Libertarianism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

The Opponent's Case1. The role of the government in a libertarian system. The opponent correctly points out that the manner in which the government "acts on behalf of the people" is very different in a libertarian society than a fascist/communist society. The opponent then attempts to paint the libertarian government as if it has little to no actual authority. In reality, a libertarian government still necessarily has power over the people, as such power is needed to maintain life and security. A libertarian government still must make laws that not all members of society will agree with in order to maintain these libertarian ideals. I won't speak much of fascist/communist governments, because that's not what I'm defending. Rather, I wish to highlight the fact that a socialist government has control over its people in ways similar to a libertarian government. It can be said that the difference between a socialist and libertarian government is the particular rights the government assumes each citizen is absolutely afforded (barring certain cases where such rights must be removed for the safety of the citizenry.) The opponent states that "it is not the mere action of claiming to do what is best for the collective that is immoral, but whether or not ... the state ... may utilize force against those individuals who pose a threat to their agenda." If this is to be believed, then a libertarian government is just as "immoral" as a socialist government. Consider that a libertarian government, in maintaining the security of its citizens, could, should and would implement a law similar to this: "It is illegal to murder another human being." If someone was to break that law, a libertarian government would be completely within its ideological rights to use force in order stop "those individuals who pose a threat to their agenda", or those who break the law. If the opponent argues that the government does not have this power, then he isn't vying for a libertarian government at all, but rather an anarchy. A government must necessarily have power to govern. 2. The differences between democratic socialism and libertarianism. The opponent next points out that wealth is considered property, which I never denied. Rather, I stated that wealth is generally the only type of property a democratic socialist government concerns itself with redistributing. Other property, be it physical, intellectual, etc. is generally left in control of whatever individual or individuals own said property. I pointed this out in order to highlight the differences between socialism and more extreme forms of government and additionally to demonstrate that we are already living in a democratic socialist country. While the "extremeness" of the socialist impact on our country has changed in degree throughout time, there can be no doubt the the U.S. government has considerably involved itself in the redistribution of wealth (in the form of taxes.) The opponent is wrong in the comparison between democratic socialism and communism in saying that "property rights are expendable". It is more accurate to say that in democratic socialism (DS from here on out), "some property rights are not guarenteed". Pro is speaking as if a socialist government has the ability to "take away your rights", but this is not the case. In nature, we simply do not have rights at all. Without government, there is no entitiy that can give us basic rights. Only through government are we given rights and those rights are given by the government. A socialist government does not take rights away, it simply grants fewer rights than a libertarian government.More rights is not an inherently good thing, either. A society in which everyone has the right to kill is easily considered worse off than a society that does not have that right. Similarly, democratic socialists believe that a society in which people have the right to hoard great wealth while others suffer is worse off than one in which that right is not granted. 3. Why tax some high, some low and some not at all; and why that's good.The opponent is incorrect in his statement that "taxing a millionaire at 90% and somebody else at 0% is probematic because it creates an arbitrary distinction". This distinction is hardly arbitrary.Any given person needs only a certain amount of wealth to survive. Add a little more to that wealth and that person can survive happily. Add a little more and they can afford luxuries. Once you get to a point, the addition of more wealth does help you become any more survivable or significantly more able to achieve and pursue happiness. This is the difference between a millionaire and a homeless person. On average, a family of four needs about $58,000 per year in order to "get by". [1] This means that amount of money is needed to provide for basic needs such as shelter, food, and water; utilities like electricity, schooling, vehicles, efficiency items; and to pay taxes. At less than this amount, some need is not being met. At more than this amount, all needs are being met and the extra capital can be spent on luxury items. Consider that if this "average family of four" wanted to buy a used car for, say, $6000, it would take about 10% of their yearly income to purchase. This is assuming the car is paid for upfront, as paying off a loan could hike that price up considerably more. Also note that this family needs all $58,000 in order to get by -- meaning they have little to nothing in savings. Now consider a millionaire with some $5,000,000 saved who wanted to a new Lexus for $60,000. Even though this luxury vehicle costs 10 times more than the car the family of four needs, the millionaire needs to spend only 1.2% of his wealth in order to obtain this vehicle (which costs more than the family of four makes in an entire year.) Even though the millionaire is buying a luxury item, he is still paying 1/10th of what the family of four is paying, in terms of percentage of wealth. The point here is that a family making $58,000 a year neeeds every bit of that money in order to make it. A millionaire needs only a small percentage of his wealth in order to both make it and live in luxury. This taxation distinction is not arbitrary -- it's heavily based upon need. This level of need is determined by a democratic process, in which the wishes of the majority of the society are what determines the government's actions. This is important because it disallows anyone from becoming too powerful and taking advantage of others. It is impossible to take advantage of a majority under this system because the majority makes the rules. 4. Opponent's ConclusionThe opponent concludes by briefly going over what libertarianism is again. No real arguments are being made here, rather it is just an overview of what the opponent is supposed to be arguing for. He finishes with a remark that is more exposition than logic and which untruthfully illustrates the difference between socialism and libertarianism. Socialism is not an ideology of "hate" and libertarianism is not an ideology about "choice". Rather, socialism is about "them > me", whereas libertarianism is about "them < me". Continuing my Case1. The needs of society outweight the needs of the individual. The opponent didn't really argue against this. There was a large amount of exposition and summarizing of what he believed both ideologies were, but he never actually demonstrated why we should believe the individual is more valuable than the society. So this point stands. 2. Socialism greatly increases average quality of life. I will briefly mention a mathematical topic, but it should be easily understandable. It is about the diminishing returns of additional wealth. Basically, each additional dollar of wealth one has, the less that dollar increases quality of life. This can be easily seen. A homeless man going from $0 -> $5 has his quality of life greatly increased, as he is now able to buy food. A middle class man whose wealth goes from $50,000 -> $50,005 does not have his quality of life greatly improved. There is little five additional dollars can offer that man that he cannot already afford. Let's call the homeless man A and the middle-class man B. If you take five dollars away from B and give it to A, you've considerably increased A's quality of life while only marginally decreasing B's quality of life. This results in a net increase in overall quality of life. On a national scale, when you redistribute wealth according to need, you dramatically increase the average quality of life. In doing this, you are disportionality lowering the quality of life for the rich, but the rich's quality of life is still higher than those who are less rich. Economically speaking, redistribution is an efficient way to allocate money. You want to spend each dollar in such a way that it has the most impact. Under a libtertarian system, quality of life significantly lower than in a socialist system and it is biased towards the rich, in terms of future likelihood of quality of life. It is true that "the rich get richer" and that "you've got to have money to make money". We've seen historically that, as time goes on, the rich in the U.S. are only becoming richer while the poor are only becoming poorer. And one has to remember, the U.S. is already a semi-democratic socialist system. Under pure libertarianism, this wealth inequality would only be greater. ConclusionI have clarified the differences between libertarianism and socialism as well as demonstrated the errors in my opponent's exposition. I have shown that the needs of society are more valuable than the needs of the individual and that democratic socialism dramatically increases a society's average quality of life. I have additionally demonstrated that libertarianism would have the opposite effect, negatively impacting quality of life and setting up a scenario in which quality of life would only continue to decrease. 1 - http://goo.gl...