JT Round 3 - spy66 vs OnceReturned - Generational Servitudes

The topic for this debate is "Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy.”

spy66 will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
OnceReturned will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

spy66 will take over for jennybee35 and has 24 hours from the time stamp of this post for his Opening Argument.

I want to start out this debate by saying. Thanks for a second chance. And i hope i will be a very good challenger to OnceReturned. I do hope that i get the upper hand of this debate, But to be political correct and proper i think OnceReturned deserve the real deal. i just dont hope i will make this one easy for him.

Good luck Oncereturned. Lets have a good debate


I have been challenged with the task to argue that Modern American Capitalism is worse than Medieval Monarchy.

In other words: who is less evil of the two evils?

This is a very emotional topic that can be angled from many different directions. Finding the right approach that gives this topic the right history and image is very important. Because, it is important to know what we are, and what we are a part of.
We have to know what we are, and what we are a part of, to make a choice.

To get the idea of what we are and what we are a part of. I want to talk about Farming. Not just any type of farming, but Human farming and Human livestock managing systems and approaches.
Because that is what Capitalism and Monarchy is. They are both human livestock managing systems and approaches, used by the Master farmers to control their livestock for greater production and profit and personal gain.

It is essential that we know the reality of the world we live in. Slavery is not a future that we should fear, but a past that we should acknowledge that we are still living in.

It is important to know: who serves who “and” for what purpose, to be able to determine what is worse.

How did it all start, how did normal farming turn into human farming?

Minimum Human managing began within the first family structure as the human being evolved a long long time ago. By how different tasks where divided among the family members to sustain minimum survivability and comfort for the family/flock.

Before we had tribes, governments and empires, people produced no more then what they could consume and carry with them.

But as different groups of people began to communicate, hunt and gather food together. Small tribes started to evolve. A larger group of people made it possible and safer to protect and keep a larger hunting ground from other human beings and other predators.

Tribes figured out that they could improve their food access by hunting, capturing and breeding wild animals, and storing them within their tribe “property” as livestock. They also learned that some animals could be used to replace human Labour, and as a means for a more efficient way of transportation.

Agriculture “farming” started to improve, and was made easier when we started to use animals to replace our old ways for gathering food.

There are 4 very important key issues to pay attention to in what I have said so far.

The key issues to pay attention to are:

1. Human beings claiming ownership over Property “hunting grounds” Property that we today call our nation/country.

2. Animals become human property. “Human beings claiming ownership over other life that walks on their property” Today we don’t see anything odd with that. It’s natural.

3. Animal livestock replace human labour.

4. The tribal life becomes much easier.

But farming does not just stop with the capturing of wild animals, as a mean for a more productive livestock and a better way of life.
Human beings have also learned that other human beings can be used as a productive asset for producing access food and additional products. So hunting, capturing, breaking in and owning another human being becomes a additional valuable asset to a tribe. There for it becomes attractive to own other human beings.

The idea of having the right to have ownership over other human beings meant conflict, illegal activities and Wars.

This is how tribes evolved into great nations and empires, by enslaving other human beings and claiming the right to their property.

What people have to see is here, is that animal livestock and property is actually less valuable then a human being. A human being that can be forced to control animal livestock and perform other duties for he’s master is priceless.

Today human beings are been forced in one way or another by taxation or debt to control/handle different tasks. I will get to that later.

So what does our farm(s) look like now?

1. Property “empire” “nation”
2. Master farmers (Kings and Emperors) “self proclaimed owners of property”.
3. Army, police. “the protectors of property and Kings and Emperors interests”
4. Farmers “The Elite”
5. Slaves.
6. Animals.
7. Agriculture.

To be able to drift a farm like this. You need to claim taxes. A system has to be applied to make this work. Because the Master farmer need resources to protect and run he’s property, and not to mention, to protect himself.

What we are getting to now is: Human farming and human livestock managing systems and approaches.

Next I will explain how human farming and human livestock managing systems and approaches are being camouflaged with synonyms. Because, our impressions of politics are nothing but a camouflage to conceal the real farming management system. It has been made to appear or be something it is not.

Why is this important to know. Because it will explain what we are and what purpose we have. It is important to know what purpose we have to be able to tell if we like it or not.

Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy.

I'm going to argue that the above statement is false. My position is that modern American capitalism is better than medieval monarchy. As I will show, the relevant facts support this position overwhelmingly.

Based on my opponents opening argument, I suspect that his tactic will be to convince readers that America today is a slave state and that life as a common person is terrible and hopeless because of "the elite" behind the scenes who secretly control and manipulate everything and everyone for their own benefit. The tale that he will tell is a fictional one, and as such he will be able to provide no evidence in support of it. I intend to make it impossible for him to reconcile his preposterous position with the facts.

Capitalism reduces poverty and increases economic opportunity for the populations which participate in it more than any other system. Consider the following excerpts from the 2001 CATO Institute article, "Ending Mass Poverty."

