Communism > Capitalism

My opponent advocates for no justice system and for punishments exercised by the common people. My opponent is advocating anarchism. Though Communism vs. Capitalism is an Economic debate, communism also holds a reign over governing of the country - so I will address the problem of justice to further show communism's flaws even though Capitalism doesn't go into the area of governing. What my opponent does not understand is that if there is no justice system, most crimes will go unpunished (without a properly trained investigation team, most crimes will go under the radar). A court system gives an accused person the the ever needed ability to hear out their case and dismiss them if they are in fact not guilty. Further more, a court system helps the punishment of crimes go along faster. Would there need to be a public vote every time someone did something that irked another person? The amount of "bad things" that could happen are numerous, and a justice system (a fair one at that) helps keep the public in check and helps move things along faster so that everyone else could go on with their day. I should also ask my opponent: who exactly in the community gets to vote on the punishment? Would it be fair to execute a punishment if not everyone in the "country" got to vote if such a thing was immoral or not? Wouldn't that be "unjust"? Isn't it more fair to have a system where people know what is wrong and what is right, instead of having everyone's heads in the hands of the citizens who live in that town? How would people go about their day if they in one area of the "country" doing drugs is just fine, but when they shoot up in another area the community wants off with their head? Laws don't just come into being without vote in a Democracy (and of course they can be ammended). A citizen vote for a law, then a constant execution of that law which everyone knows is in the books sounds a lot more sane to me then a flighty public vote by the people (with multiple problems this can present). A Democracy trumps a communism in this regard. And because Capitalism is an economic system, it can team up with such a governing body as a Democracy (leaving it in the win in this situation). A couple of things that are needed to be enforced by a police system which, according to what my opponent has presented, doesn't exist in a communism: 1. Traffic (parking, speeding, crash investigation, etc) 2. Theft (location of stolen item, location of thief) 3. Riot control 4. Witness Protection 5. Murder investigations, rape investigations Etc. My opponent presents that to say communism shouldn't exist because of a flaw in the system is silly. My opponent is clearly mistaken, because justice is a huge issue that effects every single country. In countries where the government doesn't have a properly working justice system, we can see that the community doesn't really work very well in demonstrating fair punishment (we can look Darfur for a quick example). So, I can safely say that my opponent advocates unfairness in his system, and that opposition to it is just "silly". My opponent goes on to attack currency by saying that bartering came before it and people were just fine. What my opponent doesn't seem to get is that currency is far more superior to bartering. Money can be used to buy just about anything. It is more compact, it is accepted by everyone, and it wont leave you starving if someone doesn't want to trade with you. Bartering and currency are essentially the same concept, except that currency can be transported easier and can show value easier, amongst many other things. My opponent claims that intrinsic motivators are far better than extrinsic. Well, no one says that in a Capitalism people can not be motivated by both. What Capitalism has that outshines communism is a way for people to make money if other people don't feel giving. No one says that in a Capitalism people will not donate, or people will not have fund raisers or charities for the poor. People will just get rewarded better in a Capitalism, both through the power of currency (meeting a value) and through public love (the person who finds the cure to cancer will not only get a nice dent in his bank account, but will probably be loved by much of his country). Communism doesn't offer extrinsic but only intrinsic, making it inferior in this position. My opponent states how American schools are failing, but doesn't realize that American schools are not "capitalistic." The most Capitalistic schools in the U.S. are probably the private schools (both universities and grammar schools). My opponent using the U.S. as an example is void. My opponent then goes on to critique the pay of teachers by showing the pay of a professional athlete. Athlete's get their money because people want to watch them. People pay to go to games, people pay to see them on television, people pay for merchandise etc. Also, being a professional athlete is not an easy job, if this is what my opponent is implying. Not many people get to be Michael Jordan, but there are far more teachers. Teachers are paid by the school, whom is paid by the students who wish to go there. I'd like for my opponent to do the math. My opponent is also ruining his own argument here because the U.S. is not a purely Capitalistic economy (it's a Socio-Capitalistic economy). Schools in the U.S. are paid for by the government (thus, teachers also being paid by the government). There is no purely Capitalistic state, so my opponents critique fails. My opponent's stance on laws and equality and rights are those of anarchism and not communism, so I have yet the need to rebuttal those claims (this can actually also be extended to his arguments on the justice system). My opponent says that if someone needs an item, it will be supplied to them. Well, who gets priority over what? What if there are only a set amount of product X (let's say 5), and 11 people need product x. Who will get it? What if the need is the same? Will it go down to a democratic vote, or will something like currency show who has given more to the society in order to obtain such a product in said case? My opponent's arguments on competition can be followed up on by my former arguments about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. I already argued that everyone can provide for a society in some way (Steven Hawking being physically impaired but providing intellectually, etc), so I don't see where my opponent thinks he has an upper hand there. And also, my opponent fails in his critique, again, that Capitalism doesn't supply a channel for intrinsic rewards. Also, my opponent is advocating that successful people's resources be taken from them - I hope he doesn't think he can trade one "wrong" for another one, as I presented in my former round and he didn't answer. Also, i never used the USSR to attack the governing process of Communism. I was suing it as an example of giving things up for the community (which I can also use Nazi Germany as an example for, which was not a communism). Concluding, I'd like to ask my opponent if he is advocating Communism or Anarchism? His rounds are confusing the governing of the political systems immensely... Also... sure John Locke says there are "natural" laws, but that doesn't mean people naturally follow them. Let's have a reality check here, seriously....