Fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, capitalism is the best economic and political system.

Much thanks to my opponent for understanding my migraine troubles. I like to make the first post right after I pick up the argument though, which is why I posted under the influence anyway.... A short version of my first paragraph in the previous round would be something like - "If one can successfully argue that there is no positive right to property, then the whole discussion of capitalism is moot because the justification for capitalism relies on the positive right to property." I'm unsure why my opponent states I have conceded that Fiscal equality is unjust - I took that to be a premise of the resolution. However, if this is open for debate, I ask my opponent to elaborate on whether he means fiscal equality as in a basic living stipend or a minimum wage. I shall respond to my opponent's contentions... I do indeed like these very structured debate formats... 1) Capitalism is biased towards those who already own property. My opponent's contention on this point is that since no property lasts forever, the bias disappears over time. However, many of the people that already own property are able to accumulate wealth at a disproportionate rate to even those with a higher level of education. The long term that *might* eliminate the bias is far longer than a generation. The bias may indeed be limited, but it still remains. 2) Capitalist markets are subject to various problems of justness. a) A government-run economy is not a monopoly by any means. When the people have control of the government, the people are able to control the market. The reason government-run economies fail quite frequently is because the government that is IN control isn't answering to the people, which is a problem with the specifics of government, not the idea itself. In the case of monopoly, my opponent contends there is demand for competition. It is simply not a salient option to form competition against large corporations. If it were, monopolies like Intel, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart would have serious competition from various sources. b) My opponent contends that high-wage jobs are more important or in higher demand. This is also not the case. If there were a 10% drop in lawyers worldwide, companies would continue to function with a minor hiccup. However, if there were a 10% drop in sanitation workers worldwide, companies would be scrambling to hire more people to take out the trash. Nobody argues that effort results in output, but consider the case where the actuary who spends 4 years in school makes more than the person who has spent 12 years getting a doctorate in English. Input is not always proportional to output, and never will be. c) What I refer to are called externalities - a good example would be global warming, but that doesn't say much for a preventable system. Another example might be a city where the main economic powerhouse is a factory. If the factory changes something in their finances, say, the price they pay their workers, it forces a change in the economy of the entire town. ******************************* A defense of my two positions... 1) Regulated Capitalism. My opponent misunderstands the use of regulations that I propose. The government would be responsible for regulations to keep the market stable. The example my opponent uses is an example of something the government would regulate regardless of the economic system - flammable material in cars is a public safety concern, which is of the utmost importance to the state. A regulated capitalist market is not as subject to the instabilities from externaities that an unregulated market is. Also, it would be impossible for injustices like polarized wages and monopolies to exist in a regulated market. 2) Libertarian Marxism. I was kind of shooting in the dark with this idea, but my opponent has properly characterized the system - the people are free and democratically control a government that (somewhat) owns & controls the means of production. However, he has made some incorrect assumptions regarding the economics of such a system. Education and effort would still play a role in one's benefit from the system. However, since the people own the means of production via the government, the decision of factors like wages and monopolies falls to the majoritarian processes of the populace. Thus, assuming the people writ large make just and fair economic decisions, the system writ large is just and fair. Any system that is just and fair is inherently better than capitalism, due to the flaws I have illustrated above.