args

Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

I will assume that everyone in the socialism you have proposed is paid equally since no explanation is given. It is also common in socialist countries and even essential in this particular socialist model because robots alone are not enough to provide to the people who don't work (as some jobs simply cannot be done by robots) I. SOCIALISM CANNOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED. "It is the government"s job to give people natural rights." Natural rights, are, according to Wikipedia, those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (as opposed to legal rights, which are bestowed onto a person by a given legal system) Therefore, I do not agree to your statement that "It is the government"s job to GIVE people natural rights," because natural rights are not contingent upon the government so socialist or not, it is impossible for them to be given by the government. "It is the government's job to prevent any inequalities that may happen." If robots do work for some people but not for others, isn"t that unequal to the people who do work? Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn"t that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid? Also, the government itself is unequal. You basically have a small group of people with a lot of political power controlling a large group of people with little power. It is impossible and paradoxical to have a government and have absolute equality at the same time (or in your words, preventing any inequalities that may happen.) "It is the government's job to achieve the highest standard of living for ALL citizens." However later you said, "Wealth redistribution [which I understand as an example of a phenomenon that occurs with a socialist government] will guarantee that all citizens will receive enough basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, for survival." The word "basic" suggests that wealth redistribution, which is what happens when there is a socialist government, does not meet the requirement you have previously set for your government which is to "achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens." In short, socialism cannot serve three of the four purposes of the government you have pointed out initially. It is simply impossible for the government to give people natural rights and to prevent any inequalities that may happen. A socialist government cannot achieve the highest standard of living either. This leaves us with, "It is the government's job so that people in the worst situations still would have a decent standard of living." This can be done through many forms of government, including the Nordic model of capitalism, without the disadvantages of socialism which I will point out in my arguments later. II. SOCIALISM LOWERS THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK - BECAUSE OF WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION YOU DON"T NEED TO WORK TO SURVIVE "Wealth redistribution" in socialism, as you have said, means that people whose jobs got replaced by robots can receive the basic resources to live, for free. This is a problem because it greatly lowers the incentive for people who still have to work to work - they see others who don"t have to work (because their jobs are replaced by robots) being able to survive because they can obtain sustenance through wealth redistribution while they have to work hard and suffer but there is little to gain (because there is a standardised wage). How would you feel, if your neighbour who hadn"t worked hard at school and ended up getting a poorly paid jobs now gets to stay at home and receive food and resources from the government through wealth redistribution while you have to work hours and hours a day? This collective reluctance to work means that many jobs, such as doctors, childcare workers, teachers, lawyers that are fundamental to the normal function of our society but cannot be done by robots will be either left empty, left in the hands of people who are unwilling to work or are jealous and resentful of people who don"t have to work. Either these services cannot be provided to us or are provided to us poorly.