Capitalism is an Inherently Immoral System

I may believe I'm right, but I would fault no voter for choosing him at this point. For this last round I'm going to give single-line quotations from my opponent to make it clear which parts I am responding to. The analogy, however, poorly depicts this debate. Someone should not only make 500 million if their hard work and business success should have allowed them to make moreHere we come to a direct disagreement. If we lived in a world of unlimited resources, spun from thin air or the sweat of our brows, there would be no problem with my opponent's position. But we do not. Wealth represents resources, resources are shared, and in the end, if we allow smaller numbers of people greater wealth, we can only do so at the expense of the rest of us. Each of us must come to some level of comfort with exactly how much wealth that is, how much a person can truly deserve in terms of resources, and some of us may favor more than others, but at the end of the day, if you don't favor one man having control over all men, you cannot favor a system that allows this to happen. Capitalism is exactly such a system. I would also direct voters to the last line: "Welfare programs offer a chance. .. so no one is punished. "Savor that. Roll it around in your mouths. Capitalism is a system that relies on PUNISHING people for a lack of success. While it is certainly arguable that some of us may lack success due only to our poor choices, misdeeds, and laziness, others, unquestionably lack success because of circumstances beyond their control. Any system which needs to punish some to motivate others cannot be called moral. Perhaps my opponent meant to suggest that such programs exist in the US and that means that capitalism isn't immoral, I'm willing to entertain that, but if so, that's an endorsement of socialism. There are forces in this country doing all they can to minimize or end wellfare specifically in the name of a freer market that will resolve those inequities, which, as we seem to agree, it won't. When the government increases funding, it increases the demand for loanable funds. .. This is terrible for the economy. That's all well and good to cry from the rooftops, but it rings in the face of so many succesful socialist economies. Germany, Sweden, France and Canada are all perfect examples of countries enjoying peace and prosperity under socialist governments. Their poor do not suffer as the poor of the US, and so far as I can tell, the only trade-off is the fact that their rich are not as rich. I want to clear up my point on healthcare. So in a system where liposuction for the rich is available, yet it takes a socialist government hand to properly regulate the insurance market (thus not being "free") is proof that free-market capitalism is the right approach to healthcare? I think not. The only way for healthcare to be managed morally yet still be private is for government to regulate it so heavilly that it might as well be run by government itself. This is how it is done in Norway, and while I don't have a problem with it, I don't see how it could be argued it's the free market somehow fixing things. "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "I love Churchill, because even as he spoke to defend a largely conservative viewpoint, he always did so in a way that admitted that the other side had a point, which is exactly what is doing here. By sharing miseries, all feel them, and thus, tend to be more inclined to work harder to see those miseries eliminated. In a system of free-market capitalism, the rich ascend above the miseries most feel, and then, rather judgementally, look down to those who are not as succesful and lay misery at the feet of those suffering. This would be fine if they were randomly selected individuals, but they HAVE more of the resources needed in order to alleviate that suffering. In essense, Capitalism creates misery that could be prevented, then shrugs and says it's all okay because the people who are suffering are lazy and don't deserve to be free of misery. I understand it may seem unfair, but telling a man he needs to pay millions in taxes more than a man who may not work half as hard is unfair. For the sake of argument, let us say that it is equally unfair to tax a millionaire millions as it is deny the poorest things they need to live yet cannot afford. Let's pretend those are equal in terms of fairness. Even if we do that, they may be equally unfair, but they are NOT equally moral. A millionaire who must pay a million in taxes each year still has millions left over. he is not starving. He does not need fear a doctor's bill. he can afford a home, comfort, luxery, all that any reasonable person could require. I don't really care if it's unfair to him that somebody who hasn't worked as hard can afford a roof over his head. We have 28 vacant homes for every homeless person in the united states right now. That's disgraceful, disgusting, immoral insanity, and the only reason it needs to be that way is because of our strange defense of capitalism as a system that is somehow better, yet rarely seems better in reality. We do not need to free market to regulate if the government can do it itself. A market that is regulated is by definition NOT free. When you have a mix of a free market and good regulation, you're looking at a socialist state. My words are not entirely aimed at the US as it is, but rather the US that the Ayn Rands and Milton Friedmans and Grover Norquists of the world insist we should aspire to have when those regulations are done away with. Half our representatives in congress stood wailing and gnashing their teeths about government stepping in to restrict insurance companies from being able to kick cancer patients off coverage. They think it's an outrage. I think they're as immoral as the system they're trying to create. I don't quite understand how you brought Sarah Palin into any of this. But in counterpoint: Alan Alda is wonderful. In closing, like many good debates I think this one comes down to a position where we don't actually disagree. My opponent is comfortable with a socialist government that regulates healthcare, keeps people from starving, and generally seeks to smooth out the inequities of a free market. My position, is the same, and that full reliance on the free market would innevitably bring us to a place of immorality, innequality, and woe. And as a parting shot, I think we're too close to that world as it is. We could be doing better.