Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"Many socialistic countries today -- if we are to take average living standards, scarcity of crime, freedom of expression and lack of poverty as our measures -- do far, far better than the American bastion of capitalism. Explain that to me."Which countries specifically by what metric? As far as I can see the opposite is true, take for instance Venezuela. Don't go labeling European countries with socialized healthcare as examples because they are still capitalist."Second, while it is true that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and PolPot's Cambodia, to name a few, were brutal dictatorships, you would need to completely redefine the word communism to try to stick that label onto those dictatorships.Communism is literally the exact opposite of a despotism that witholds all wealth for the despot."I personally think that a need to reward those who work hardest or are most useful will always be necessary, thus creating a two-class system in any communist country. As for the creation of dictatorships, one should ask what it is about communist systems that result in this."As for capitalism working significantly less violently, that's only if you leave out the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed directly and indirectly through attempts to export the practice. The British Empire did it, the Americans did it, the French did it, the Portuguese did it. "Do you think that these wars were about spreading an ideology or were they about natural resources, imperialism and domination? If you think they were about spreading capitalism rather than the obvious reasons for which war has always been fought then please provide some evidence for this."Capitalism is every bit as dirty and dangerous as Stalinism was."For what reason is that? What about capitalism is as bad as the forced labor camps and tens of millions dead?"Stalinism would. A Marxist communism would not. We would be educated to strive to the common benefit rather than the personal. It is, contrary to belief, quite natural for humans -- well educated and with nurtured morality -- to care just as much about others' wellbeing as their own."OK so in what manner can I innovate a new industry if the means of production and distribution are owned by "the people" (in practice owned by the administrators)?"With time, effort and a long and arduous struggle."Specifics are needed."This is naive. Tell this to Indian slum children."I was talking about western liberal democracies, research India's caste system please."Not at all. Only things that are usurped from many for the benefit of few. I don't care who built and owns the railways. Many people worked to build these infrastructure, probably for pittance."People worked in exchange for a wage that was agreed upon."They're nationally important and I would have no issue taking them from individual privateers. Capitalism takes far more from the many and gives it to the few. We would just be balancing the books."Exactly, so you don't agree with the right to private property."You're still struggling with definitions. Marxist communist theory isn't about despotism and centralised power. It's about evenly dispersed power."Right, because the administration (and administration is necessary) will not take advantage of their power. Power doesn't corrupt at all."As for the "force to work" garbage, Stalinism isn't communism. China's state oligarchy isn't communism. Those people in those countries didn't get welfare cheques every month. Their incentive to work wasn't nullified by comfort lol. They had to work because their leaders were tyrannical despots that stripped them all of everything. Stalin didn't nationalize the infrastructure and give control over it to the people: he seized the infrastructure and dictated every which way it would be used, regardless of the people.There's a huge difference."So people will work with no incentive to do so? Or are you only going to give money/resources to people who work?"Right now, I'd settle for just having a vote on issues of pressing importance. Maybe like whether we ought to go into wars in countries most Westerners can't even point out on a map, or whether it's okay for education to cost our kids an arm and a leg, or maybe allow people to decide whether spending more money on bullets and bombs than on the nurturing of young minds is a wise financial decision."I'm not pro-interventionism and it's not like warmongering is a feature specific to capitalism. It is a feature of every political system that has been tried ever as far as I can tell. As for education "cost(ing) our kids an arm and a leg" I assume you are talking about student loans. It does some sense for those gaining the benefit of higher education to pay for it rather than everyone having to. Now, I'd rather that corporations paid more taxes too, but discussion of that issue merits an entire debate of it's own."In all the ways that matter, we already live under a tyranny."Name a singular way. We have the right to freedom of speech which is a way in which we don't live under a tyranny that is of utmost importance.