don't seem to be able to think for themselves, or even think at all. Judging how socialism is to be valued in comparison with the free market by what the average American citizen thinks will merely result in an economic model that looks just like the modern American economy. I recognize that I am making this judgement on a stereotype, but certain statistics are hard to ignore (for example, in Detroit, Michigan, an estimated 47% of the population is functionally illiterate [3]).Free market is not a bad idea, when there are few enough people, with great enough constitution, to behave fairly. However, with so many people, and such a dichotomy between the strong minds (which are often bent toward playing around the rules, rather than by them) and the mediocre minds, that the end result would simply be a mob-controlled market, corrupt and unscrupulous. I know that this is all conjecture, but it is no less supported, I think, than your argument in favor of free market. I will not argue that monopolization by a legally sanctioned company or organization is prone to occur as a product of government intervention. However, look at what happened in the 1780s, when the government was prevented from interfering with the economy: the United States became disunified and estranged, with such corruptness and unbalance in the market, that a dichotomy formed between the northern states and the southern ones, eventually resulting in a war [4]. This may not have been caused entirely by the economic policies of the Articles of Confederation, but the economy was largely involved.The ResolvedAre you seriously suggesting that minimum wage, which prevents people from being payed less than a certain amount, prevents people from succeeding? Okay, let's give an example: say you've a disability that won't be covered by insurance, and you need the job, however, you cannot work as well as the healthy employees. Minimum wage guarantees that you are payed no less than a certain amount, no matter how difficult it may be for you to work. If that restriction were not enforced, then you could be payed only $.01/hr., while other people with the same workload are payed $10.00/hr., just because you have a disability. To get back on track, however (minimum wage is not strictly relevant), let us examine a few scenarios in which socialism is preferable to capitalism:A) A disabled veteran lacks the finance to stay afloat, yet is unable to find work, due to disability.B) An elderly widow is left no inheritance, since her husband struggled to keep his job, and she, being elderly, is unable to support herself.C) A teen mother is kicked out by her parents, and must work to support both herself and her child (no easy task), and is unable to stay afloat.Now, obviously in these scenarios, capitalism, the economic practice of privatized industry and economy, is obviously a poor friend to the less privileged group (the 47% that Romney claimed were below his attention). With no help from the government, any of these individuals would be unable to support themselves in a free market economy of capitalism, since in a free market, the people who would be hired are the people who are most fit. In this case, social Darwinism is an undesirable product of capitalism to be avoided.Socialistic BenefitMy opponent makes an unfounded strike at socialism by claiming that it is a doctrine in conflict with natural human rights. Let us take a moment or two to analyze this: there has yet to be any evidence submitted that socialism is opposed or contradictory to human rights, my opponent has yet to explain how an economic philosophy that the government should care for those in need is not beneficial, and my opponent has attempted to cover his failure (pardon my use of a harsh word) to refute the resolution, by making a petty and dogmatic insult against socialism.My opponent claims that a free market is more beneficial than a government-controlled one. Let us not interpret a free market as a positive one simply because it contains the word 'free.' A market with no governmental interference is free to be as unjust and immoral as it wants, provided it violates no laws. This allows people to violate others' rights, as long as this violation has not been labelled illegal. This seems to me much more of a contradiction of 'natural human rights' (in which I do not, incidentally, believe) than a government that provides financial and social assistance to the citizens who need it.It is yet advisable, pragmatically and ethically, to enable, and encourage, the government to regulate the economy of its constituency, so that all who are governed receive benefits that they would otherwise be denied by the greedy masses.Sources:[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://ushistory.ncee.net...