Capitalism is better than Socialism

The fallacy of Con"s argument is based on the assumption that capitalism has NO governmental interference. On the contrary there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, according to Investopedia. com [1]. Additionally Chron. com states that: "Capitalistic or free market economies rely heavily on minimal government involvement in the economy," [2] minimal government involvement does not imply NO governmental interference. Even according to Con"s sources the Merriam-Webster dictionary states that laissez-faire means a policy that allows businesses to operate with very little interference from the government, not zero interference from the government. There will always be government intervention in the form of taxes. And according to money. howstuffworks [3] "When Gingrich and Romney call Obama's policies "socialist," they're not equating them with the socialism of Soviet Russia or China under Chairman Mao. That brand of socialism is an economic system in which the state owns and controls "the means of production" (i. e. all industry) and there's no such thing as private property [source: Heilbroner]" the services that Obama provide, e. g. Police, Welfare DO NOT fit under the description in which I have described socialism in round 1. Con described the Industrial Revolution when the government practiced Laissez Faire economic policies. She/he implied that the goings in that day was very rough due to capitalism, however would socialism fare any better? Socialism is the redistribution of wealth amongst everyone through mean such as taxes, however if everyone, is faring very poorly the government does not have any money in its pocket to provide services such as fire department, police force, etc. because the people that are preforming those services don"t get paid. Even if there was a super-rich businessman, that businessman would not exist because without capitalism, she/he would not have the incentive to create that business because his wealth would be confiscated by the government. What"s worse, a country with no businesses or a country with few. Con stated that Capitalism cannot survive on its own because it lacks welfare and government intervention, as stated before, by sources [1] and [2] capitalism DOES have government intervention abet few. In addition Con did not read round 1 of the debate when I defined socialism as: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. , in the community as a whole. " And capitalism as and "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. " Con believed that capitalism had no taxes and therefore had no welfare. BUT in the definitions provided in round one, it was not touch that capitalism lacks taxes and welfare, but only that means of production are owned by private cooperates. Capitalism does NOT mean the lack of taxes and services.