Capitalism is an Inherently Immoral System

My thanks to my opponent for taking up the gauntlet I've cast down. I'm looking forward to a spirited debate! First some Rebuttals: 1. Opportunity The US is a prime example of how in a capitalist system, the illusion of opportunity is used to both blame those who have not succeeded AND helps to make those who are wealthy wealthier by exploiting those who seek it. As the US market has grown freer (as measured by reductions in taxes and regulation) over the last decades, the middle class has shrunk and shrunk. Many other systems that are to varying degrees Socialist also allow people a chance to make it big and be rich, but the key difference is that these systems do not punish those who fail as cruelly as our system does. The only trade-off, really, is that their rich aren't AS rich. The idea that it is somehow morally important to the concept of opportunity for someone to make 50 billion instead of "merely" 500 million is laughable. 2. Social Welfare To the first point, I certainly do not argue that freedom is essential to a happy, and moral existence. But all too-often in hardcore capitalist societies such as the US, "freedom" ceases to mean the most choices, and comes to simply be a buzzword for a lack of specific law. When we measure freedom not in whether or not we have a choice between options, but rather in how low our taxes are, whether or not our meatpacking plants have to be inspected every year, or our insurance companies are allowed to charge whatever they damned well please, we are no longer offering a maximum of choice (i.e. true freedom) to a majority of citizens. Socialist countries preserve people's right to speech, democratic representation, (often) firearms, as well as access to services such as health care. The only "freedom" they lack is that (by their own choice as a majority) people may pay more in taxes for the services they get, or see those services better regulated where human well-being may be at stake. To the second point, I feel my opponent's argument is either very poorly researched OR not well-understood by my opponent. Free-Market Competition among health care providers in the US has NOT resulted in more affordable care, but rather care which is saddled with the greed both of HMO administrators and Insurance companies and the Pharmaceuticals industry. The former two seek to minimize what care people receive while paying the highest costs in the world for it, and the latter constantly reformulate drugs to keep them going "generic" so that they can charge exorbitant over-the-counter rates. In fact, in socialist countries where governments are allowed to negotiate prices, citizens enjoy greater access to medicines that we in the US are paying more for, simply in the name of preserving some nebulous notion of our freedom. 3. Pure Morality. Again, we agree that freedom is an essential value, but what my opponent fails to see is that in some societies while a totalitarian government may deprive its citizens of freedom directly, in those that go too far in favoring a free market, the wealthiest citizens inevitably rise up to fulfill the role of those totalitarian dictators by pricing freedom out of reach for the majority. Only through socialist governments that balance the true freedoms of a free market against a strong government to prevent elites from depriving others of freedoms through the financial system do we arrive at truly moral societies. A. The gap between rich and poor has absolutely widened. The poor do bottom out a certain point with NOTHING and companies grow richer and richer, that's basic math. In the US, job opportunities have only decreased, between the rising population, the decrease in a manufacturing base that companies can get by going overseas, and by the increased use of labor-saving technology. Without some form of government intervention, what exactly is protecting the poorest's ability to work hard and get somewhere? Not the free market. Unfair distribution is where we already are. It is unfair when one man is worth literally what millions of men may be worth in a lifetime. We can say that man has worked hard. Perhaps he has worked twice as hard as others. Maybe three times as hard. Maybe ten times as hard. Maybe 100. But a million? The CEO of Exxon Mobile literally works a million times harder than everyone else? Really? I would submit that he does not, and as such, does not deserve that great a share of resources. While I would not ever want to see 100% of resources turned over to the government for redistribution, 20 or 30%? Sure. B. I will refer my opponent to health care. In the absence of government intervention, we had cancer patients being kicked right off of insurance rolls because they represented a threat to profit. We have patched, though not fixed, this problem by government stepping in. How was the free market going to address it? In what way would it ever be more profitable to treat the sickest instead of dumping them? C. Putting power in the hands of the government IS putting hands in the power of the people, provided that the government is democratic and composed OF the people. How is it more free to put money in the hands of Monsanto or Goldman-Sachs? Who does that grant freedom besides the boards of those companies? In summary, my opponent believes too much in the lie of the American Dream, a lies that states those who work the hardest get the farthest and those who have nothing deserve it because they are lazy. The reality is that hard-working individuals who may hold two or three jobs are NOT getting ahead in this economy, while multitudes of under-taxed wealthy are literally born into their roles and never need work a day in their lives to enjoy the greatest success. It is capitalism that defends their right to a greater share than those who work the hardest, those who by virtue of their lack of income lack freedom, and by my opponent's own measure those imbalances are completely immoral.