Distributive justice is a just economic system.

NEGATIVE CASE I am extremely surprised to find that my opponent has completely ignored, and thus conceded, my entire case again. If my opponent wishes to win this debate, he is under an obligation to do more than simply spew unrelated contrary arguments. He is under an obligation to adequately address my arguments. I didn’t post them just to get warm fuzzies inside. I posted them to further debate on this critically important issue. However, my opponent has not fulfilled these fundamental obligations. Instead, he has completely blown off my entire case, refusing to address it, instead posting paragraph-long blips of arguments extolling the virtues of Communism. It should be clear that this is not only unacceptable, but it also automatically hands me the victory in this debate. My opponent has not contested my contentions; he has conceded them. And as I explained in the previous round, he has thus conceded that the resolution is indeed false and that he must lose this debate. AFFIRMATIVE CASE Seabiscuit: “It seems that my opponent completely ignored the top of the 1st post where I stated that the framework of my side of the debate is not going to be the formal Lincoln Douglas debate he presupposed it would be. Therefore the fact he's trying to garner some offense by the lack of implicit attention to every detail in his text is completely ridiculous.” FACT: In the first round, my opponent slipped in the phrase: “I hope it's okay if my framework is much more casual, and less Lincoln Douglass-e.” He is now attempting to use this to excuse his utter failure to address my arguments in any way whatsoever. He is basically saying “I’m going to ignore all of your arguments, but that’s okay because I said I was going to beforehand. Therefore, because I being un-Lincoln-Douglass-e, I am under no obligation to answer your arguments. In fact, I am under no obligation to do anything except post random, unrelated arguments that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. I win!!!” Contrary to my opponent’s assertion, it is actually this idea that is ridiculous, not the idea that he is obligated to answer my arguments. Seabiscuit: “Now onto the actual issue of distributive justice.My opponent has misunderstood the link between the process for property ownership and the justification for distributive justice. The way he describes distributive justice alludes heavily to communism, "The process, inherent in the distributive justice system, which is euphemistically referred to as "redistribution," actually consists of seizing property (usually money) from its rightful owner, completely contrary to his will, and then giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." I'm actually going to concede that the two are relatively synonymous and will probably exercise the vernacular accordingly. Property rights are extremely relative when talking about economic systems. The assumption that people can own property in the first place is one that I would like to call into question. The fact that somehow I am able to stake a claim on a piece of land because some synthetic system has been established that grants pieces of paper the right to exclude disenfranchised party members of the agreement from ever garnering any sort of survival from the tangible noumenal (sic) world, is always going to be unjust. Unfortunately you have no real concept of how distributive justice would work. Your not growing crops just to have them "stolen" from you, rather the object is the fact that you have tools to farm, e.g. tractor requires you to have a system in which the person that manufactured the steel, the rubber for tires, pumped the gasoline all get some net benefit from you growing your crops. Therefore the notion of "property" is not private but public, and no theft is actually taking place. Whether or not you agree with this system has nothing to do with how "just" the system is (As long as everyone gets whats do to them).” FACT: First of all, I have certainly not misunderstood the link between the process for property ownership and the justification for distributive justice. Distributive justice is inherently dependent on the determination of property rights. It can only possibly be justified if property rights cannot be bestowed upon individuals, but only upon communes of individuals. And this is what my opponent claims. First of all, I would like to point out that the position my opponent is advocating is actually socialism, where property is publically owned, as opposed to communism, where no one owns anything (or everyone owns everything, depending on how you look at it). Anyway, contrary to my opponent’s claim, property rights are most certainly not relative in any case. Individual property rights are absolute. They have always been. And despite any future despotic attempts to violate them, they will always be. And, as I have proven before, and as my opponent has conceded, distributive justice violates these rights. My opponent asserts that people cannot own property in the first place, and goes on to make an equally unsupported as well as contradictory assertion: that in fact people can own property, but only as a group; publically. Although my opponent merely tosses these highly controversial and contested claims out there without so much as a shred of proof, I will proceed to refute them. Individual property rights have their basis in the foundational concept of individual human freedom. And thus, if every individual has a inherent and inalienable right to his own liberty (which I think is fairly obvious), then, by extension, every individual also has an inherent and inalienable right to his own property. As the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in his book “The Metaphysics of Morals.”: “If I am the holder of a thing, then anyone who touches it without my consent (for example, wrests an apple from my hand) affects and diminishes that which is internally mine, my freedom. Consequently, the maxim of his action stands in direct contradiction with the axiom of justice.” Therefore, it is clear that, since every individual has the right to internal freedom, they all have the right to external property rights. This is a right that can indeed be possessed by individuals, and which cannot be justly violated. However, the distributive justice system violates this right and thus in unjust. Later on in my opponent’s tirade, he repeats almost verbatim his previously abused baseless rhetoric (which I have already more than adequately refuted and thus will not deal with again here) as well as accuses me of having “no real concept of how distributive justice would work.” Unfortunately it seems the opposite is true. My opponent goes on to claim, without factual support of any kind yet again, that under distributive justice, you would not have your labor stolen away from you. However, I have already conclusively proved (and he has conceded, I might add) that this is exactly what happens under distributive justice. To put it again in the words of Robert Nozick (which my opponent has also failed to address): “If people force you to do certain work, unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. I await my opponent’s argument and wish him good luck.