Abolishing and Eliminating Currency is a viable proposal.

I'll just jump right in I suppose... My opponent states that SS is already active in people's lives and that it should be expanded to providing benefits earlier. But he fails to address the real heart of my argument here. It's not as simple as "you get out what you put in right away" which is how he perceives it. Instead, it's "I put in a little over a long period of time so I can take out a lot over a small period of time." The reason it MUST be this way is because we require a lot of consumption. And by require I include want. And I'm not sure my opponent understands SS very well at all. SS is a bank. I put in a percentage of my paycheck every time towards SS. It doesn't record how many hours I work, but rather how much I made. If I make a lot of money, more money is put into my SS. Then, when I retire, I have that money saved up in SS checks. Sorry to say this, but that's a bank...only without the interest. You can't say that the USFG shouldn't be involved in setting an across the board ruling when you're asking them to do just that. The USFG would be required to set an across the board ruling in EVERY INSTANCE because they're the ones giving the people what they require to survive. So they will absolutely have to be involved...they'll be the only one's involved. Now let's address the point that really loses you the argument. "A rocket scientist's time is equal to that of a ditch digger." Wrong. In fact, the very reason it isn't equal, is because of the amount of specialization it takes to SEND SOMEONE TO THE MOON!!! A ditch digger has absolutely no idea where to start, where the rocket scientist can still dig a ditch. Specialization is what drives economies. You're asking people to put in a lot of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of suffering to get what someone who answers phone calls get. This cannot be the case. This is where the real argument lies in this debate. This is where you should be focusing your response. Someone risked everything to create Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Samsung, McDonald's, etc...without the risk vs. reward factor, you have people stop taking risks. This plan removes the reward from entrepreneurship. You lose small business owners because they get the same thing everyone else gets while working considerably harder for it. You lose CEO's because they like being rich and you're giving them some bread and cheese for dinner when they want prime rib. You're losing the entire upper class of people, which means most middle class people don't have places to work. So now, it's up to the government to create jobs. And the way they do this, is by opening factories, running farms, etc...The problem with this, is that they're now the cheapest in the industry, and all other business in those markets are now beaten by the unstoppable force of the government. Because the government isn't selling their goods, they're giving them away. You can't compete with free. So VERY SOON after this idea comes into play, the government is the only producer of goods. The reason this is bad, is because then people stop investing into R&D. The government doesn't need to make their products better because nobody is competing against them. They're 100% of the market. So new drugs don't get created and diseases don't get cured. New video games aren't created and I'm stuck at home bored. New science isn't discovered and we're still less than 50% on making it to the moon. This is a severe problem. People don't want mediocrity. And even less than that they don't want less that. You're creating A Brave New World without the caste system, and that's worse than Huxley's vision. At least in Huxley's book we were happy with our class. Now we've all become the same class. A very boring, dreary, and lower class. Lastly, the consumptive ideal isn't what places pressure on aspects of our lives to spend. There is no pressure on our lives to spend save what we want their to be. Those who don't want to spend, don't. Those who do want to spend, do. That's just simple truth. I'm given the right to decide what I want, and the market responds to that. It's not a market driven and consumer reactive system here. Quite the opposite. If the consumers don't want bananas...bananas won't be produced. It's reliant upon what the consumer wants. The companies that figure this out faster and better than others succeed. That's how it works. You're removing the consumer from the market and telling us there will still be suppliers. That's just illogical. There's absolutely no basis in reality for this idea to work. Don't hold any of the arguments that he missed against him please. The real heart of the argument has been addressed by both sides. This shouldn't be judged on who had the most arguments and who responded to what. Make sure the ideas behind this debate are argued. There are a lot of people who agree with my opponent here, and ideas have consequences. This is a BAD, BAD, BAD, TERRIBLY BAD, idea. I'll take the negatives that come with consumerism over this idea any day of the year. Don't hear me saying that our current system is perfect, because it's not. But this is not the right way to go about fixing it. Just because pure greed is a bad thing doesn't mean that no greed is the way to fix it. There has to be a middle ground here. If you're really interested in these ideas of market principles and how we as human beings can solve for poverty and hunger and other things that the very system produces, read Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom."