Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.

Secondly I'd like to apologize for posting my argument so late, my inbox was jammed full of so much crap i didn't see the alert that my challenge had been accepted. Now to get started, I'll accept my opponents definition of Capitalism, considering this is not a real definition based debate no other words or counter definitions will be necessary. Secondly, I'd like to make it clear that the Negative burden (mine) is not to advocate for a state controlled economy, nor to debunk the Capitalist system. I simply have to adequately refute that Capitalism is justified because it makes life better. I'll go backwards from a normal LD style since i have no time constraints, starting with my arguments. I'll tie together my points that cross-apply to his arguments further down. First off, I'd like to pose the question, just because the standard of living may be increasing (which its not), is that a justifiable reason for Capitalism. No. There were rising standards of living in slave societies, They were much better off in the 19th century than in the 18th century does that justify slavery? Stalinism for another example, there was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union until 1989, it was the second world not the third world, it's now back in the third world because it's undergoing capitalist reforms. Up until the 1960's in fact the Soviet Union was presenting itself for modernization within a single generation. Hitler, up to that point in the 1930's, being the most popular leader in German history. Carried out a social revolution in which people were living better, of course i don't mean everybody, like Jews for example. Hitler and his administrators apparently figured out that large scale state expenditures could rescue the morbid Capitalistic economy from destruction, people lived better and the economy was booming, is this sufficient reason to advocate Fascism? There must be much more reason that is actually justifiable in order to make such a claim for Capitalism. Starting with my opponents first link in his case, he says Capitalism because it's shown to make life better in practice. Does his link support this? The Human Development index measures life expectancy, literacy, and education, now though these "top" countries he says have Capitalist systems does that mean that if a nation makes Capitalistic reforms it's education and literacy rate will automatically sky rocket? No, we know this living in a country that's on the short end of the stick when it comes to education. Now to his second point in which he uses the success and culture website, first of i think this is a horrible resource since it states in the first paragraph, "There is little research done on this topic beside collecting together government provided information. " I may sound a little superstitious, but I don't just take the government on there word. Now on to his actual argument he says higher income=more employment=better standards of living. We've already discussed why that is a terrible argument, that simply because there's a better standard of living somethings justified, so to move on to where he says more jobs better living yay! !! ! Is that so. .. . well last time i checked Africans didn't get paid for subsistence agriculture, so they were unemployed. Now fast forward, they're enslaved received wages for their labor, so they are employed, and would anyone consider this a justifiable reason for anything much less an economic system? To strip people from their homes and force them into employment simply because the "standard of living is higher", if we know anything as human beings it's that we all have differing points of view. It doesn't take an intellectual to know that we have dissimilar ideals about life in general, but in this case forcing an individual to except any standard that is not their own is tyrannical to say the least. "Anytime a government uses force to try and make life "better" we move closer to the nightmares of The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. "-Browne (former Libertarian candidate). Now on to his next point, he says the constant trials of Eastern European countries to come out of the third world is due to centralized economy, since that time the have made capitalist reforms, and last time i checked they haven't improved if so it's negligible. He next brings out the problems with housing and food, now those pictures looked like they were taken in downtown Detroit. The United States currently has 35.9 million people below the poverty line, and that's just the documented ones. Local and state homeless groups have risen 61 percent since 2007, again that's only the documented groups. We see yet again that simply a standard of living is not a sufficient standard with which to justify an economic system. Next i'll quote him, "To date, no country with a non-capitalist system has retained one without using immoral force. " Has Capitalism not been guilty of the same? If anything I don't think Noam Chomsky could write enough books to describe the imperialstic indoctrination of the United States' political and economic system on not only Iraq, but many other nations worldwide. The most recent statistics show that 1,331,578 Iraqis have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (Jeremy Scahill will concur), does that sound moral? The poster child of war profiteering is Halliburton so the argument that the U. S didn't start the war in order for government to sustain itself if is false. Both state controlled and free enterprise economic countries are guilty of this again as i stated earlier i do not have to advocate for a particular economic system that would be past the scopes of the resolution. His last argument, Capitalism is justified because it gives an individual choice. This is a vague argument because you have a choice or make a choice is not sufficient to justify. He says Capitalism guarantees him ownership of his property, we know this to be emperically false. Though in theory it may we know that eminent domain is exercised and in fact a quote "right" of the state. Capitalism guarantees nothing except options, we'll agree on that sole point. Lastly he states that Capitalism is not a oligarchic central, and it puts wealth in the hands of citizens. Hm, well the definition of oligarchy is a state or form of government which is controlled by a small elite segment of society, and since we know that Capitalism is all about survival of the fittest or natural selection if you will, then only the few large companies that make it attain wealth. Yes, my opponents correct except for one thing, Capitalism puts wealth in the hands of the large business owners of the companies that do survive, like an oligarchy, not into the hands of the working class citizen. I don't blame them why should they give their money away that they rightfully own, Capitalism creates class divisions among society simply put. So i stand in firm negation that Capitalism is justified because it makes life "better. "