The entire world economic system is evil. (Con = is not evil).

For the sake of 5 rounds I will accept this new debate. But for the ultimate lack of time I will have to keep this short. A concept cannot have a brain either. Therefore a CONCEPT cannot be either anti-human/ evil. It isn't anti-human either, because the economy is a way of life for all people. If it were anti-human there would be no humans left. Anti-anything requires the eradication of whatever its against. Because of this I feel the rest is of topic, but I'll refute the points anyway, for the sake of debating. "If there was no economy, and everyone cooperated, they would not starve" People do not always cooperate. People are greedy and cruel sometimes. People crave power. People are sometimes insane. All of these aspects of people make this cooperation impossible. Its a nice idea, the thought of roughly 6.5 billion people working together. But it is simply impossible. For this to work and all 6.5 billion people getting food most people would have to cooperate. For example farmers would have to give away surplus food to other neighbors. Now, what if the farmer was self sufficient? He has enough food to keep himself and his family going, they have a well of water, their house is built from the wood of surrounding trees, their clothes are made from cattle skins, and they have enough cattle, each in herds of about 20 or so, and of various breeds and variety's (so the chances of them getting diseases and spreading them to all cattle are an impossibility). They also have various other plants, oh and lets say they have 11 kids all grown up so they have a large enough workforce to keep this place going. The neighbors are starving but the farmer is greedy. He doesn't want anyone else benefiting from his family's work except for his family. What should happen? You cannot guarantee that there are no people like this, its impossible to vouch for all the 6.5 billion people out there. Would you propose taking all this away from him, because this is ALSO anti human. It would be incredibly hypocritical. "We may not even need to hunt ourselves after all. That's why we have farmers, yes? " What if not enough people don't want to be farmers. This after all is a profession that numbers are dropping in. What happens then? Do we force people to become farmers? "*You do not get paid for a job. You do a job you enjoy doing, if you have the brains or strength, and you cooperate by giving people a service. E. g. in your computer example: computer is free because, it is made from materials obtain free - minerals and elements, like silicon, are mind by miners and given to those who need it for products" I want to become a wall climber instructor. How is this going to benefit society. For the sake of argument lets say I have the brains/ strength for this job. Now there aren't enough farmers about the place. So we'll say for the sake of the greater good I'm made become a farmer (starving people are more important then people who want to be taught how to wall climb). I resent this completely. It would be a bit anti- human as well, as its against the humans who want to be wall climbers instead of farmers. What about people who simply want to paint all day? Who want to create amazing pieces of art? Or musicians? How do they make a living? I'll play you this song if you give me a car? Anyway, went a bit off topic there. ..