Capitalism is Immoral

Thanks for the thoughtful rebuttal, I shall reply point to pointHistorical NarrativeFirstly, the following points are indeed true:All living things consume.Consumption effects nature.We must consume to survive.There is no reason to conclude however that this makes Capitalism moral.I will remind the voters that Capitalism is not an universal to all of history and is not the defacto system of life. Civilization itself is only several thousand years old,[1] and "Hunting and gathering was humanity's first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history'[2]. This indeed involved our specsis relying off nature and thus altering nature. In this 90% of human history there were no trans-national corportions, anthropogenic climate change, rapid deforestation, nor tozxicization of the air. Capitalism is not inherant in the humanity nor are in it's abhorent results. One cannot render Capitalism as moral even it occupied 99% of human history, simply because a model is popular does not make it anyless morally repugnant. Fortunetly Capitalism has not even done that.Marx and CommunismMarxian thought is introduced by my opponent and he goes on to pose the following questions to me:"Did communist groups throughout history ever cut down trees in excess and accumulate a resource-surplus? Did communists ever destroy environments or species to secure these resources? Do you think communists ever produced undesirable pollutants that were expelled in the environment in order to manufacture goods or products, regardless of how they held class systems or distributed and created wealth or prosperity?"While I may infact be a Socialist these questions are wholly untopical. The resolution is capitalism immoral rather then: Communism is more moral Capitalism. I have no obligation in this debate to provide an alternative economic system with a higher rate of morality. Yes to the final question though, judge Communism of it's historical accomplishments, not theoretical framework. Before I adress the rest, lets all refresh ourselves on the definition for Capitalism to be used for this debate: "Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets."This debate is meant to demonstrate to the voters the morality of the system in question. The consequent ideology in which it is founded upon or invisioned to operate under are as detacted from reality as the Jihadist's phantasm. Thus the voters ought not to base their decision in this realm of discourse but rather the very real cost and benefits. As I pointed out in Round 2, moral decisions are based in cost-benefit analysis, how may test that which does not exist? Yet alone make moral decisions.Capitalism With a Human Face1. To provide a counter I shall qoute Craig Hanson, a Meso-American Archeologist whom has authored over twenty papers on the region: "it is possible to hypothesize apre-capitalistworld-system" (Schneider 1977:25) in which core areas accumulated precious materialswhile exporting manufactures and peripheral areas exported materials against an inflow of finishedgoods. Thispre-capitalistworld-system created the relationships that, uponEuropeancolonization, evolved into a facet of historical capitalism in Mesoamerica[3]." Hanson here is arguing for the existence of a pre-capitalist "world system", his prime example of a pre-capitalist society is Meso-America. Meso-American society only evolved into "historical capitalism" after European colonization, contray to the about.com article. The full paper will be linked in cited sources.2. This article does posit that currency existed in some Pre-Columbian tribes. This article does not posit the existence of Capitalism in America amongst indigeonus tribes.Thus I will affirm to the voters that both examples are insufficent to provide a historical example of Capitalism that is devoid of “human greed, consumerism, imperialism, overpopulation, rapid industrialization, and the institutionalization of currency and money-lending.” The reason I make this affirmation is due to the fact that neither are actual examples of Capitalism.China, The Enviorment, and Philanthropy"the most capitalistic nation's Secretary of State is visiting China and working on these issues. Again, Civilization is now reacting to a new perspective and trying to understand and find it's environmental equilibrium while maintaining it's livelihood."Both nations are talking and manuevering on the issue of climate change, but the articles do not put forth evidence that Civilization is finding an equilibriam between enviormental conservation and prosperity. This was already addressed in my qoute from Abramsky from round one which i shall reiterate:"The current worldwide system of production is based on endless growth and expansion, which is simply incompatible with a long term reduction in emissions and energy consumption. Despite the fact that localized and punctual moments of reduction may well still occur, the overall energy consumption and emissions of the system as a whole can only increase."Regardless of the current postering that the two powerful nation states are undertaking, the world system of capitalism is unable to stop the energy consumption at the heart of the crisis. Capitalism is, as we speak, still on the present trajectory of enviormental annihiltion. I anticipate Con's rebuttal to the "Expliotation of Workers" in the next round and consequenstly his reasoning for how Capitalism is infact moral.I now turn it over to Con without ant further ado.Cited Sources1.http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2.Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers 3.http://www.academia.edu...