Social Darwinism is a just theory

Morality"I would like to keep this argument economic rather than philosophical"I can totally appreciate this, but assessing "justness" is difficult without a moral framework."the general consensus of morality would be great (basically having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without infringing on anyone else's rights)."This sounds to me more like the declaration of independence rather than any broad consensus of morality, but sure, let's take that as our "golden rule" for now.Now this clearly talks about a "right to life" which seems to be entirely at odds with SD as defined by Pro. How can such a right be secured by public policies that don't distinguish on the basis of need? The very essence of SD is that those who don't prosper should perish and nothing about SD policies ties in with this concept of the sanctity of life.SuccessPro has conceded that some rich people didn't earn their wealth, but hasn't addressed the important issue of those who achieve wealth by the ruthless exploitation of others. Fraudsters, gangsters, con-men and dictators may very well all "earn" their wealth, but do they really deserve it?As far as a higher tax rate being "punishment", I don't accept this at all. Taxes are a contribution back to the society that sustains and protects the wealth of the rich. It seems entirely fair that those who have benefitted from society the most and have the least need should contribute the most.The level of income disparity in modern western society is disgusting. Those with wealth can create more wealth for themselves with minimal effort due to financial systems such as interest on savings. They can also afford to hire skilled accountants to make their earnings seem far less than they are to reduce their tax bill, while poorer workers have their money taken straight from their paycheque. How is it fair to tax someone struggling to survive at the same rate as we tax someone living in opulence?Pro seems to accept that people who purchase food with food stamps aren't actually stealing themselves (as he previously suggested) but maintains that taxes are theft since he believes that they fall under our agreed definition of stealing: taking without consent.This is false however. When a person accepts an employment contract or registers as a business owner or as self-employed, they sign documents agreeing to have tax deducted from their payslip, or accepting the responsibility of filing a tax return. This is clear consent. Those unwilling to pay taxes should not choose to work in a society with a tax based economy.Higher taxes and socialismPro drops his plea for the middle class and returns to defending the richest people in society. But there is no need for progressive taxes to operate to the extent that they discourage financial success. Social policies don't all operate on the basis of completely equalising everyone's wage no matter what their job role and skills are. Those with a higher education level or skillbase who are performing the most needed jobs in our society deserve to be paid more than the unskilled or unproductive. Remember that the richest are inherently those most able to afford a higher tax bill, and are certain not to face hardship due to thir taxes.Pro talks about welfare fraud being eliminated, but doesn't address tax fraud. "Tax evasion costs the Treasury £15.2 billion in lost revenue, while benefit fraud costs £1.1 billion every year" [1], it is clear which of the two is more of a burden on the economy.Pro seems to make the unwarranted assertion that an economy can never prosper on a co-operative basis, despite apparently accepting that productive activities are best accomplished in this way. He says: "People don't think about working together with others to boost the economy, all they worry about is earning and spending money themselves" but he doesn't explain how this status quo is desirable or just.He claims that "Hogging the ball is good for the economy, because the more money you have, the more you can put back into the market" but it is clear that if people just hoard their money, there is no benefit to the economy as a whole, merely to the individual. Pro's own source on a survey of millionaires makes the observation that they are without exception "tightwads".I think my opponent's somewhat off-topic attempt to prove the superiority of capitalism to communism has been soundly refuted.BillionairesResponse to the round 1 argument I didn't have room to address before:I don't really see the relevance of the seemingly altruistic actions of these two men as we are discussing the morality of the theory rather than that of its proponents. I wouldn't necessarily connect Carnegie or Rockefeller with SD anyway, I'd be more likely to think of Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton or a certain famous Austrian chap with a silly moustache :)Rebuttals to my case:1. I think I've shown how the appeal to nature of SD is doubly fallacious. Not only does it reject civilisation with the baseless assumption that what is natural is moral, it is also factually inaccurate as natural evolution tends to favour animal groups that cooperate [2,3]. Pro counters this with an example of red deer. He provides no evidence for the competitive behaviour of this extremely social herd animal and in using it as an example of successful species, seems to ignore the fact that it is highly endangered [4]2.Pro apparently concedes that cooperation is more efficient than competition among humans, but doesn't recognise how this applies to the resolution. While this is a point of practicality rather than morality, I think it's highly relevant as many of Pro's arguments seem based on the alleged efficiency of SD policies and of capitalism in general.Pro's only response here is that the economy is based on competition as well as cooperation, but he doesn't justify this status quo in any way.3. Pro accepts the quoted argument as valid but insists that it is irrelevant when it is anything but.Most of Pro's arguments have consisted of defending the mega rich from the "attack" and "theft" of progressive taxation, on the basis that rich people, (whether honest or dishonest and whether hardworking or lazy,) should be free to hoard the fruits of their labour and should not feel obligated to contribute back to the society that enabled their success.This quote, that he apparently accepts, makes clear the case that nobody in America today got rich on their own, only through the support and security of a society funded by taxpayers contributions and that those who have benefitted the most shoud be compelled to contribute back the most.[1] http://citywire.co.uk...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.pbs.org...