The historical record is clear: the single, most effective way to reduce world poverty is economic growth. Western countries began discovering this around 1820 when they broke with the historical norm of low growth and initiated an era of dramatic advances in material well-being. Living standards tripled in Europe and quadrupled in the United States in that century, improving at an even faster pace in the next 100 years. Economic growth thus eliminated mass poverty in what is today considered the developed world.

[...]

The West's escape from poverty did not occur by chance.

[...]

The most comprehensive empirical study on the relationship between economic policies and prosperity is the Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" annual report. It looks at more than 20 components of economic freedom, ranging from size of government to monetary and trade policy, in 123 countries over a 25-year period. The study finds a strong relationship between economic freedom and prosperity. Divided by quintiles, the freest economies have an average per capita income of $19,800 compared with $2,210 in the least free quintile. Freer economies also grow faster than less free economies.

Source

The CATO Institute is a high profile economic think-tank. The article quoted above was published in the U.S. State Department Journal, Economic Perspectives.

The fact is that free economies in systems which support and protect private ownership and property rights, and which promote free-market practices are better (for the people) than economies in systems which don’t. Capitalism - including modern American capitalism - is a system which embraces this idea. The medieval monarchies did not. Democracy is conducive to a free market. Monarchies are not.

Consider the following generally accepted definitions of capitalism and feudalism:

Capitalism - an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Feudalism - a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which broadly defined was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.

It is self evident which one of these systems is more conducive to economic growth and widespread prosperity, given the assessment expressed in the CATO report (an assessment which is widely accepted and expressed by many other groups and individuals).

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Poverty,” under traditional (non-industrialized) economic systems, poverty was the norm. This would have been the case in under a medieval monarchy. Today, under American capitalism, poverty is consistently under 15% even during the worst of the recent economic depression (according to the Census Bureau, www.census.gov...) This pair of facts alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that my position is correct and that my opponents is not.

Questions:

1) How can you reconcile the economic realities with your assertion that modern American capitalism is worse than a medieval monarchy?

2) So far we have discussed living conditions and economic opportunity in general. To what extent do you intend this debate to be about Generational Servitude? (The title of the debate but not the topic. . .)

3) You’ve painted the situation in America rather grimly, yet you’ve avoided a comparison with a medieval monarchy. Comparatively, how exactly is American capitalism worse?

4) You said that we’re living in slavery right now. By accepted definitions of slavery, this is not true. What definition are you using?

5) How do you account for the countless number of people born into a certain economic class who move up in the world throughout their life?

I am going to need a 24 hour extension.

My opponents questions.

1) How can you reconcile the economic realities with your assertion that modern American capitalism is worse than a medieval monarchy?

Well, the modern American capitalism has created more debt per person than any other nation, empire or kingdom has ever done. Debt enslaves people in a capitalistic world, so I would say that modern American capitalism has enslaved more people than any other before it.

There are less people who own personal property and capital to day then in the medieval times.

2) So far we have discussed living conditions and economic opportunity in general. To what extent do you intend this debate to be about Generational Servitude? (The title of the debate but not the topic. . .)

This is not just about money or who has earned more wealth. It is also about the ethics behind the creation of wealth and who actually owns it. The kings, emperors and the elites where very wealthy in the medieval times as well. The common man was kept from rising do to class, rank and lack of personal property “wealth”. The same tactic is used to day with capitalism.

3) You’ve painted the situation in America rather grimly, yet you’ve avoided a comparison with a medieval monarchy. Comparatively, how exactly is American capitalism worse?

I haven’t talked about the American situation yet. I have tried to create a view that describes what liberties we human beings have taken. Like taking ownership over land, owning animals and other human beings, because they are key factors to the development of Capitalism and monarchy. As I said earlier, it is not just about the money. It’s about human ethics as well. Because that is what determines what is worse.

4) You said that we’re living in slavery right now. By accepted definitions of slavery, this is not true. What definition are you using?

Correct, but to have a modern capitalistic system. The majority of the human population cant own wealth, capital or property. Because that reduces the demand for human labour, leasing and borrowing. Which is modern American capitalism.

5) How do you account for the countless number of people born into a certain economic class who move up in the world throughout their life?

This is the reason why the world is in such debt. The people who wants to move up must borrow or lease from the rich/government. Only a very few move up do to the product they trade or wage they get from their trading position.


My opponents view of my last post:

“Based on my opponents opening argument, I suspect that his tactic will be to convince readers that America today is a slave state and that life as a common person is terrible and hopeless because of "the elite" behind the scenes who secretly control and manipulate everything and everyone for their own benefit. The tale that he will tell is a fictional one, and as such he will be able to provide no evidence in support of it. I intend to make it impossible for him to reconcile his preposterous position with the facts.”

Based on my opening argument I was laying the grounds and explaining the fundamentals and liberties that we human beings have taken upon our selves "for granted". Which have lead to the creation of Capitalism and Monarchy.
It is true that I want the readers to have a specific view about what I am saying. I think it is important to view society from more than one vantage point. I am not the only one who has to make a choice about which is worse.




