Liberalism is smarter, more efficient and more unfair than socialism.

"Socialism in a literal sense advocates vesting ownership and control of 'means of production' (land, capital, etc) in the community as a whole(i.e. the government). So your argument that liberalism is not smarter because socialism does not advocate government ownership of property and means of production is undermined by this fact." Undermined by what fact? You provided the definition of socialism, and then decided that the "community as a whole" part of the definition meant the government. But it doesn't mean the government. It means exactly what it says; you can't make things up to "undermine" facts, sir. "There is no waste nor inefficiency experienced by government in a competitive capitalistic market." Really? It's funny that you used the term "waste" because waste, or trash, is one of the main arguments against capitalism. Many feel the capitalist economy has created a profit-driven system based on selling as many products as possible with no innovation on how to conserve or reuse products. But I digress; personally I don't care that Americans go through 2lbs more of garbage per day. Instead I argue that planned obsolescence is a huge problem. Planned Obsolescence - the process of a product becoming obsolete and/or non-functional after a certain period or amount of use in a way that is planned or designed by the manufacturer. Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because the product fails and the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) There is the popular charge that Apple designed iPods to stop working after 18 months of use, but the truth is that the majority of products on the market today have planned obsolescence in mind. This is because mass production became efficient, affordable and lucrative. However it is a WASTEFUL and INEFFICIENT use of resources. Because capitalism is a liberal policy, this demonstrates how aspects of liberalism are less efficient, therefore less smart. It's less smart because capitalism benefits a few but hurts the majority (financially). "Without the advantage of individual entrepreneurship, specialization, competition, and a profit motive to drive it all, inefficiencies abound." I believe that innovation, specialization and competition can all exist under socialism. What about foreign competitors? There will always be profit motives. Socialism would not make it impossible for individuals to become wealthy. Instead it would change the way the government utilizes resources, controls the workforce and allocates funding. It would seek to maximize efficiency; perhaps under socialism we could even become a legit competitor in foreign markets again! Over the last 15 years, the government has continually slashed the budget on all programs and services needed by the working class, all in the name of giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Education, health programs, workplace safety and other services have increasingly decreased. "The slashing of the education budget, and the introduction of religious creationism into the public schools has given American education a serious blow" - D. May, not to mention the cut in public workers (teachers) salaries... How is this policy smart? It is effecting education. It is negatively impacting health and safety. D. May says, "The looting of the public by companies like Halliburton is clear evidence that there is no longer anything historically progressive in capitalism, it is played out. Instead of developing and revolutionizing production as it did 200 years ago, it now is so feeble that it has to feed off of its own state. Capitalism cannot offer us anything more than worsening living conditions and wages, wars of imperialist plunder and crises. We are living through a spiral of capitalist crises, and we require a socialist solution!" To conclude this round, no, you didn't make a case as to why liberalism is smarter or more efficient. Plus, although I did agree that liberalism is more unfair than socialism, in the very next sentence (which you conveniently left out) I continued on to say that because it is unfair, it is neither smarter nor more efficient. I have not conceded anything. Instead I have argued all of your points and made better ones.