Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just

This is my first debate here so bare with me. It's not my first debate though. I negate the resolution: Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just. Negating achieves the value of Cultural Identity measured by the criterion of retaining what is considered to be just. It is true that every society has its own morals, its own values, its own laws, et cetera. Because of this it is impossible to discern what is just from what is unjust. If the society is split on what is just, it can lead to civil war as seen in the USA. This is just one of the atrocities that can happen if a society's cultural identity is changed or even their idea on justice. Picture for a second an indigenous tribe in Africa where cannibalism brings them closer to their gods and is very just. If you give them plenty of money but westernize them cannibalism is no longer just and they can no longer reach their gods. Is it just to condemn a whole nation to eternal hellfire? Of course not. Therefore you must negate. Please allow me to define the following from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Cultural Identity: Religion, customs, values, etc. Federal: advocating the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers. Communism: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." –Karl Marx. Observation 1: The resolution is, in itself, paradoxical. As Karl Marx states: "Revolutions are the locomotives of history. To sum up what he says; in order for any society to progress, there must be oppression followed by a revolution. To preach for bailouts would be like preaching for a revolt against the society. In our case, a revolt against a federal government. Karl Marx sums up the theory of Communism in one sentence "Abolish all private property." Bailouts put government investment into a corporation, but in return it gets equity or controls specific parts of the corporation to ensure repayment. The major corporations are no longer private, but slightly run by the government itself. This is abolishing private property. Bailouts lead to Communism and Communism is not a federal government. By bailing out a major corporation, a government is abolishing private property and controlling it. Because of this, it is not even fulfilling its role as a federal government and is no longer a federal government. The resolution is paradoxical because a federal government can not stay as a federal government and bailout its major corporations. Bailouts and federal governments can not exist at the same time. This means that resolution is inherently false. Contention1: Bailouts can never be defined as just. With more and more bailouts being given to major corporations, the government has more and more say the government will have. Currently the most the U.S. government has helped a major corporation was the Citigroup bailouts of 2008. The government backed roughly $306 billion in loans and securities and injected about $20 billion in capital. This is in addition to the $25 billion the bank received not too long ago. As part of the agreement, Citigroup froze dividend payments at one penny per share per quarter for three years, restricted executive compensation and absorbed the first $29 billion in losses and 10 percent of subsequent losses. The government dumping money into one company and then telling it how to handle that money is clear collective ownership and organization of labor. This is communism. We can not afford to let any great nation fall to communism because as seen in the USSR and China. Communism does not work. And as shown in the Communist Manifesto, true communism is the opposite of a federal government because the people are working for themselves and their neighbors. If the government is changed, then so must the cultural identity. However changing a cultural identity is the worst thing possible that can happen. The problem with this is that who people are and what they consider themselves to be changes. It is unjust to even try to change a person's cultural identity as it is trying to change their opinions. Take a look at the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Constantly during the book, the nation Oceania would be at war with Eurasia "they had always been at war with Eurasia" and allied with Eastasia. Then at random points in the book, Oceania was allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia "they had always been at war with Eastasia". The government would change all the historical records to make sure that they said Oceana had always been at war with whatever country they were currently at war with. This is unjust as it is constantly changing peoples' love, and hatred towards others. Friends would suddenly be turned against each other. By changing the historical records, the government had changed history and where the people came from. Some saw the great injustice being played upon them. What the government in 1984 was doing was unjust. If we apply this to real life, we can see how any other injustice would be dwarfed compared to the injustice of the change in the nation's cultural identity. The people can no longer comprehend what is good and what is bad because their definition of justice, their morals, and their values are changing. By submitting to communism, any federal government will change its cultural identity. With a massive shift in the cultural identity, there will be a massive shift in what is considered to be just in the nation. A nations idea of justice is found with in its cultural identity and by taking that away, you are taking away what is considered to be just in that nation. Because bailouts take away what a nation considers just, and therefore there is no definition of justice, bailouts can never be defined as just. Therefore you must negate.