Capitalism:

is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Statism:

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Modern American Capitalism is regulated by government doctrines. It is not a free and open market. A capitalist cannot trade with whomever he wants or how he wants. How the capitalist conduct he’s businesses is regulated by the managing system of the government. The capitalists have borrowed money from the government. Which makes the modern American capitalistic system a government sponsored enterprises. When modern American capitalism is really suppose to be a Countervailing power for corruption and other illegal activities.

So the definition for capitalism is false when used to explain modern American capitalism. The modern American capitalism has become a government state interest. The question now becomes. Does the government have the peoples interests at hand or does it just want to do business?

Here are some tools that the modern American capitalism use if the counter capitalist don’t fallow their doctrine. This does not support the definition of capitalism. But political ideology.

Embargoes:

is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it.

Blockade:

is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war materiel or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally.

Sanctions:

Economic sanctions - typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)

Political ideology:

"In the developing world, there is a pattern of inequality caused by the powerful subjugating the poor and keeping them dependent. Outside influence is often a large factor and access to trade and resources is the usual cause. It is often asked why the people of these countries do not stand up for themselves. In most cases when they do, they face incredible and often violent oppression from their ruling elites and from outsiders who see their national interests threatened"

If the capitalistic system or government was interested in creating wealth for every human being, the consumption chart wouldn’t look anything like this:



20% of the worlds richest consume 76% of the worlds produced wealth. And 80% of the world population produce the wealth for these 20%. This trend will never change with a capitalistic system, it will only get worse, and it has. When it is not being drifted as it is being portrayed by its own definition. Because only the riche really benefit from making the poor and the middle class work for them.

Why do we have poverty? Or better yet, economic prosperity?

Well, we have poverty when 80% of the world population don’t really have ownership over any property or real capital. The 80% either have to lease or borrow capital from the 16 to 20% that have capital and ownership over property. This creates economic prosperity because the 80% must promise to pay back the rich, plus interest and tax.

This is the model of capitalism. Capitalism can only work when only a few have real ownership over property and capital. You can now imagine why we have fought all these wars throughout history, and why we still do. We have either been fighting wars to secure our leaders property, or we have helped them fight wars to gain more property ownership “wealth”.

The reason why Modern American capitalism is worse than Medieval Monarchy, is because the governments of the world today have perfected the failures from the medieval times with new tactics.

Modern American capitalism have perfected the Roman model of slavery and taxation, to a point where we no longer see our selves as working slaves, but as free indivduals with human rights.

But not without a cost. More freedom means greater debt and higher taxes. In the modern American capitalistic system the common man has debt in one form or another "tax" all he’s life.

If you are not granted work, trade or debt you will live in poverty, and have restricted freedoms and will not be able to take part in the capitalistic system. Because you have no real ownership over property.

Sources:

History of slavery.
en.wikipedia.org...

The state of consumption today.
www.worldwatch.org...

Statism.
en.wikipedia.org...

Political ideology.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Crisis of the 14th century and the "pre-history of capitalism.
en.wikipedia.org...

War.
en.wikipedia.org...

Taking my extension. . .

I apologize for the delay, thank you for being accommodating.

My opponent’s argument has missed the mark. In his most recent post, he has described what he believes to be the undesirable elements in the theory of capitalism and in its practice in the United States. He has also identified economic disparity and poverty on a global scale. Neither of these issues address the topic of the debate. I have not suggested that modern American capitalism is perfect, or that the entire world participates in it. Capitalism is not perfect, and many countries do not participate in it. These facts are unrelated to the question of whether or not modern American capitalism is better or worse than medieval monarchy.

As I stated in my opening argument, it is a matter of fact that the population participating in modern American capitalism is better off economically than the population that participated in (or rather, lived under) medieval monarchies. Even though capitalism is not perfect, it’s better than medieval monarchy. The fact that poverty is common in other parts of the world that do not participate in modern American capitalism is irrelevant.

Well, the modern American capitalism has created more debt per person than any other nation, empire or kingdom has ever done. Debt enslaves people in a capitalistic world, so I would say that modern American capitalism has enslaved more people than any other before it.

First of all, debt is a zero sum game. For every dollar that is owed, it is owed to someone for whom it will be revenue. Loans and debt are just exchanges of money between people participating in the system, it doesn’t decrease the total resources within the system. In fact, over time, lending leads to growth in an economy.

Secondly, debt in America comes in only two forms: 1) money that an individual or organization borrows, of their own choosing, in order to buy something, and 2) the national debt which paid for by the tax payers. In both cases, the loan/debt system benefit the participants. Most companies are started with borrowed money, and loans are a huge component of the engine that drives economic growth. Individuals who borrow money to buy a house or a car do so because they feel it’s worth it, and usually it is. Personal loans allow individuals to draw on their entire lifetime earning potential relatively early in their life. This allows many more people to own cars and homes than could otherwise. As for the government debt that tax payers pay for, much of this money goes to supporting the sick, elderly, and poor. Other significant sources of government debt are infrastructure related. All of these government services make things better for those who participate in our system, and no comparable programs existed in medieval monarchies. Taxes benefit our poor more than any other group because they pay the least and receive the most valuable services.

