Socialism is evil

“You understand that the definition we agreed upon includes the redistribution of wealth amount the government right? This point makes zero sense. ” - The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth. - You don’t get to disclude the more important half of your definition just because it suits your needs. “There hasn't been much research on how much the US would save by adapting a free college model, There has been extensive research on national healthcare. Statistically according to business insider, Bernie Sanders national healthcare model would actually save the US Trillions of dollars across a decade period. ” - I don’t think you understand the reference study. If we were to double our tax rates and assume that this proposal wouldn’t result in a max exodus of medical professionals, We still wouldn’t be able to afford it. (This is from Mercatus, The same source that they used in their publication. ) From the people who did the study: “A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. . . . . These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, In addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs. ” “Taxation is the redistribution of wealth and the definition we agreed upon on socialism included the redistribution of wealth. So yes technically taxation is socialist. Again these are government programs run on the redistribution of wealth which makes it socialist. Again I do not think you understand that the redistribution of wealth and social programs are socialist. Yes it is from the definition we've agreed upon. ” - Here’s the thing, In your definition it says that socialism redistributes wealth. It never says that wealth distribution is specifically socialist. In fact, In your opening argument you created the distinction yourself. “This is pretty much what you said, You acted as though since the Scandinavian countries are mixed markets, This makes them " highly capitalist". ” - They are capitalist, That’s how the government pays for it’s extensive welfare system. Sweden specifically is one of the most liberal markets in the world. - I’m not going to attempt to refute all these countries you’ve provided me. I will provide a few links proving how non-socialist the Scandinavian countries are, But that’s all I can do since you’ve neglected to specify a prosperous socialist country (it doesn’t even have to be ‘100% socialist, ’ just primarily so). “According to Heritage. Org, The United States only ranks # 12. This is higher rated than Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, Japan, And Spain. The only countries that are higher rated on the list that I mentioned are the Uk, Canada, And Switzerland. ” - This is inaccurate for our purposes, Since it also includes government size, Government integrity, And judicial effectiveness. “Again you understand that socialized programs such as welfare, Social security, National healthcare, And education actually boost the economy right? Welfare helps poorer families obtain enough to help their families, Education keeps qualified workers in the workplace, And finally national healthcare gives workers healthcare which in turn increases worker productivity and is cheaper. ” - No, They don’t, That’s impossible considering the general increase in taxation they require to support them. Welfare and social programs are implemented for 2 reasons; 1 – as a safety net, And 2 – to prevent alienation from the competition (social control). - In most cases they actually work against the economy directly by inculcating a reliance upon government through handouts. In the United States specifically, The black poverty rate only began to increase with the introduction of such welfare states. “Government regulation is essentially socialist from the definition we've agreed upon. ” - How? There is nothing about regulation that is inherently socialist by your definition. - Limiting something isn’t the same as controlling and providing something. “An argument you may bring up in the future and what you kinda brought up earlier is that redistribution of wealth is only one part of socialism which is incorrect on the definition we've agreed upon. ” - Redistribution isn’t a synonym with socialism, Even under the definition you provided that isn’t the case. - All socialist countries have to redistribute, But not all redistribution is socialist. “Another argument you may bring up is that in these countries the government doesn't own the means of production. Which is just an absurd argument since the means of production includes healthcare and education. The government also regulates the factories and businesses as well which doesn't happen in a purely based capitalist system. ” - Providing health insurance is vastly different from hiring doctors and creating free public hospitals. - As god awful as our public school system is, I think we would benefit quite a bit from privatization. - Regulation simply isn’t socialist, If anything it's capitalist. “This is a very arbitrary argument since there are similar countries out there to the US. In this comparision I will be comparing a country which I feel is a very close country culturally, Economically, And history wise. ” In response to your Germany example, A simple indicator of health is the obesity problem: World Graph on profile. This is an astonishing rate of Obesity (34. 7%) when you consider the population of the United States. The only countries that beat us in this regard are Saudi Arabia and small island nations. “This is an absurd argument. This is my argument expect you are simply changing the wording around. Of course going to college doesn't automatically equal a smart person, However do you really think the majority of people who go to college don't learn anything at all? ” - If you publicize and normalize college, They will be unable to teach skills at an advanced level. Perhaps instead of destroying the college system further we should fix secondary and primary schooling first. - People who go to college now do not go to learn in the sense they used to, They go to get a degree because it’s required for many entry-level jobs. “What about people who want to get into the medical field? Or the Law field? Or want to become a teacher? Also not everyone can just " create a business". Creating a business is very risky and hard to do and not something the average person (including myself) can or want to do. ” - The average person is not capable of becoming a doctor or a lwayer, It takes an incredible amount of commitment and intelligence. - As for being a teacher, If they can’t show to be sufficiently adept at the profession I don’t think they should be teaching anything. - They could also invest the money that they would spend yearly, As that has been proven to be a consistent method of gaining wealth. “How do you explain that a country such as Singapore with free college has statistically according to Forbes, The highest IQ per person in the world? ” - It’s a correlation and not caused by college. We’ve made attempts at increasing intelligence through compensatory education, As far as I know there has been no success. - Regardless of the extent we’re able to change it through childhood/upbringing, Genetics is the largest known factor for IQ. Conclusion It appears to me that my opponent thinks because socialism requires excessive redistribution to run, That they are one in the same. Evidenced by this quote: “Socialism can only function with redistribution, So essentially you agree that some socialization is necessary for a country to sustain itself. ” I’ve provided substantial evidence contradicting this claim, Not limited to the origin of welfare itself. I've also described how many of the scandinavian countries afford these safety nets and insurances through vehemently capitalist economics.