Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

Thank you for a great argument. *I am sorry for not clearly defining the word "socialism" since I have a right wing view on capitalism. It was supposed to be "wealth redistribution" or any government similar to Norway and Sweden's. However, you can ignore the post and I will continue on the debate with the term "socialism". 1. Let me counter your definition of Capitalism by defining these terms : Capitalism, Socialism Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. [1] Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. [2] It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. [3] 2. Adam Smith is considered the father of modern free enterprise capitalism. [4] Wealth of Nations, a book written by the "father" of capitalism and economics Adam Smith, focuses on laissez faire, an economic structure with minimum government intervention/taxation on market economy [3]. According to Adam Smith's definition, putting tax on gasoline would not mean capitalism as it influences the market economy. Also, giving free education counters the definition of Adam Smith's capitalism because tax (government intervention) is required to supply it (deficit spending without tax will cause bankruptcy, which would lead to government collapse). It also meets the characteristic of a socialist government according to [3], because the the citizens become dependent on the government for education (knowledge), a resource. However, there are many people who believe U.S is a capitalist country despite the fact that the government violated the Adam Smith's definition of capitalism. The same method is also used to define the word "socialism". There are many possible governments that could be defined as socialist. Some may define Norway as a socialist country. Others may not. However, according to Adam Smith's definition, any government tax that is not minimal is not a characteristic of true capitalist government, and therefore Norway's high income taxation at over 40% and free health care services are closer to socialist government's characteristics than capitalist government's. Therefore, my opponent's definition of socialism is invalid. 3. "it is impossible for them to be given by the government." from "It is the government"s job to give people natural rights." What about those babies who were born as slaves when slavery was legal? They were not granted the natural rights. They did not have the choice to pursue happiness or have justice side with them. They did not own (John Locke's) "natural rights". The slaves only had natural rights when the laws changed that GAVE their (John Locke's) natural rights. Therefore, government, which is built to give liberty to citizens, GIVES the natural rights to its citizens. 4. "If robots do work for some people but not for others, isn't that unequal to the people who do work? " Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people. Communism is NOT equal pay. Karl Marx, the father of Communism states that the pay is based upon abilities and necessities [5]. This means that people who will work (similar to "people with more abilities") when jobs are automated will receive extra pay according to Karl Marx. The reason that many believe that Communism = Equal pay is because the previous Communist/Socialist government failed and did not have enough resources to distribute (since people did not wish to work). However, with robots taking over majority of the human work force within next decades (estimated 1/3 job force will be replaced in 20 years, more later), there will likely be a profusion of resources (since robots don't have incentives) so people wouldn't starve (like in Cuba, USSR, China during Cold War). 5. "The word "basic" suggests that wealth redistribution, which is what happens when there is a socialist government, does not meet the requirement you have previously set for your government which is to "achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens."" The word "basic" in "basic needs" means fundamental needs. Therefore this argument is invalid. I am sorry if you had troubles understanding what the word "basic" meant (since there are so many definitions). 6. "SOCIALISM LOWERS THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK - BECAUSE OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION YOU DON"T NEED TO WORK TO SURVIVE" As I stated in my response to no.4, Communism, which is basically stronger socialism, is also about distributing goods based on ability, and therefore, There will be incentive for people to work since the pays will be different. Brief summary of arguments Definition of socialism is different to everyone; to right wing Adam Smith believers, Nordic states have a government that is similar to socialism then capitalism, and therefore some of my opponent's arguments are invalid Communism, which is stronger socialism, also has incentives; Karl Marx , the father of Communism, stated that wealth will be distributed based on abilities and needs. This means that Communism doesn't mean equal pay. [1] - https://www.google.com... (definition from google) July, 2015 [2] - https://www.google.com... (definition from google) July, 2015 [3] http://www.investopedia.com... [4] http://www.investopedia.com... [5] http://www.businessdictionary.com...