Finally, borrowing money doesn’t “enslave” anyone. Private and corporate debt is accumulated by choice, and if you owe money it doesn’t mean that someone owns you, it just means you have to pay back the person you borrowed from. Government debt is only paid for by tax payers, and you only pay taxes if you earn money. The government doesn’t own anyone, but you participate in the system that the government maintains and you earn money by doing so, you are obligated to contribute to the maintenance of development of the system. None of this resembles slavery.

There are less people who own personal property and capital to day then in the medieval times.

That’s patently false. There are more people who own property today than were even alive in medieval times, and a vastly greater percentage of people participating in modern American capitalism own property (and own more property) than people who lived under medieval monarchies. Consider the following facts:

"Under traditional (i.e., nonindustrialized) modes of economic production, widespread poverty had been accepted as inevitable. The total output of goods and services, even if equally distributed, would still have been insufficient to give the entire population a comfortable standard of living by prevailing standards. With the economic productivity that resulted from industrialization, however, this ceased to be the case"

From The Ecyclopedia Britannica, "Poverty"

Harvard economist Robert Barro notes that per capita income in the United States grew at an average 1.75 percent per year from 1870 to 1990, making Americans the richest people in the world.

From the CATO report linked in my opening argument.



Source

This is not just about money or who has earned more wealth. It is also about the ethics behind the creation of wealth and who actually owns it. The kings, emperors and the elites where very wealthy in the medieval times as well. The common man was kept from rising do to class, rank and lack of personal property “wealth”. The same tactic is used to day with capitalism.

If it’s about ethics, capitalism is superior in every way. There is more economic opportunity, the value of goods and services are determined by their actual value to society; the amount of money people are actually willing to pay for them, and at the end of the day the population as a whole is much, much better off. For the simple fact that the quality of life for the most people is higher under capitalism than medieval monarchies, it is ethically superior. More people faces more hardship in medieval times because of the economic system, that means it’s a worse system.

The fact that rich people exist is irrelevant. They got rich because people gave them the money in exchange for some good or service. The service was valuable to someone who was willing and able to pay for it, so the provider was compensated. That’s not an unethical practice. Even if you take a hard line communist approach and say that it’s unethical to allow people to become rich, it is a matter of fact that the population as a whole, rich and poor, is better of now than in medieval times; there are less poor people, more rich people, and the middle class has a higher quality of life.

The majority of the human population cant own wealth, capital or property. Because that reduces the demand for human labour, leasing and borrowing. Which is modern American capitalism.

The human population is not our group of interest. We’re discussing modern American capitalism. The participants of that system are all permitted to own property and capital, and many more of them do than did in medieval times. Contrary to you apparent impression, wealth in America is less concentrated than it was in medieval times.

Modern American Capitalism is regulated by government doctrines. It is not a free and open market. A capitalist cannot trade with whomever he wants or how he wants. How the capitalist conduct he’s businesses is regulated by the managing system of the government. The capitalists have borrowed money from the government. Which makes the modern American capitalistic system a government sponsored enterprises. When modern American capitalism is really suppose to be a Countervailing power for corruption and other illegal activities.

The fact that capitalism in America is regulated is of little importance to this conversation. The system is more free than the economies of medieval monarchies, and as a result it more productive and better for those who participate in it. The government’s participation in the economy does not change the fact that it’s a capitalist system, even if it means it’s not a theoretically perfect capitalism. We have one of the freest economies in the world, and as a result it is the most prosperous.

If the capitalistic system or government was interested in creating wealth for every human being. . .

It’s not interested in that. Neither were medieval monarchies. Capitalism creates more wealth for more of it’s participants than medieval monarchies did.

Well, we have poverty when 80% of the world population don’t really have ownership over any property or real capital.

Again, the parts of the world that aren’t engaging in either of the systems that we are comparing aren’t of interest to us. Globally, modern American capitalism is clearly the dominant system:



Source


My opponent is clearly interested in a straw man argument. The perfection of capitalism is not at issue here, and neither is the welfare of populations who didn’t/don’t participate in modern American capitalism or medieval monarchies. That’s at issue a virtue of these two systems relative to one another, not in isolation. When the comparison is made, the reality is clear; capitalism is better because it is better for the people who engage in it.

Questions:

1) If the economic system in America is not capitalism (as the economists seem to believe it is…), what type of economic system is it?

2) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe did/does more to aid it’s poorest people?

3) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe grants the government/king more control of the economy?

4) Based on your assessment, what economic system would be ideal?

5) If taxes amount to slavery in your opinion, why do you think American’s intentionally elect politicians who support higher taxes?

Because of work. I have no chance right now to make a reply. I will start making a reply tonight 20.02.2011.
And might have it ready by the 21.02.2011.

