On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

It's unfortunate that's he's limited the scope of our discussion by waiting until so late to bring them up, but better late than never. He's also touched on corporate power and monopolies again, but it's merely a rehash of his previous points and my earlier criticisms remain unaddressed. == Pro Case == 1. Individual rights A) Personal ownership and private property I find it ironic that Con criticizes the social contract on the grounds that he does not share Hobbes' pessimism about the human race, yet in the previous round, he states "in our real world that we all have to live in you can always count on human beings to pervert a system that grants them the permissive freedom to do so, which capitalism does. " Con claims the social contract is for libertarians "an excuse for being asocial individualists rather than standing in solidarity with your needy neighbor," which I find extremely offensive; I suggest he apologize. Libertarians do not object to charitable giving, we object to being forced to give at the hands of the welfare state, which deprives the act of any moral significance and fosters animosity and resentment instead of compassion and empathy. Further, he states "unless you arrogantly think you'll never be a needy neighbor you don't wish to sign on to such a contract! " Apparently he's missed the point of this exercise; you can't coherently argue against the idea of Narveson's social contract. As I stated in the first round "ethical discourse consists of the use of argumentation to convince another of the truth of one's position. Belying this is the fact that no one could possibly make any ethical proposition, nor be persuaded by argumentative means unless the right to exclusive use of one's person is presupposed. " Moreover, I've given several good, pragmatic arguments both for capitalism and against communism which Con has not adequately addressed. In light of this, I really don't think his objection here holds any water. C) The categorical imperative This is an ironic argument for a communist to make. In a free society, individuals are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. All interactions and transactions are done voluntarily by choice. In a communist society, one person's need justifies the forceful seizure of another's possessions. The second person is made into an economic object to serve the first person's end. If anything, Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative supports capitalism! == Con Case == 1. Excessive corporate power A) Monopolies Con states "capitalists pride themselves on being realistic about human nature, but they're the ones with an unrealistic belief," however, he continually ignores the arguments I've already made addressing this. On capitalism, it doesn't *matter* if someone is greedy. The only way he can get your money is by offering a superior product at a lower price; in the process of enriching himself, he enriches society as well. If a transaction is not in your best interest, you can't be forced to make it. If a company offers a sub-par product, or does so at an excessive price, it will quickly be run out of business by the competition. This acts as a check against greed. 2. Unequal distribution of wealth B) Wage slavery The potential to abuse workers is limited by two important factors. First, on capitalism, all employment is voluntary; if you don't want to work for someone you don't have to. Moreover, if the wage offered isn't high enough to live on, no one will waste time working at such a job. You can even choose to shun what you consider shallow, materialistic concerns and live in a commune. Second, companies have to compete for workers in the same way that they compete for consumers. Labor is a commodity, companies that want the best workers will have to beat out other potential employers by offering them better wages, benefits, or working conditions. Marx never gave a coherent definition of class. The third, unfinished volume of Das Kapital cuts off at the point where he planned to do so. Engels' notes in the introduction state that "bourgeois" refers to "capitalists, owners of the means of production, and employers of wage laborers. " Proletarians are those "in the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. "[1] But this doesn't make sense; a small town doctor in private practice would be a member of the bourgeoisie, but should he leave his practice for a more lucrative position as chief surgeon at a prestigious hospital, according to Marx, he is now a member of the proletariat; a wage slave. This suggests that some other measure is necessary, but if we consider something like living standards, Con is still no better off. As I argued in R2, living conditions and purchasing power have increased dramatically in low income households since the introduction of the official poverty rate in the 1960's. This point remains unaddressed. C) Welfare programs Let me repeat myself: libertarians are not selfish egoists who disdain the idea of helping those in need. This is an unfounded assertion and frankly I'm tired of hearing it. Libertarians object to the inefficient bureaucratic mess of welfare state we have that dehumanizes aid recipients and traps them in a vicious cycle of generational dependency. Reaching into someone else's pocket to donate to the poor is an act of theft, not compassion. Real charity is given freely, and from the heart. Alexis de Tocqueville puts it for more eloquently than I ever could: "individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid which he had no right to demand and which he may have had no hope of getting, feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other, and although divided by circumstance they are willingly reconciled. This is not the case with legal charity. The latter allows the alms to persist, but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him and which could not satisfy him in any case. Public alms guarantee life, but do not make it happier or more comfortable than individual alms-giving; legal charity does not thereby eliminate wealth or poverty in society. "[2] || CONCLUSION || Con has yet to admit that he is willing to use initiatory violence in order to implement his society. He needs to either bite the bullet and explain why he thinks it is justified, or he agrees that there is no essential conflict with libertarianism, provided all parties involved voluntarily consent to live under communism. This (1B) has been the central argument of my case and Con still has not responded to it. If nothing else, I think I should win on the strength of this point alone. Other contentions Con has ignored include Pro case: 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C. He has also dropped 1B, 2, and 3 of the Con case. It's disappointing that Con harbors such seemingly unfounded and irrational hatred for libertarians. I think we both want the best for society, but in his mind, he is incapable of seeing libertarians as anything other than selfish, maladjusted social terrorists. I think if he examined both sides with an open mind as I have, he might come to appreciate and understand that we share a common goal, we just disagree over the best way to achieve it. The resolution is affirmed. References: . http://tinyurl.com...