But how does socialism apply to America?
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
"an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways, and railroads; however, it may also be taken for reasons of public safety"
Challenge Match: Seabag Vs. Sheepslayer247- Socialism is good for America
”Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” - Winston Churchill
”The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries” – Winston Churchill
Socialist Market Economy
The Role of Government in Capitalism
Corporate Charter System
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton
Tough debate to judge, because I feel that both sides were struggling to define what Socialism actually is, and how it is applied to the United States. The opening round was clearly SheepSlayer's, though mostly on Seabag's rather concessionary opening -- his arguments that are presented as being against Socialism are actually more being against Fascism.
The middle arguments don't have a clear winner -- Sheepslayer doesn't do much to further his opening remarks, and Seabag retreats into a defense of capitalism and a statement of how ingrained it is in the American economy, which I think few would argue with.
Where the debate is won is in the closing round, I think. After rightly pointing out that Seabag missed the point of the debate in his last post, Sheepslayer then proceeds to do the same thing -- arguing that one of the fundamental rights of government had been to limit the power of corporations, which seems quite beyond the scope of this argument, as there are corporations in Socialist states (Nokia, anyone?)
Seabag's closing, on the other hand, finally gets to the meat of the matter, defining core tenets of Socialism, a somewhat "over the top" assessment of their impact on their people, and then citing examples of failure with the system, particularly in the past decade or so.
I think that both sides would have been well served with practical examples -- Sheepslayer, for example, should have cited one very clear instance of the success of Socialist institutions in the United States, the State Bank and State Mill and Elevator in North Dakota (of all places) and Seabag could have produced some data on Capitalist driven innovation versus that in Socialist countries.
On the basis of his strong close, I view Seabag as the winner of this one.
I have to give this debate to Sheepslayer for the following reasons:
Sheepslayer opened the debate with a definition of socialism applicable to same, and was very convincing supporting his position in regard to that definition.
Seabag seemed to more or less disregard Sheepslayer's definition and carry on with his own idea of socialism and thus basing his argument upon a different premise altogether.
Sheepslayer's definition is by no means arbitrary, either, since I have also educated myself on what defines socialism and that it is when the people collectively own the means of production for the common good. Of course, in America's 'We the people' style government, the idea that government owns the means of production might be stretched to imply that the people owning it is the government owning it, but since that point was not brought up in Seabag's argument, I can't use it to reconcile the use of a differing definition for the subject of the debate.
Sheepslayer's argument also was more finely tuned toward the idea of Socialism being good for America whereas Seabag argued against Socialism in the US by pointing out how it did not work in other places and times. This is not as relevant as it might seem at first since each example, including our own, is uniquely qualified by a multitude of details that cannot be applied universally to Socialism our current setting.
Overall, this was a stellar debate to read and an excellent example of two great minds, who are both amazingly knowledgable and articulate. It is, imo, an awesome example of the purpose and art of debate!
For me Seabag wins this debate on account of a strong closing. Both debaters could have done more to address each others specific points. Sheepslayer had the stronger side in the opening and somewhat in the second post but then seabag took the lead. In his third post, rather than arguing that "Socialism is good for America" sheepslayer appears to concede that socialism and capitalism should both keep each other in check. That would be a good closing, but in his final post, once sheepslayer could no longer reply, seabag brought out his artillery. I suspect this may have been seabags tactic and it won him my judgment in his favor.