Communism does not work.

Last paragraph - Communism is tyrannical to the highest degree as It gives the government bureaucrats the power to decide how much necessary resources you can use and how much you earn and what you can sell or not . In Capitalism people are free to choose what they want. Communism gives the lazy as much as the hard working, while Capitalism allows each individual to sell their labor creating a result where the hardest working are rewarded in accordance to how hard they work. In Capitalism each person is independent while in Communism each person is interdependent, interdependence is a form of slavery. In Communism people work the way the central monopoly (government) tells them to but In Capitalism they work where they want. Con starts off by saying that Capitalism might look like a better economic system but only at first glance , he then states he thinks it is important that we mention the uglier side of Capitalism . The uglier side of Capitalism according to him is the exploitation of cheap workforce, the millions being enslaved to produce your products and Multinational Corporations seeking profit . Next he gives us a statistic that states a quarter of a billion children aged 5-14 years old are being forced to work in sweatshops around the world and we have to trust him here because his sources are all listed at the bottom and I am left without a clue which one I should look through. We will address this 'uglier side' of Capitalism next but first let me address his last point in his first paragraph. Con makes the case that the free market leads to prosperity and wealth but only for some and for the rest it leads to exploitation and misery. This is a completely baseless claim and unless Con shows us a single example of a free market state where people are being exploited and live under misery then he has failed to fulfill the BoP and I cannot address it because it is completely groundless and therefore I cannot argue against it. Exploitation of workers&Multinational Corporations - Con cannot make the case that these people in Third World nations are being exploited due to Capitalism , in Capitalism it is more profitable for the employer to actually pay his workers more for a few different reasons one being the fact that more workers will want to work for him than an employer that would pay them less and therefore the employer that pays them more will actually make more profit . Here Forbes talks about Henry Ford doubling the wages of his workers[1] . This of course is just a theory often used by Capitalists , I will present solid evidence . Con assumes that these workers from the Third World live in Capitalist nations or else he would have not used that argument and that argument wouldn't make sense if he thought that wasn't the case. This is actually a very naive assumption . According to the Economic Freedom of the World 2014 Annual Report African countries are actually some of the least economically free in the world as shown in this map[2] . Interestingly enough Botswana which is one of the most economically free countries in Africa is experiencing incredible economic growth compared to South Saharan Africa as shown by Prof. Scott Beaulier in this presentation around the eight minute mark[3] . I recommend the presentation to anything wanting to educate themselves on African economies. Con also forgets that there may be other factors that are contributing to Africa being so destabilized&poor such as foreign aid . Mr Shikwati said this in one of his interviews 'The government, thanks to aid, is richer than its people; hence everybody wants to join politics: very few want to become successful business people.'[4] . One theory claims that foreign aid is why so many people seek to get into power in African Nations , if my opponent thinks that the source is too old I will provide another one if he wishes me to do so. African nations are much closer to being a Kleptocracy than to Capitalism.[5] Con states this : 'Currently, in the United States, the richest 1% of Americans, made almost 20% of all the available income in the country. And the beauty of capitalism means, that they could easily have an influence in politics and they have used that influence : They've managed to cut Income Tax for the richest in HALF (From the 70's) Capitalism means that money is the driving force behind everything, but bad policies ensues, our elected officials make decisions that benefits the few. A study by PewResearch shows that the wealth gap between an upper-class family and a middle class family of four is about $88 000.It has also has proven that 60% of Americans believe that the economic system favors the wealthy. We're living in a time were the wealth gap is larger than in the past 30 years. And undoubtedly, the gap will continue to widen. Capitalism is not a system where everyone succeeds, it is a system controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy.' Con tries to show us that there is income inequality in the US , this is true and I support this . I do not understand why those who are hard working and educated shouldn't be allowed to make more money then those who are not . Con gives us a bunch of supposedly scary statistics but he doesn't explain to us why income inequality is a bad thing. Just as a note from me I would like to mention that I do not support the rich having to pay higher rates of taxes. My opponent talks about the influence of the rich in politics but he ignores that this is centrally crony capitalism which is focused around business&government working together. I already explained that I will be arguing in favour of a lightly regulated free-market Capitalism. I support the state&economics being more independent of each other. Con also talks about the income gap and I have a perfect video to address this . It talks about the data trying to prove that the income gap is growing and the flaws within it. The first part of the video goes like this : It is a myth that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer , the top 20% of income earners today do have a larger share of national income then they did in the past and the bottom 20% of income earners do have a smaller share of national income then they had in the past however there are two problems with that date , first of all that data doesn't tell us anything about the absolute condition of the poor , just because one has a smaller share of income doesn't mean that one is absolutely poor so for example it could be the case that even though poor Americans have a smaller share of national income their absolute income is higher . If I asked you if you would rather have 1/6th of a pizza or 1/9 of a pizza your answer may dependant on how big the pizza is having 1/9th of a pizza may be better if the pizza was much larger then the one that of which you would have 1/6th of . The real income of the poor Americans today is higher then it used to be even though their share of the total income is somewhat lower but all this misses the more fundamental point .... To not run out of characters I am not gone type the whole video out . It is located here [6] or you can go here instead to read about the second point the video was gone make [7] . The rest of Con's arguments I will address next round as I don't have enough characters left.[1][http://www.forbes.com...][2][http://www.freetheworld.com...] [3][http://www.learnliberty.org...] [4][http://www.africanexecutive.com...] [5][http://en.wikipedia.org...] [6][] [7][http://www.ajc.com...] As I said, I will address the rest of Con's arguments in the next round.