Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Statist Communism (Con)

My opponent claims that people are less prone to exploit others and uses the example of Switzerland. " Switzerland, for example, has no minimum wage and yet their average earnings are 6,300$ a month! {1} These are the highest wages in the world, so clearly individuels are capable of not exploiting others." From <http://www.debate.org...; " However, the European Countries tend to score lower in Individualism, therefore preferring a stronger government {1}. Pew Research says " Americans tend to prioritize individual liberty, while Europeans tend to value the role of the state to ensure no one in society is in need. From <http://www.pewresearch.org...; " My opponent is correct that the EPA did dump waste, however, the dump was unintentional {2}. " In an event that has led to health warnings and turned a river orange, the Environmental Protection Agency says one of its safety teams accidentally released contaminated water from a mine into the Animas River in southwest Colorado. From <http://www.npr.org...; " If this is the incorrect spill, then I would request my opponent cite a source, as it would be unfair if I weren't provided the opportunity to refute him. He then cites the fact that Obama is currently in charge of our Nation, despite the idea of Checks and Balances, which clearly shows that the president isn't as important as we believe, and actually the House and Senate are more important for these types of decisions. In the current system, republicans hold control over the senate {3}, and the House {4} " He also failed to address how Bernie Sanders authorised toxic waste to be dumped onto the Mexican border From <http://www.debate.org...; " I'll concede to my opponent on this point. He seems adamant however, that Political Evolution isn't a thing, when in fact it has been documented time and time again. Even if you disregard the idea of Political Evolution, Sanders positions can be tied to donations from wealthy individuals {5}. Therefore the Free Market enable Corporations to sink their grip into the Government, allowing the Corporations to get away with anything they wish. " So Martin can raise the price of his drug to 750$ since it is his drug, but if we assume that this is happening in a Free Market then a competitor would simply sell that same drug at let's say 15$ and run Martin out of buisness unless he lowers his prices below that of his competitors." From <http://www.debate.org...; " This would be correct if we do away with Property rights. Turing, the company that Shkreli owns bought the rights to Daraprim. This means that no one can create the drug without Martin's permission. Seeing as no one can create the drug, it means that Shkreli can keep prices as high as he wants, without worry about competition. The only way to stop this is to get rid of property rights, which destroys the free market. Therefore, you should prefer the system which allows the drug to be handed out whenever it's needed, rather than the system that allows people to force their consumer to overpay for something which could literally save a life. " So when Martin was price gouging, a correct route to take would be to abolish goveronment protection over his patent." From <http://www.debate.org...; " This quote directly contradicts one of the primary components of a Free Market. " a). property rights From <http://www.debate.org...; " I'll grant another component is " b). more than one company producing agiven commodity From <http://www.debate.org...; " However, what happens when these 2 goals contradict. Martin bought the rights to Daraprim, so it's his property, but to attain component b, you would need to deny his ownership of that property, which is in direct contradiction with component a. Therefore, you should prefer the Communist system where the people within the Government are equal with the people outside government and resources are shared rather than exploited. My opponent then says " "the less unemployed there are the less expendable workers are From <http://www.debate.org...; " This double negative is a bit confusing at first, but it basically means "The more people who are employed, the more expendable workers are, which is correct. The more people you have working in a field, the more expendable they are. Therefore, wages would stay the same or stagnate, because your employing more people {6}. {1}:http://www.pewresearch.org... {2}:http://www.npr.org... {3}:http://www.cnn.com... {4}:http://clerk.house.gov... {5}:https://www.opensecrets.org... {6}:http://www.epi.org...