Libertarians Should Not Indentify As Capitalists

My opponent has accepted his burden of proof, that he must prove that no libertarian should identify as a capitalist. I contend that, while the libertarian opposes many aspects of the status quo in the United States, he does not necessarily oppose private property, and therefore there is not reason for one to refrain from identifying as a capitalist. My opponent's argument that "it can be shown then that the word Capitalist is generally used to mean this status quo" fails because is not confirmed by any of his sources. Capitalism is only a part of the status quo, that part being the existence of private capital. The author listed in my opponent's fourth source is arguing that Obama seeks to replace the capitalist system (a system of private capital ownership) with socialism (a system of collective capital ownership) [1]. So, capitalism does not mean the entirety of the status quo. In fact, in my opponent's second source [2], capitalism is equated with economic freedom, which libertarians support, and a country is said to be more capitalist if it has a more privatized economy, something some libertarians support, and low taxation, something all libertarians support. My opponent also offers a tactical argument, that libertarians should not call themselves capitalist to avoid the discussion of whether or not the status quo is capitalism. Indeed, such a choice would be efficient and would avoid unnecessary associations. My opponent's source [3] confirms that the more intelligent choice of words would be "free enterprise," whose approval rating is 25% higher than that of "capitalism," and whose definition is more specific to many libertarian's economic stance [4]. The question still lies, though, in whether or not libertarians themselves should denounce capitalism if asked, "Are you a capitalist? " The tactical answer is "Yes" as opposed to "No" because more potential converts support the word capitalism than oppose, and because to denounce the system of private ownership of capital would lead to a contradiction that would confuse many potential converts. My opponent then makes an argument compares capitalism to mercantilism improperly. My Round 1 etymology of capitalism gives the reason why capitalism is capitalism and not landism or laborism. Further, the term capitalist is as distinct from crony capitalism [5] as Marxism is from Stalinism; people that identify as Capitalists are generally not supporters of Crony Capitalism as people that identify as Marxists are generally not supporters of Stalinism. I agree to my opponent's definition of libertarianism, but I still contend that, in the context of this debate, Kevin Carson's beliefs should be limited to only defining what is libertarian and what is not and that his statements not be taken as indisputable truth. In conclusion, because the definition of libertarianism presented includes private property ownership, there is no reason why libertarians should contradict themselves in proclaiming to be against capitalism. Capitalism is a part, not the whole, of the status quo, and while many libertarians seek to improve the current system, their improvements are themselves capitalist. To avoid or deny such a word, therefore, is silly. This negates the resolution. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.libnot.com... [2] . http://answers.yahoo.com... [3] . http://www.gallup.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...