Communism is justified in poor countries.

Thanks for the debate TheSquadBoss. ==Definitions== According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "justified" means "to demonstrate or prove to be just" and "just" is "consistent with what is morally right." [1][2] ==Burden of proof== My opponent, as the instigator, has the burden of proving that Communism is consistent with what is morally right. My opponent lays a burden on me: "To merely suggest that communism is a bad system does to meet the burdens for victory in these debate." I will not "merely" prove that Communism is bad but will prove either that 1) there are better systems or 2) Communism is not morally right. ==My Case== I will show that Communism is not consistent with what is morally right. The system of morality that I offer is libertarianism. C1) Morality Murray N. Rothbard explains the libertarian creed as follows: "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the ‘nonaggression axiom.'" [3] From this central axiom follows three tenets: the right to self-ownership, strict property rights, and free markets. Communism violates all 3 of these tenets. People do not have the right to self-ownership; the State can conscript its citizens into the army and force them to sacrifice themselves in its name. Every day, the State violates property rights by confiscating "from each according to his ability" and redistributing hard earned property "to each according to his needs." Lastly, Communism is the opposite of free markets, with 100% of the economy being planned and controlled by the State. Libertarianism believes in equal liberty whereas Communism believes in equal results. [4] C2) True Communism leads to complete inaction and extinction Rothbard explains, "'Communism' holds that every man should have the right to own his equal quotal share of everyone else. If there are two billion people in the world, then everyone has the right to own one two-billionth of every other person. In the first place, we can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone else, yet is not entitled to own himself. Secondly, we can picture the viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any action whatever without prior approval or indeed command by everyone else in society. It should be clear that in that sort of ‘communist' world, no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish. But if a world of zero self-ownership and one hundred percent other ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that direction also contravene the natural law of what is best for man and his life on earth." [5] C3) In practice, Communism inevitably leads to a dictatorship by a ruling class Rothbard continues, "The participatory communist world cannot be put into practice. For it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal quotal share of partial ownership over every other man. In practice, then, the concept of universal and equal other-ownership is utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore control and ownership of others necessarily devolves upon a specialized group of people, who thereby become a ruling class. Hence, in practice, any attempt at communist rule will automatically become class rule." [6] C4) Communism empirically fails The free market is inherently better at correctly allocating resources according to demand. The Soviet planned economy was well known for bureaucratic oversights that would result in "stores" carrying far too much toothpaste and far too few shoes, for example. Rothbard continues, "Socialism was a confused and hybrid movement because it tried to achieve the liberal goals of freedom, peace, and industrial harmony and growth—goals which can only be achieved through liberty and the separation of government from virtually everything—by imposing the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. It was a movement which could only fail, which indeed did fail miserably in those numerous countries where it attained power in the twentieth century, by bringing to the masses only unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding impoverishment." [7] Communist regimes have willfully murdered approximately 260 million of their citizens over the course of human history. [8] Most of these murders were carried out to silence political dissidents. Communist regimes have sacrificed countless others for the greater good. Stalinist Russia sacrificed 7 million lives to starvation due to farm collectivization. [9] Mao Zedong forced his people to make steel in their backyards instead of farming, leading to the deaths of 45 million people in 4 years. [10] From C1, these statistics all prove that Communism violates the right to self-ownership (the right to life). ==Rebuttal== R1) My opponent claims that poor countries cannot survive without Communism. However, even Somalia, one of the worst countries in the world, has faired better under anarchocapitalism than under State planning. According to the Mises Institute, "Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming." [11] The Asian Tiger economies all disprove my opponent's argument; Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all went from being poor to wealthy countries using free market capitalism. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are seeing astronomical economic growth due to their free market reforms. [12] My opponent next cites an example that a carpenter should work as hard on another's home as on his own home. This happens under laissez faire capitalism because if the carpenter does not work hard enough on his neighbor's home, the neighbor will fire him and tell other neighbors not to hire the carpenter. (Turn) The carpenter would not work hard on another's home under Communism because he receives his quota of food, clothes, etc whether or not he works hard. The only house he has an incentive to work hard on is his own. My opponent next describes a system of bartering. Bartering and trade only exist under capitalism; Communism reserves all property rights to the State. My opponent cites Cuba as a good example of Communism. According to the Chicago Tribune, in Cuba, "food shortages are frequent, the stock of adequate housing has shrunk, and hospital patients often have to bring their own sheets, food and even medical supplies." [14] The same source says that Chile has become 4 times wealthier than Cuba since 1980 "thanks to bold free-market reforms." R2) China's incredible economic growth was mostly due to opening up its economy three decades ago and allowing its export sector to grow dramatically. [13] China's success is almost entirely attributable to its free market reforms. State run companies are terrible; "While state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are suffering growing financial losses, the nonstate sector is developing tremendously." [15] According to my opponent, China is still ruled undemocratically by the CCP but now has a free market. A dictatorship paired with capitalism is defined as fascism. I ask my opponent if he endorses Nazi Germany as a good form of government. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15]