On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

== Analysis == Con has rejected my definition of capitalism without bothering to give his own counter-definition, thus mine should be preferred by default. Moreover, I stated very clearly in the first round that "this is not a semantics debate. By accepting the challenge, my opponent agrees to the terms I've set." If Con had a problem with my definition, he should have rectified this BEFORE accepting. As I expected, Con demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of just what capitalism is. Predictably, he engages in a long diatribe knocking down strawmen. Moreover, he has not presented a single argument in support of communism, or explained how or why the problems he sees with capitalism will be remedied under his system. I refer him to the terms set in the first round: "The burden of proof is equal: we both must prove the merits of our respective systems and demonstrate their superiority over the alternative." Con has also failed to define, explain, or outline his view of communism, as I requested in the first round. Is he an anarcho-communist? A libertarian socialist? Does he think currency should be abolished? None of this has been made clear, which is unfair and abusive to the Pro side. Finally, he has dropped or ignored several of my contentions which I will point out when I get into the body of my case. == Pro Case == 1. Individual rights A) Personal ownership and private property Note that Con has not specifically argued against contractarianism, nor given his own alternative standard. Instead, he's opted to attack the consequences of my system, which is merely begging the question of utilitarianism against deontology. Moreover, I think his practical critique is lacking as well, which I'll get to shortly. Con claims "when capitalists and corporations have enough hooks in enough politicians they can override our democracy and have things their way, so how well does capitalism really serve and protect our individual rights?" I'll go into more detail on monopolies when I address the Con case, however, he has not explained how his plan will solve for this. Using the state apparatus as a check on corporate power regresses the problem and makes it worse. What check is there on state power? If it is the will of the majority, why is this not a sufficient check on corporate power? B) The role of government Con has not answered my argument that an ethic of self-ownership is compatible with other political systems; if people voluntarily adopt communism, there is no essential conflict with libertarianism. He objects that "if we were more rational and less culturally brainwashed we'd probably profoundly revamp or reject capitalism, since it's a system that hurts the interest of too many of us too much of the time." This is pure question begging: he hasn't answered a single argument I've made against communism. 2. Economic prosperity and overall well-being A) Free rider problem Dropped. B) Economic calculation problem Dropped. 3. Power structures A) State authority Dropped. B) Communism is inherently coercive Con claims that "communism is not inherently coercive, only certain inauthentic distortions of it." I've given an a priori reason to think coercion is inherent to all possible forms of communism, which he has ignored. Note also that Con has not outlined his view of "authentic" communism, which is unfair to the Pro side. C) Communism inevitably leads to tyranny Dropped. == Con Case == Because Con hasn't bothered to tag his arguments, I'm forced to sift through his lengthy invective and try to put the pieces together for him. 1. Excessive corporate power A) Monopolies Harmful monopolies can not and do not exist in a free market; they are state creations. Thomas DiLorenzo explains: "The enduring forces of competition - including potential competition - will render free-market monopoly an impossibility."[1] Monopolies can only endure with government sheltering through subsidies, protectionist tariffs, copyrights, patents, price controls, exclusionary licensing rules, etc. Take a specific example: liberals love to claim that business taxes help even out the wealth distribution. The reality is that big corporations can afford to pay them, but their smaller competitors can not. TURN – Con claims that powerful corporations can influence government policy, yet the only way they can become this powerful is through state intervention in the first place. Moreover, how can we trust that government will responsibly protect us from predatory businesses when historically it has consistently done just the opposite? TURN – Con is forgetting that government is the biggest monopoly of them all. Moreover, governments do not operate on a profit and loss basis; they use force to achieve their goals. Thus state power is more greatly to be feared than corporate power. B) Colonialism There are different types of colonialism; Con has only briefly mentioned the term without explaining what he means by it. He has not cited any specific examples for me to address. Unless and until he makes an actual argument, I have nothing here to respond to. 2. Unequal distribution of wealth First, as I explained earlier, I am not defending the status quo; we do not live in a capitalist society, we live in a corporatist plutocracy. Con claims "1% of the world's population now owns 40% of its wealth, and the most affluent 10% own a whopping 85%" This is a common and rather fatuous argument. It implicitly and fallaciously assumes that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game.[2] Moreover, Con is looking at wealth in relative terms rather than absolute terms. Even under the present system, things are not nearly as dire as he claims. The prevalence of real deprivation has declined dramatically since the introduction of the official poverty rate. The purchasing power of low-income households is far higher today than it was in the 60's and 70's.[3] Marx predicted that over time, the rich would get richer and the poor would grow poorer. He was partly right: the rich have gotten richer – and the poor have gotten richer, too.[4] Even if the linear income gap has grown, the *marginal* gap in living standards has actually decreased. Technology has made available to the masses luxuries that were formerly reserved only for the richest of the rich. 3. Economic instability Con cites the recent recession as evidence of market failure, apparently forgetting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises.[5] Moreover, the financial collapse has vindicated the predictions made by free market economists such as Jim Rogers, Mark Faber, and Peter Schiff, who saw the downturn coming as early as 2005.[6] In a 2007 interview, Schiff argued that artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve created a housing bubble, which was bound to burst, leading to a recession.[7] This fits perfectly with the Austrian business cycle theory. TURN – The Community Reinvestment Act is a "progressive" piece of legislation that compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers who would not otherwise qualify.[8] This was an important contributing factor to the mass defaults leading up to the 2008 collapse. || CONCLUSION || Con rejects capitalism "in theory," instead arguing against it in practice. However, even the perversion of "capitalism" that we live under offers an increasingly high standard of living for the poor and middle class. Moreover, his theory/practice dichotomy ignores the a priori basis of economic understanding and offers no rational explanation of how my idealized capitalism naturally denigrates into the plutocracy we both despise. Finally, he hasn't offered any solutions to the problems he sees and has largely ignored my case against communism. The resolution is affirmed. References: http://tinyurl.com...