I am on a oil rigg at the moment and i work 12 hours shifts.


spy66

1) If the economic system in America is not capitalism (as the economists seem to believe it is…), what type of economic system is it?

Oversimplified the modern American system can be describes as capitalism, but it is not.
Modern American capitalism is a mixed economy, where the government play the important role over the private enterprise. Modern American capitalism is a government run enterprise. It is a Oligarchy.

2)Which of the two systems of interest do you believe did/does more to aid it’s poorest people?

None of them. They are the same but where one is more evolved.

3)Which of the two systems of interest do you believe grants the government/king more control of the economy?

Modern American capitalism, because modern American capitalism has become government controlled. The head of government acts as the King.

4)Based on your assessment, what economic system would be ideal?

The best based system is the Republican system which was the initial American system. A economic system guided by Republican law "The constitution" is the best system because it restrains the government from taking total control.

Today the US is guided by Democracy. A democracy creates its own rules. This might seam like a very good idea for most people, but if you think about it, it is not.

5) If taxes amount to slavery in your opinion, why do you think American’s intentionally elect politicians who support higher taxes?

Good question  I really wonder what would happen to the American people if taxes where to be raised today. All I can say is that they should be very careful for what they which for. Taxes come in many forms and once they are applied, you will never be quit them because they will effect the economy from your wallet to the items you have to buy.

Today in America there are more people on the verge of poverty than ever before. Because the government don’t spend their resources to reduce poverty. They actually take from everyone to sustain their power structure. When the economy is weak peoples benefits/liberties are restrained.




Monarchy or dictatorship?

This form of government doesn’t really exist in the practical sense. It’s always a group that always puts one of its own members up front.
A King has he’s cancel of nobles or earls, and every dictator has he’s bureaucrat or commissars "The men behind the seen". A monarchy is not ruled by one even though one person is the visible leader. Its always ruled by a group of wealthy individuals.



What has history thought us about freedom from medieval times?

The American founders had a clean cheat to write on. They could have set up a Oligarchy, in fact some wanted George Washington to be their King.

But the founding fathers knew History and they chose to give the rule of law in a republic, not the rule of a majority in a democracy.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the word Democracy does not appear in the declaration of independence or the US constitution. Nor does it appear in any of the constitutions of the 51 states.
The founding fathers did everything they could from keeping the people from having a democracy. Because a democracy rules by the majority in power and not the law or the people.

The founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt, because they knew the early democracies of the early Greek city states, produced some of the wildest accesses of government imaginable.
In every case they ended up with a Mob rule and then Anarchy and then finally Tyranny under an Oligarchy.

During that period in Greece there was a man named Solan, who urged the creation of a fixed body of law not subjected to majority whims.
But Where the Greeks never adapted Solans wise counsel, the Romans did.

Based on What the Roman knew about Solans laws, the Romans created the 12 tables of Roman law. And in effect, built a Roman republic that limited government power, and left the people alone.

Since the government was limited, the people where free to produce. With the understanding that they could keep the fruits of their labour.

In time Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world.


But that didn’t last for very long.

In the midst of plenty the Romans forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. When government power grows, peoples freedom reseeds and the economy fails.

Once the Roman people dropped their guard, power seeking politicians began to accede the power granted them by the Roman constitution.
Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government powers to take property from some to give it to others. Agriculture subsidies were introduced followed by housing and welfare programs. And then inevitably taxes rose and control over the private sector were imposed, soon the number of Rome’s produces could no longer make the ends meet, and they went downhill.

Does this seam familiar within the Modern American capitalism today? Its a true copy if you ask me. American debt is 14 trillion dollars. Over 50 trillion if you add pension, welfare and medication.

Productivity declined, shortages developed and mobs began roaming the streets demanding bread and circuses from the government. Many were induced to trade freedom for security. Eventually the whole system came crashing down. They when from a republic to a democracy, and ended up with a Oligarchy under a progression of the Cesar’s.


When Benjamin Franklin exited the constitutional convention in 1787. He was asked by a woman: What have you given us sir?

He’s immediate response was: a Republic. If you can keep it.


My opponent has always wondered what this has to do with modern American capitalism!

My response is everything. Modern American capitalism has turned into a government circus. A circus which our founding fathers warned us about.

Modern American capitalism has every signs that Rome experienced. Modern American capitalism is going through the exact same stages as Rome did.

Today the US dollar is on the verge of loosing its place as world currency do to government control with capitalism.

The Modern American capitalism is run by the US government. The US government today fronts democracy and not a republic. This means they don’t fallow the law “constitution”, but create new laws under the vote of a small democracy of elites "A Oligarchy".

Just as the Romans did, power seeking American politicians and capitalists have begun to accede the powers granted them by their own constitutional law as a republic.

The effect this will have on the people is what determines how bad this will turn out. I guess Rome is a good example of what is to come, modern American capitalism is on the same track.

What i have been trying to say is that peoples freedom and the economy is tied together.


A Republic:

A republic is a state under a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.[1][2] The term is generally also understood to describe a state where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic.

Democracy:

Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests.

