Fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, capitalism is the best economic and political system.

I understand your short post; however, you could have waited more than two days to complete your argument and you chose not to. i'm sure there is a reason though, and I sympathize your condition. I ask my opponent to elaborate on his first paragraph or simplify it so that I may debate it if I wish. The all-important value in this debate is justice, which means: -the quality of being just, impartial, or fair . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Fiscal equality is not fair, as those who put forth more effort end up with the same as those who put forth less. Input should result in output. Output should not be constant. Otherwise, input doesn't matter, and ceases to exist at all. Therefore, a system that has input proportional to output is just to all. Responsibility for one's actions occurs and is therefore just. First, my opponent has conceded that fiscal equality is unjust. Second, my opponent has suggested that regulated capitalism and libertarian Marxism are both better systems than capitalism. Third, my opponent has brought up two imperfections with the capitalist system. I remind the audience that I am not waving the flag of anarchy at all. It is necessary for local government to educate; however, not doing so still allows the possibility of even the poor to pursue education through loans. However, we are assuming that there is local government education for all. My opponents issues with capitalism: 1) Capitalism is biased toward those who already own property. Due to an education system, it is possible to have someone born poor become rich and for someone born rich to live poor. Fortunes don't last long. Houses don't last long. No property lasts forever. Therefore, it is necessary to have a job to earn and maintain such things. Therefore, in order to have a high paying job, it is necessary to work for an education and pursue a career. The bias is limited. 2) Capitalist markets are subject to various problems of justness. a) My opponent has argued that monopolies exist in the free markets. I have two different negations. a) A government-ran economy is also a monopoly that can result in price gouging. b) In cases of monopoly, there is a higher demand for competition if price gouging occurs; therefore, this threat overcomes itself. b) My opponent has argued that people can make tons of money and people can make very little money. I have a negation to that as well. Most usually, the higher-waged jobs are more important or in demand and the lower-waged jobs are less in demand. So, in a capitalist system, the amount of effort you put in to get that job determines your ability to get it. It takes much more effort to get a high-paying job than a low-paying job; therefore, the system is just, for effort results in output, as conceded by my opponent. c) My opponent has argued that external influences can radically affect the market without compensation or punishment. I shall not concede this point. Instead, I shall ask my opponent to elaborate so that I might understand exactly what he is talking about. It seems that an example of this would be OPEC increasing the price of the oil they sell to the United States. OPEC did influence the market when it did this, and many argue it had positive effects. People drove less and bought more fuel efficient cars. The markets quickly adapted to this need, and this adaptation still remains now even as the price of oil is less than half what it was. Problems with my opponent's systems of government: 1) Regulated Capitalism regulate-to bring under the control of law or constituted authority . http://www.merriam-webster.com... To limit what the markets can and cannot do limits the flexibility of the market. For example: A certain fabric is banned for use in cars during the early 1900s because it is flammable and cars would often combust. This material would catch fire easily and would endanger the passengers. As a result, it was banned. Even after car fires are much less common, research was never done on it because it was illegal to do so. Alternative: Car companies choose not to make cars with that fabric to compete with eachother in safety, which was in high demand due to car fires. Many years later, after fires in cars were no longer an issue, the fabric was brought back because it was much lighter than the standard seat fabric and it was used to make cars more fuel efficient. A regulated market is limited it what it can develop. An unregulated capitalist system is not limited in what it can develop. Therefore, unregulated capitalism is better than unregulated capitalism. 2) Libertarian Marxism libertarian-believing in freedom of thought and action . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Marxism- The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Some may arue that Libertarian Marxism is an oxymoron, but i think I understand what my opponent is getting at. The system I believe my opponent describes is economically socialist and socially free (far different from communism). The overall flaw of this system is that the result of one's effort does not change with additional effort. One's work is not his own. This lack of responsibility exists everywhere, and production suffers. Why work hard when you get just as much for working little? Why achieve when it gets you nowhere? This results in a lack of motivation and purpose. Further, my opponent has already conceded that fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, such a system is invalid. Nontheless, this system is not better than capitalism.