Slavery and oppression of blacks violates the same moral rules as oppression of businessmen

My opponent seems to have abandoned his original claim. He now states that this debate is not about whether businessmen are enslaved and oppressed, as he originally stated. He now says "there was an initiation of force" against them, and that the parameters related to the initiation of force are irrelevant in comparing this initiation of force to slavery and oppression of blacks. It seems from his new argument that he is implying he never made that statement. Let's review his points: "the ESSENCE of slavery ignores race, the term slavery is applicable regardless of whether race is the reason for slavery" "Suffering is not a commodity, to be haggled over in weights like old gold coins. It is something to be destroyed." -Here, he is clearly likening the "initiation of force" against businessmen as "slavery" and "suffering", not simply an unambiguous definition of "initiation of force". "According to the ruling in United States v. Alcoa (and it was practiced well before then), it is a crime, and the government WILL place anyone attempting to practice it beyond a certain point in a cage (prison)." -Here he clearly shows how he intended to prove his point on initiation of force by imprisonment using the case of US vs. Alcoa. Alcoa won that decision, and "prison" was never an option for the government. The proposition was merely to force Alcoa to divest itself of a new acquisition which seemingly put it in a position to monopolize the industry. The case of monopolization was proven wrong (and had been dismissed by the Supreme Court and sent to a lower court already), and Alcoa eventually acquired the companies who's existence helped it win the case in the first place. Alcoa is now much more competitive than it was at the time of the ruling, and never faced "imprisonment" as my opponent suggested. My opponent went so far as to suggest that the ruling of US vs. Alcoa had an effect on the Great Depression: "The effect was a massive contribution to the Great Depression, after which point Roosevelt decided to get rid of the charade and just nationalize everything", but later concedes that Alcoa won this ruling, and changed his comments to "The assertion of ownership by the government that lead to Alcoa having to bow and scrape before a court in the first place, and still leads to Alcoa's continued payment of dividends from the government's ownership share in the life of every last shareholder into the US treasury". Alcoa did not "bow and scrape". They proved their point, and won. This case had no negative effect on the US economy as my opponent suggested, and no one at Alcoa was ever threated with imprisonment, let alone imprisoned as my opponent also claimed. So, as for my opponent's comparisons which have always been the essence of this debate (please see Round 1): 1. Businessmen have not been stripped of their culture. They operate within the culture of Capitalism which has rules and regulations designed to protect the individual, and the fundamentals of capitalism- the right to individual ownership. If the rules and regulations are excessive, that is another debate. In fact, some of these rules and regulations helped free the slaves from the tyranny of businessmen in the first place. It was businessmen who took, sold, traded, and used slaves. The fact at hand is that they operate within the culture created by the freedoms of the government and country my opponent claims to be stripping them of that very culture. This same government and country never offered the African slaves the opportunity to practice their own culture. They were stripped of this culture, and forced to forget it. 2. My opponent has failed to show how businessmen have been systematically robbed from their homes as African slaves were. He has failed to even make the comparison through "imprisonment" as he suggested in R1. 3. My opponent has failed to show how systematic imprisonment of businessmen has separated them from their children and families as it occurred with the African slaves. 4. My opponent made a claim about the slave trade ending in 1808 which I proved to be incorrect, and irrelevant to a comparison. He claims that the method of enslavement has nothing to do with a comparison of moral rules, but I affirm that it does. The slaveowners violated one set of moral rules that were not criminal in their time and society, but the pirates who stole the slaves (especially after 1808) violated those moral rules, as well as the laws barring them from continuing the slave trade. 5. My opponent has failed to show how the government owns businessmen. He has made veiled remarks about taxes, but has not demonstrated their exclusivity toward harming businessmen as a culture, race, or group of people. This government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and taxation helps to run the government. If businessmen are "conceptually" slaves to this system, we are all, and we are all responsible for establishing and continuing this system as it is we who choose our government. African slaves did not have this option, nor did they have the pride to say "I am a slave of 'so and so'". I can say I am proud to pay my taxes and be a productive member of this society, as can a hundred million other citizens. 6. My opponent has failed to show how businessmen were beat and tortured, or how that even compares to his comparison based on maximizing investment. The investment is by businessmen, and the "productive staff" are their employees, just as the slaveowners were businessmen and the slaves were their exploited employees. My opponent's claim has never been that "employees" are enslaved and oppressed at some businesses, rather that BUSINESSMEN are systematically enslaved and oppressed as were the African slaves. 7. My opponent has failed to show how the rape of innocent women somehow compares to the rape of guilty men by other guilty men. He later changed his claim to "innocent men" being imprisoned, and so "neither law can be justified". What law? My opponent has left this ambiguous because he cannot justify the comparison. 8. My opponent has failed to show how businessmen have been forced to forget their given names. He has shown how employees of a business are given an employee number, and how citizens are given a social security number, but neither is related simply to businessmen because they are businessmen. It is businessmen who force the assignment of an employee number in the first place. 9. My opponent has compared businessmen having to go to court with African slaves and their descendants being systematically dehumanized. I provided a ruling by the Supreme Court stating that a black man was not privy to the rights of a white man, and that he is bound to his whim by duty. My opponent has not shown how going to court has anything to do with being a businessman. He made suggestions of "mobs shouting" and being encouraged by the government, but has shown no examples. Indeed preventing them from doing so would be a violation of the mob's free speech, but I don't see how that compares to stripping humans (African slaves) of the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. My opponent originally claimed "The fundamental moral rules violated by both cases are the rights to liberty and property, both of which are consequences of the right to life". He has failed to prove this point. He conceded this point by changing his argument to "I meant simply the initiation of force". He says "These cannot be violated except by the initiation of force, and the initiation of force necessarily violates them". Businessmen have no inherent right to practice business imparted on them by the right to life. Business is bound by the government in which the business is operated. The right to life, liberty, and property were never afforded to African slaves, but businessmen CHOSE to practice business, and in so doing, chose the rules they operate under.