Socialism is the best form of government overall for the United States

As promised in the comments section, I now refer to my chosen (found online) definition of "pure socialism". I note that my opponent was invited to define the term and has declined to do so. Pure socialism: Pure Socialism involves a centrally planned economic system, which requires a government controlled population of workers to operate the system. Therefore Socialism is both an economic system and a government system.... Essential elements of pure socialism: 1. production targets for different segments of the economy, 2. rationing of certain commodities to determine demand for them, 3. price and wage fixing by the state, and 4. a conscripted labor market in which workers are assigned jobs by the state. Source: http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com... I contend that the system outlined above would be impossible to achieve in practice and would not be beneficial for a country such as the USA. I believe it can be taken as common knowledge that the USA is currently one of the better-off counties in the world. It has a high GDP, a very strong military and a relatively high standard of living. I will provide specific evidence for this in my next post, if challenged to do so. Under pure socialism, the concept of free-economy is virtually non-existent. The government sets all prices, the government sets all wages, the government decides on the jobs that workers will be performing. Therefore, there is little to none incentive for a person to be more productive or to strive for excellence. In a pure socialist state people do not start their own business. Competition has no effect as prices are set by the government and are presumably equal across each industry. This would destroy the incentive to improve services provided to the customer. "The customer is always right" would cease to exist. Who would pay the price for this? The consumer. This would of course also affect export, as the quality of American goods and services would suffer. Since the government decides who will perform which job, people will be inherently unhappy as they will not have the luxury of choosing their desired career path. The very concept of socialism relies on the principle that everyone is equal. This in itself is a myth. People are not equal. That may be sad but it's true. Some are smarter than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are more prone to diseases. Some are born disabled. Some are considered more sexually appealing than others. Some are more friendly than others. Some are susceptible to addictions more than others. The very concept of attempting to equalise people is flawed. It is also inefficient. It will arugably deprive the community of economic "natural selection" where those with the highest capacity and a proven record are given the most responsible positions. One could argue that the government could take care of that. However, just how humongous would a beaurocratic machine have to be for it to be able to conduct such a massive task? It would be huge and inefficient. Government officials would be extremely prone to corruption, bribery would be rife. While government-subsidised health care is a great concept, a pure socialist system goes way beyond this. Health-care professionals who are limited by equalised, government-set wages will not seek to excel as there is simply no incentive. There is no prospect of finding a better paid job in a better health care facility. Many will simply flee the country and look for work abroad, where they feel more free and appreciated. Again, the government might be able to allow higher wages to better-performing health-care centres. And again, this would require a huge government machine, again prone to corruption and bribery. Education is perhaps the weakest point in my argument. Educators around the world are notoriously underpaid in any economic system and arguably the educational systems of existing socialist countries do rival those of capitalist nations. But what will happen with those who have attained that education? Will they stick around and work in a government-owned organisation and get paid their government-set wages? Or will they flee the USA and look for work somewhere where competition amongst employers gives rise to more attractive job offers? I believe the answer to this question is quite obvious. All this would result in an inefficient economy and a very unhappy society. This is so in particular for a country like the United States where people value their freedoms so highly, where people consider themselves something of a world-model for freedom, individualism and justice. I am not suggesting that this image is in fact correct. Nor am I suggesting that it is not. However, I do contend that these concepts are so enshrined in the American psyche that the people of the USA would never be happy in a system where they are told to all be equal, where they are deprived of their individualism, where they are deprived of any incentive to excel, where they are deprived of the right to start an enterprise, to reap the benefits of their own ideas. Given that my opponent has already forfeited a round and has given no sign of life, I will stop here. In light of all the above factors (and there are more, many more) I conclude that pure socialism could never work a country like the United States of America, if indeed it could work anywhere. I might qualify this statement by saying that in a perfect society with perfect people (who indeed are all equal in every aspect) a system of this type might in fact work. But that's pure theory, it's Utopia. Nb: some of what I have written above sounds almost patriotic. I should point out that it is not. I am not an American and I do not live in the USA. Awaiting my opponent's response.