Oligarchy:

The oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control.

There are the three political and economical stages Rome went through. Modern American capitalism is between Democracy and Oligarchy, but more close to Oligarchy. Soon modern American capitalism will be totally controlled by a Oligarchy system of power. And when that happens people will know what i have been talking about.

Apologies again for the delay. I'll definitely post within 24 hours.

The situation is this: my opponents position, that "Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy,” is indefensible. It’s clear that modern American capitalism is superior and all evidence is indicative of this fact. As a result, my opponent continues to resort to tactics other than defending or advancing his actual position; he aims instead to distract judges and interested readers in a variety of ways, mainly by discussing irrelevant aspects of the modern American system. He resists the necessary comparison with a medieval monarchy, and because this is a comparative exercise, he cannot present his position in a compelling way if he continues down this current path. His previous post, as well as what follows in this post, serves only to draw the readers attention away from the topic at hand, because the issue being debated has already been decided. He feels that his only hope is to win an argument about a separate issue, and convince readers that such a victory should result in him winning the debate. So long as the judges keep this in mind, I am confident that his tactic will not work. For this reason I will participate to some degree in this alternative argument, but I will do my best to draw the discussion closer to the real issue being debated here, and to avoid simply arguing about whether or not America is theoretically perfect capitalism, or whether capitalism is itself an ideal system.

Oversimplified the modern American system can be describes as capitalism, but it is not.
Modern American capitalism is a mixed economy, where the government play the important role over the private enterprise. Modern American capitalism is a government run enterprise.

Modern American capitalism does not fit the strictest definition of capitalism, that’s true. But, as we all know, it’s rarely the case that in reality an instance of some system is true to the letter of the definition of the type of system that it is, in the strictest sense. By my opponent’s reasoning, no capitalist system has ever existed, because since capitalism has been invented there have been governments participating in the economies of the nations which they govern.

Capitalism is not inconsistent with laws and limited government regulation. In modern America, the private sector is the engine of the economy. The government’s budget is a minority of GDP; tax revenues are a minority of GDP; goods and service producing entities are privately owned; and private individuals and companies can buy and sell goods with each other. The private sector “runs” the economy, not the government. The system is essentially capitalism. The extent to which it diverges from “true” theoretical capitalism is trivial, and totally unrelated to our debate.

It is a Oligarchy.

[…]

Democracy:

Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests.

Oligarchy:

The oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control.

There are the three political and economical stages Rome went through. Modern American capitalism is between Democracy and Oligarchy, but more close to Oligarchy. Soon modern American capitalism will be totally controlled by a Oligarchy system of power.

This assessment of the evolution of the American political system is oversimplified and inaccurate. For one thing, in the early years of America, only land-owning white men could vote. Now everyone over the age of 18 is given the right to vote. We’ve seen a tendency towards increased distribution of voting rights - and therefore power to participate in government - not a decrease. The fact that our government is based on a democratic system renders my opponents line of argument moot. If the people’s will is expressed in the government, and the government’s will is expressed in the economy, then it is the people’s will expressed in the economy. This is categorically different from medieval monarchies in that the will of a single individual - the king - was the deciding factor in all issues both economic and political.

2)Which of the two systems of interest do you believe did/does more to aid it’s poorest people?

None of them. They are the same but where one is more evolved.

But the United States spends billions on aid to it’s neediest people, and medieval monarchies spent none. Welfare programs like Medicaid and free services like education and emergency rooms account for a significant portion of the government’s operating budget. These programs are funded by tax revenues, which are collected in large majority from people who don’t receive the benefits of the programs (people with private healthcare and who send their kids to private schools). A tremendous amount of money is channeled from the highest earners to the average people and to needy people. As a result only a small fraction of Americans live in true poverty, whereas poverty worse than what we know was the norm during medieval times.

The systems are not the same and your characterization of one as simply being a “more evolved” version of the other is absolutely untrue.

… modern American capitalism has become government controlled. The head of government acts as the King.

As I discussed above, the fact that our government is populated by elected officials renders this line of argument powerless. America is controlled by a government that the American people have put in place. Royalty in medieval times was not this way. The difference between and elected president and a king is self-evident.

I don’t intend to engage my opponent in an argument about the history of America or what the founding fathers intended. The fact is that the participants in Modern American Capitalism are far better off than the subjects of Medieval Monarchy, and that’s what the debate is about it.

Questions:
1) What, exactly, is superior about a medieval monarchy when compared to the modern American system?

2) Perhaps this is the same question. . . What, exactly, is worse about the modern American system than medieval monarchy?

3) If you’re saying that they are essentially the same, how does that support your position, that “Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy?”

Questions:

1) What, exactly, is superior about a medieval monarchy when compared to the modern American system?

I will say this as my answer: Modern American capitalism will be the shortest lived economic system ever. The system is on the verge of collapse as we speak. And that is only after it has been in motion for barely a hundred years compare to Rome’s 482 years.

2) Perhaps this is the same question. . . What, exactly, is worse about the modern American system than medieval monarchy?

