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

Take a look at the wording of the debate topic at hand. My opponent is essentially stating that liberalism is "ingenious" because liberal economic policies (capitalism) manage to exploit the system without having to actually support it. This, he claims, is unfair (see: debate topic). Specifically, it is more unfair than socialism. Now, at first glance one would assume that my position in this debate calls for me to prove: socialism is smarter than liberalism (done), socialism is more efficient than liberalism (done), and that socialism is "more unfair" than liberalism. This last part is where the discrepancy lies; in actuality, I do not have to prove that socialism is more unfair than liberalism and here's why: My opponent's position in this debate has claimed that the reason liberalism is smarter than socialism is BECAUSE it is unfair ("It is fascinating to me that liberalism has managed to come up with a way to receive all the benefits of business ownership with none of the burdens, risk or responsibility" - Pro, Round 1). Thus my position calls for me to prove that liberalism is NOT smarter because it is unfair. Essentially, both of us are arguing that liberalism is bad. The difference is that he's trying to say liberalism is smarter and more efficient based on its preposterous ideals (he's mocking it) that he feels are unfair. And those ideals ARE unfair. So in my position of this debate, I will argue exactly why the unfairness of liberalism in comparison to socialism makes liberalism less smart and less efficient. Thus, the debate... Okay, Liberalism vs. Socialism. Typically liberalism is associated with the middle or working class of society. As my opponent has stated, this country's economic system - capitalism - is essentially a Conservative ideal, not a liberal one. Capitalist systems provide for: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism; various forms of economic exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability (Wikipedia - Capitalism). Liberalism supports a capitalistic economy as my opponent said, because they feed off it and essentially make money from it via social programs implemented by a liberal (democratic policies) government without assuming any of the burden or risk. He thinks this is smart and efficient. I disagree. If liberal policy aims to dismantle monopolies, end counterproductive business cycles, decrease inequalities regarding wealth distribution, and end the exploitation of workers, why then would they support capitalism over socialism? (Obviously they do not support socialism because they are not socialists). This is not smart, because capitalism is the very reason for those conditions to exist in the first place. Thus, liberalism is not smart. It seems to me that liberals do not want to pursue individual freedoms (laisez faire) and liberties but rather ensure that their "right to not be poor" be taken care of by the government. But there are consequences to the government having control over your funds. For instance the allocation of funding into programs you might not support. Liberals want government money to fund just about everything. Again, this is not smart. Left-wingers are tax payers too; they're only hurting themselves. Again - NOT SMART!!! As far as efficiency goes, I will cite an example by E. Belfort Bax which demonstrates how and why a socialist based economy is more efficient in terms of production. "Let us suppose an individual is co-operating in the making of the communal or social bread. Since he, as well as the rest of the community, will suffer if the bread is bad, he being one of the consumers of that bad bread, and seeing that he can gain nothing in any other direction by putting scamped work or bad materials into the bread, his purely selfish interest is identical with that of the rest of the community in making the bread as good as possible." This differs from the interest of capitalists who want to make things as cheaply as possible – cheap materials and cheap work meaning bad materials and bad work. Self-interest and dishonest production = bad and dishonest production = shoddy products (not in terms of bread but for say things like electronics)... That leads to planned obsolecence, like I've said, which in the end costs the indivual more money. People have to spend money fixing or replacing things that they buy. Or for instance, in terms of bread production, perhaps one would have to pay for healthcare should they get sick eating bad bread. Thus these extra expenses would upset liberals who are busy trying to cut costs because they tend to be working class individuals. So again, liberals not being socialists is NOT SMART, and, as we can see, NOT EFFICIENT. My opponent challenged me to prove that a government will make a better product for less. Simple logic, including Bax's example, explains why. But to re-cap: Socialsm is more efficient than liberalism because socialists are also the direct consumers and recipients of their work. They benefit from the fruits of their own labor. Thus they will ensure that the work is done right and for the least amount of money in order to benefit themselves (and everyone else in their society). To conclude, as I have mentioned earlier, my position in this debate DOES NOT call for me to prove that socialism is less fair for reasons stated above. However, for those who can't understand that reasoning, I will offer my attempt at a quick rebuttal anyway: I will state that socialism will probably turn into communism which will, in fact, limit the rights of the individual (according to the liberal agenda). Therefore socialism would be less fair. With that said, I will sign of reminding everyone that I have proved why socialism is both more fair and more efficient than liberalism. Whether you agree with socialism or not, my arguments in this debate have clearly supported my claim.