Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con)

Because of the polarity of our views, I am going to scrap the other arguments and stick to economics, as I think this is something we both hold passionate viewpoints on, and I feel we could have a good debate on the subject. First off, how could you possibly think Communism is NOT a bad system? My parents fled from the Soviet Union to the United States because of the horrible conditions it created. I hear stories about bread lines, famines, and the massive inefficiency the whole system created. In addition, the government run electricity (of the type you advocated for above) would only be on for maybe 16 hours a day if you were lucky. My father worked in a factory that made steel that was used to make another factory to make more steel, which just goes to show you how backwards the whole idea is. Not to mention the brutal suppression of basic human rights. I think we are in agreement that wages need to be higher, but are in fundamental disagreement on how to go about doing so. You're assuming that there is only a finite amount of wealth to be created under Capitalism, and that an unfair amount of this wealth goes to some people at the expense of others. However, this doesn't add up. Immigrants didn't come to America in droves because they thought they had a chance to *take* some money from the city bosses, but because they knew that it was possible for them to create their own wealth through hard work . You talk about income inequality, but are automatically assuming that this inequality is the root of all problems. I, for one, do not care that Bill Gates has an absurd amount of money, because I have made my own money that allows me to live at a good standard. The wealth gap between me and Bill Gates is enormous, but nobody is suffering because of it. In contrast, when wealth is redistributed, and when the state seizes control of industries, you have places like Venezuela: where there is virtually no wealth gap, because everybody lives in extreme poverty. Minimum Wage earners earn in accordance with what they are producing. In a free market economy, it is impossible for them to be exploited because they can always take a job at a competing business if they offer them more money. I for example work at a small Pizza chain in my home state of Illinois, when I first started, I was paid the standard $8.25 an hour wage, however, a year later I am being paid $11.45. How is that? Because when I realized that I wasn't being paid what I was worth, I threatened to move to a competitor that would pay me more. I was generating profit for the Business owner, so he gladly gave me a raise. I see nothing immoral with paying someone in accordance with what they are producing. There is a disparity between myself and the owner because by managing the company, he is producing something that warrants what he is paid. If someone wants to meet a certain standard of living, they can achieve it through acquiring skills in the workplace, and making yourself a more valuable employee. It is a simple fact that redistribution and class war have done nothing but destroy job creation, through forcing employers to pay employees at a loss of what they are producing. The problem we have today is that enormous corporations are creating what are effectively monopolies over the private sector, and they are destroying competition of capitalism and replacing it with a form of corporatism (something I'm sure we can agree is not a good thing.) As far as morality goes, you have to ask yourself this question: which law is backed up by the gun? Under (ideal) capitalism, the government is not allowed to confiscate any of my private property by coercion of force REGARDLESS of whether or not it is for the good of "society". Socialism is just the opposite. Every single economic policy you have advocated is ultimately backed by force. The idea of taking what is rightfully someone's property at gunpoint is utterly morally bankrupt. If I see a hobo on the street, it should be my choice on whether or not I give him money. Sure, you'd have to be a special type of evil to pass up somebody in need, but does the need of somebody else trump a human's right to make their own decisions? And finally, the old Scandinavia question. It is true, that Scandinavians are relatively happy with their situations, and why should't they be? With the state providing for everyone's needs all the time, why be worried? That is, until the wealth runs out. Before Sweden was the way it is today, it was one of the most capitalist countries in the world. The immense wealth created through this pro-business environment allowed for the initial security programs to be paid without much of a problem. However, the increased taxation and regulation caused businesses and the wealthy to leave Sweden for greener pastures. Eventually, it came to a point when there was nobody in Sweden to pay for the social programs. There was a major debt crisis, and the country had to initiate dozens of pro-business reforms just to keep from going bankrupt. Today, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland have some of the freest economies in the world. Also, to counter your Sweden I raise you Switzerland. A country with the least regulation and lowest taxes in all of Europe; all while maintaining a modest (but effective) social security system, and the highest standard of living in the world.