That we don’t see anything that is fundamentally wrong with our own present modern American capitalistic system.
That is why it will be the shortest lived and most painful economic system ever experienced by us common wage slaves.

3) If you’re saying that they are essentially the same, how does that support your position, that “Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy?”

This I will explain in some detail with my fallowing post..


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From my opponent:

“The situation is this: my opponents position, that "Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy,” is indefensible. It’s clear that modern American capitalism is superior and all evidence is indicative of this fact”.

Not true. The only fact is that today the majority of the world’s economy is run by what “we” call modern American Capitalism and not a medieval Monarchy form. But i beg to differ; Modern American capitalism is run by a Oligarchy system disguised as a democracy for political and economical reasons. So its basically still a monetary run system.

Modern American capitalism will be the shortest controlled economic system ever. The system is on the verge of collapse as we speak.

To refresh my opponents memory.

I have been challenged with the task to argue that Modern American Capitalism is worse than Medieval Monarchy.

In other words: who is less evil of the two evils?

I have to stress that I want to use my own approach on this topic to express my own view. And my opponents objective is to take it apart according to his view.


In my last post I explained the stages which medieval monarchy “Rome” when through.

It was Rome’s political circus that broke the Roman empire . Rome did not start out as a monarchy, it ended up as one after 482 years as a Roman republic. It went from a Republic to democracy to a Oligarchy and ended up with a tyranny under the Cesar's. And the Roman empire ended soon after.

Rome did not end because it had poor economy and poor social structure. Rome ended because it created a poor government which gradually took the freedom and rights from its own people. And created a poor social structure which in a very short time broke down the whole Raman economical foundation.

This is also very clear within modern American capitalism as well. The Americans have also gradually been stripped from the freedom they were given by their for fathers. When they changed form a republic to a democracy. It’s actually a Oligarchy rule, but politically it sound better to the people if the term democracy is used. It gives them the impression that they also have a saying.

When you take or restrict some once freedom and rights, which have been given by vote in a republican law. You take ownership over the people you govern by imprisoning them with new laws and regulations. Which the republican law “The constitution” restricts you from doing. But which a democracy allows you to do. The American people would never vote to restrict their own freedom. Only a government would do such a thing.


So how does it happen?

Well; you create a democracy. But does a democracy actually work as its definition depicts?

Democracy is a form of political organization in which all people, through consensus (consensus democracy), direct referendum (direct democracy), or elected representatives (representative democracy) exercise equal control over the matters which affect their interests

This form of democracy is the form that the majority of Americans believe that they have. And it’s true, the American people can vote for specific people to represent them in government. But that is where the democracy stops for the common American. That is where the definition of democracy ends.

Why?

Because as James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10:

that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

What James Madison is saying is that the real democracy actually takes place within the government when the government becomes too powerful. Ref. the Roman government also.

When a government becomes too powerful it takes ownership over the people by creating new laws and regulations by a democracy. In other words; people become government controlled property with new laws and regulations created by a democracy.

How has this system affected modern American capitalism?

Well, all you have to do is remember what the Romans did, because the Americans are doing the exact same thing. First the Americans created a republic, ruled by the constitutional law, and soon after the US became a superpower with great wealth.

The Americans felt great and free, and said that they lived in the land of opportunity. Now, why do you think they said that?

Because they were free individuals who could choose, engineer and produce wealth of personal choice. They could have this feeling; because they had a proper restricted and functional government that left the people alone to create wealth.

Now; remember that the Roman empire under a republican law lasted for about 482 years. The Roman’s used the same trade mark as the Americans do today. In those days the Romans said that Rome was the land of opportunity, where the people were free to engineer and produce great wealth. And they did.

We know that the Roman empire didn’t end well, we know that the people suffered a great deal towards the end, from the tyranny of the Roman government. But it started as a free republic!! Keep that in mind when you think about what the modern American capitalistic system is turning into.

The very young and modern American capitalistic empire hasn’t ended yet, so it’s hard to say how bad it’s going to be for the American people, and other nations who are tied into modern American capitalism. But already the modern American capitalistic system is on the verge of collapse, and it has barely lasted for a bit over a hundred years if we agree that modern American capitalism started year 1900.

From this time period; modern American capitalism has moved from being a republic to a democracy to a Oligarchy, where democracy is only being practiced within closed government doors.

The American people don’t really have a clue about the real status of their own capitalistic empire or government. Because all facts and information is government controlled through the media and is restricted to public view through censorship. The Politicians who you voted for; don’t discus political agendas with the people that they got their votes from. Because the people only play a democratic role on election day. And that is the only time the government really cares about your opinion. Because; they have to make promises to You so that you will elect them into power, "Promises" they never keep. They don’t have to because they run everything. This is the same for every other nation that has close ties to modern American capitalism. We are all on the same boat; Its just that we dont have the rudder.

In the modern American capitalistic system you can no longer engineer whatever you want. You are now being groomed, shaped and formed by the educational system, to maintain the modern American capitalistic system according to their standard. Because you are government property and you have to work for them and their interests. They will never pay or support you for something that is against or that can hurt their interests.

