Liberty is maximized through Socialism not Capitalism

"I agree if you lived in a society were everything was given away you would not be able to get everything you want and resources would run out, however, this is not what I intended to described. My opponent is describing Communism not Socialism. Therefore I cannot respond directly to the statements made by my opponent because they are based on the assumption that I was describing Communism." It doesn't matter whether I was describing Socialism, Communism, or Pastafarianism. Your initial argument had absolutely no substance so expecting me to mind-read what you mean without you saying it is nonsense. You could have at least explained where the difference between communism and socialism are and tried to explain why my points are void instead of wasting both my time and yours. Because of this little gimmick of yours, we're probably going to talk past each other because you have not properly defined Socialism, only mentioned that it isn't Capitalism. "Now I will describe in greater detail the flaws as I see them with Capitalism. One of the biggest flaws is the competition capitalism creates between companies. Most people would say this is the best part about Capitalism buyers can choose exactly what they want and if the do not like the goods being offered the can take their business to another company. This is true for a while; however, for something to be a competition you must have a winner and when a company completely takes over the market you no longer have the freedom to choose the products you buy. This can make for large price increases and less than impressive products. You may question if this is a valid argument, if so look no farther than the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century and standard oil. The flaws are obvious. In Socialism the government would have the ability to intervene and stop monopolies." Your thought is about half complete. In socialism, competition would not exist at all. The government itself would be the monopoly. You are also incorrect in saying that Capitalism requires a winner. Capitalism is a competition that never ends, much like evolution is an eternal process of bettering a species. Monopolies cannot exist forever, even without government intervention. There will always be alternatives to everything, even if it is not directly foreseeable. For example: A company with a monopoly on oil that is taking advantage of consumers will boost demand for natural fuels, or for solar powered appliances. When these things go on the market, oil companies lose profit and have to drop their prices in order to generate more demand. Econ 101. No monopoly can last forever. "My next point is you have less liberty in Capitalism because you are controlled by your monetary status. You may say that you are not controlled by your economic status; you are given exactly what you earn if you work hard at your job. This is true to a degree; however, you do not always have control over what you spend money on, for example when you become ill. Therefore it is agreeable that you do not always have control over your monetary status. So when you desire to educate yourself to improve your economic status (which costs money in a true capitalist society), you are held prisoner by your current economic status which is something you cannot always control. In Socialism the government can remove the costs that you do not have control over so you are not a victim of chance and the government can remove the costs of education so you can educate yourself according to ability and not your economic status." Again, your thought is about half complete. In socialism, there are no costs at all. There's also no economic class. Therefore, you still have no control over your own life and the quality of your own life. Your argument against capitalism is very weak. The only examples you gave of things that limit freedom are things that prohibit your personal use of finances. Such as getting sick, which is a chance event and pretty much negligible. However, the capitalist would have the option and the choice to exert effort and be rewarded equally. In a socialist economy, there is nothing of the sort. You are robbed even of that little thing. No matter how hard you work, you still get the same. So freedom is actually limited. "In review Capitalism creates monopolies which inhibits the consumer's right to purchase the products he or she chooses. My last point is in capitalism you are held in check by your economic status, which prevents you from improving your credentials, in turn, you cannot find a better job to remove you from your current economic status. I believe I covered my case extensively I invite my opponent to challenge my statements and explain why he believes capitalism is a better system of economics." I have already responded to your argument about monopolies. And your assertion that capitalism holds your job and prevents improvement is a complete and total lie. Need I list the hundreds of thousands of success stories? Immigrants who came to America with nothing and now own successful businesses? Underdogs who struck it rich with a new idea and *capitalized* on it? Small businesses turning into big businesses? How about lower income students who study hard and become doctors or lawyers? Instead, let's take a look at Socialism. All prices and production are controlled by a central figure. How do people get paid more? How do people get paid less? What happens when people get an idea or invent something? Capitalist Joe, a poor shmuck, gets a new idea and borrows money from the bank, starts a business, and makes massive profit. Socialist Bob, just as poor as Capitalist Joe, gets a new idea and can't capitalize off of it. The most he can do is turn it over to the central figure and benefit everyone equally. Capitalist Joe starts to become a monopoly, but a competitor arises and the two in a fight for profit, make better products that consumers will want more, balancing quality and price. Socialist Bob is still poor, although his life is a teeny bit better since his idea was used by the central figure for the benefit of all. There's no competition, so the benefit stays stagnant. ******** What's going to happen eventually? Realistically? Humans are driven by greed to want more things, better things, to lead happier lives. With capitalism, you're forced to work for it. And those who work harder get more rewards. With Socialism, everyone will get lazy. New ideas don't benefit you much, so people will stop thinking and stop caring. Why give a damn if I'm still getting the same benefits as everyone else? My opponent would have us believe that a society in which everyone is equal is freedom. This is not the case. Individuality is freedom. Capitalism lets you exercise control over your life. Socialism robs you of it and passes it on to everyone else. Socialism is a myth, a fraud. It sounds good on paper but doesn't work anywhere, at any time, for any reason. It is completely flawed in principle. People do not work at full capacity for the betterment of mankind. They work at full capacity for the betterment of themselves. Capitalism taps into that and uses it to fuel a market where EVERYONE wins. Socialism is too idealistic and is a system where everyone LOSES. Any country that has attempted communism is in shambles, or is just recovering after implementing some capitalism in their systems.