Distributive justice is a just economic system.

NEGATIVE CASE CONCEDED AGAIN!!! Time after time I have explained that my opponent MUST address my constructive case; not merely spout extraneous opinions. However, he has once again done NOTHING OF THE SORT. Just because he has an “un-Lincoln-Douglass-e” format does not mean he can play fast and loose with the fundamental aspects of debate and simply ignore arguments. AFFIRMATIVE CASE Seabiscuit: “‘I would like to point out that my opponent has not empirically proved that Nozick does indeed believe what he says he does.’ I would hope that if he says he believes it, we can take his word for it.” FACT: It is understandable how my opponent could have misunderstood the intent of this sentence in my case; it was admittedly ambiguously worded. However, what I meant was that my opponent has provided no quotation from Nozick to prove he actually says what my opponent says he does. However, this is irrelevant to debate, as it was simply a relatively minor detail thrown in to point out my opponent’s astounding lack of citations of any kind. Seabiscuit: “‘Individual property rights are absolute. They have always been. And despite any future despotic attempts to violate them, they will always be.’This is really the only part I need to address. He clearly makes a warrant-less claim here. I've given you reasons why property rights are in no way "absolute", rather synthetic temporal ideas. For example, native Americans thought they had rights to there (sic) own property, Germany thought they had a right to Poland, Russia thinks they have the right to own the entire world, etc." FACT: When I began this debate, I was certainly not expecting to have to defend the existence of property rights or liberty for that matter. However, this is exactly the situation in which I currently find myself, with my opponent actually seriously arguing that liberty and property are nonexistent. Despite the apparent absurdity of these outrageous (and groundless) assertions, I will proceed to soundly refute them. He says that I have not warranted my claim that property rights are absolute. However, this is (again) simply false as a matter of empirical fact. I did in fact validly warrant my claim with a quote from Immanuel Kant, which I will here repeat for the benefit of the audience and the edification of my opponent. “If I am the holder of a thing, then anyone who touches it without my consent (for example, wrests an apple from my hand) affects and diminishes that which is internally mine, my freedom. Consequently, the maxim of his action stands in direct contradiction with the axiom of justice.” Therefore, as I said beforehand, it is abundantly clear that since every individual has the internal right to freedom, they all have the right to external property rights. And so it is obvious that I have provided a coherent and irrefutable proof of the existence of the glaringly obvious concept of individual property rights. (Just as a side note: if individual property rights did not exist, then the computer that my opponent is using to prove they do not exist does not belong to him; the computers that you, the audience, are using to view this debate, do not belong to you. Maybe they belong to me, maybe they don’t, maybe they belong to everyone, maybe they belong to no one, maybe they belong to the person with the biggest stick. Who knows? You can’t, unless you accept the existence of individual property rights.) Furthermore, my opponent’s comparison of property rights to the tyrannical imperialism of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is absolutely ridiculous. I am merely arguing that individual property rights exist, not that Germany had such a right in Poland or that Russia has such a right in the whole world. In short, to compare property rights with their abuse as in my opponent’s example is akin to comparing the individual’s right to kill an attacker in self-defense to mass genocide (both of which are absurd). Seabiscuit: “’Individual property rights have their basis in the foundational concept of individual human freedom. And thus, if every individual has a inherent and inalienable right to his own liberty (which I think is fairly obvious), then, by extension, every individual also has an inherent and inalienable right to his own property.’He makes assumptions further, that somehow the leap from liberty to property is obvious, but obviously just because they're next to each other in the declaration of independence doesn't make them synonymous. Moreover the right to liberty is also not a universal declaration, but once again an idea that has merit only to the few that believe it to be true in one particular place at one particular time. For example, the Mayan's assumed violating liberty and the like for sacrifice was justified.” FACT: Here my opponent implies for some reason that I claimed Liberty and property were inextricably linked simply because they are next to each other in the Declaration of Independence. Wait a minute… What??? Liberty and property aren’t next to each other in the Declaration of Independence. The phrase is “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” not Life, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This gaffe is so glaringly obvious that I am shocked to have encountered it. However, it does reflect on how informed and competent my opponent is in general. Anyway, as I have proven before, the actual reason Liberty and property are linked is because I have conclusively proved it with unrequited philosophical analysis. As if that were not enough, my opponent then goes on to claim that universal human freedom does not exist. We are limited to 8,000 characters in this debate. Whole books have been written on the foundations of Liberty. My opponent cannot simply drop the comment, “oh, by the way, liberty doesn’t exist,” and expect me to lay out a detailed, 1,000-page philosophical analysis about the existence of liberty. To do this is incredibly abusive. For our purposed here, and indeed for our purposes throughout our entire lives, it is sufficient for Liberty to be presupposed. After all, we are imperfect humans; we can’t even validly do math without axioms, so how can we be expected to deal with deep, complex concepts like morality without them? Afterwards, my opponent again draws an absolutely ludicrous analogy between the concept of human liberty and human sacrifice. This comparison is so absolutely absurd that I hardly need to address it. However, I will. The Mayan’s were wrong. Just because they thought that you could violate a person’s intrinsic freedom so that you could sacrifice him to the sun god doesn’t mean that it is in fact the case. Seabiscuit: “This is the main voter in the round. The fact that property rights aren't inherent for every human being implies that in a system of distributive justice there is no "theft occurring" rather a collective proletariat bargain for some net benefit.” FACT: This blurb basically just repeats my opponent’s ridiculous mantra that no one owns anything, and therefore taking things from people cannot be theft, and that the government confiscating individuals’ property to give it to undeserving citizens, turning them into societal leeches, is “a collective proletariat bargain for some net benefit.” Not only is this blatantly false, but what benefit is being bargained for in this fictional world? Mutual exploitation? Equal poverty? Distributed misery? These are the things that arise when the unjust system of distributive justice is imposed on the people. In conclusion, I have ONCE AGAIN extended the arguments in my constructive case, which my opponent has ONCE AGAIN completely failed to answer or even address in any way at all. Also, my opponent has ONCE AGAIN not extended a single one of his previous arguments, in addition to dropping additional unsubstantiated and often incoherent arguments. At this point, it really couldn’t be more obvious that that the Negative should win this debate.