You have become a wage slave because you don’t own anything. I talked about this earlier. Only the wealthy inherit wealth and power in a capitalistic system. You will start your life with nothing. You even have to pay for your own education. And hope that you will be accepted by your qualification to be able to work for the capitalists on their privately owned property.


How bad is it going to be when the modern American capitalism collapses?

Well it’s not going to be easy for the US government to come up with a solution to its own problems, when its National debt is 14 trillion dollars, and its total debt is 55 trillion dollars. To all this you have to add the un founded government liabilities to the American people of 112 trillion dollars.

When the government no longer can sustain the wealth of its own people, because it has no access resources to hand out to them. We will see a political change unimaginable for our life time because of the technological power the government possesses over its own people.

1) What, exactly, is superior about a medieval monarchy when compared to the modern American system?

I will say this as my answer: Modern American capitalism will be the shortest lived economic system ever. The system is on the verge of collapse as we speak. And that is only after it has been in motion for barely a hundred years compare to Rome’s 482 years.

First of all, the notion that modern American capitalism is on the verge of collapse is a fringe view that is totally unsupported by the facts. America has by far the largest economy in the world; we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita. Just because the stock market has a few bad years doesn’t mean we’re on the threshold of the next Dark Age. We still have free wi-fi, space-ships, and super-computers that can defeat humans in Jeopardy. We’re no where near the end.

Second of all, even if you could make an incredibly strong argument to support this notion - which can’t be done - it’s still speculative. We know for a fact that medieval monarchies are all gone. If capacity to exist is your metric for success, all you have to do is look around. Modern American capitalism is thriving more today than any system ever on this planet - except modern American capitalism a few years ago - and medieval monarchies are nowhere to be found except in history books.

Thirdly, what does expected lifespan have to do with anything? More people possess a higher quality of life in America today than ever did in all of the medieval monarchies combined. We produce more, consume more, and live better. I’d like to redirect your attention to a couple images I linked in a previous post:

Image 1

Image 2

Consider that there were about as many people alive in medieval times on the planet as there are today in the United States:

Image 3

Modern American capitalism is better for more people no matter how you slice it. Ridiculous apocalyptic predictions aside; this system is booming and medieval monarchies are dead.

That we don’t see anything that is fundamentally wrong with our own present modern American capitalistic system.
That is why it will be the shortest lived and most painful economic system ever experienced by us common wage slaves.

That we have progressive movements in this country is proof that some people do see things wrong with our present system. That amendments are made to our constitution is proof that we as a nation don’t think the system is perfect. That political descent is as common as it is proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your first statement here is false. We don’t think the system is perfect.

On the other hand, based on the results, we have the best system in the world and in the history of the world. If you think that Americans are living in “the most painful system” as “slaves,” you simply don’t know how good you’ve got it. Try Somalia. We’re the richest country in the world and we live outrageously well because of it. You can go to a hospital right now with a stroke, and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent to save your life even if you’ve never paid a dime in taxes or to health insurance. There are entire communities today in third world countries that don’t have an operating budget that high. If you think being an average person living in poverty (because that’s what average people did) in the Dark Ages was better than living in America today, you’re either crazy or misinformed.

You’re not going to convince anyone that America is “the most painful” system to live in, or that Americans are “slaves.” It’s obviously untrue.

First of all, the notion that modern American capitalism is on the verge of collapse is a fringe view that is totally unsupported by the facts. America has by far the largest economy in the world; we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita.

Exactly. That is why:


Net Energy Will Lead To The End Of American Capitalism And To A Rapid Decline In World Population.

The soul reason that there are close to 7 billion people on earth to day; Is because of our large modern fossil fueled industry, fossil fueled mechanized agriculture and Oil resources. Because of our easy access to fossil fuel energy; there is a significantly larger population today than could have ever survived without it.

The image under corresponds perfectly to image 1 and 3 which you provided and the information i am going to provide.



We mine our minerals and fossil fuels from the Earth's crust. The deeper we have to dig, the greater our need for access energy becomes.

We hardly ever stop to thinks about the energy that is utilized in systems that supply our energy, such as oil consuming power plants.
But energy is also utilized when exploring for fuel, building the machinery to mine the fuel, mining the fuel, building and operating the power plants, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plants, and so on.

The most concentrated and easy accessible fuels and minerals are mined first. After that more and more energy is required to mine and refine poorer and poorer quality resources. New technologies can on a short term decrease energy costs, but neither technology or cost can repeal the laws of thermodynamics. "Heat needed to convert energy into motion that works the machinery". These are the facts we are facing when depleting finite resources at present rate. The US Is Consuming More Energy Than It Can Discover.

“we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita”.

What is the for most biggest problem with modern American capitalism?

It is its demand for exponential growth. It’s the constant demand for more energy, more consumption, more new products, more jobs, more spending and more economical growth. It acts as if there are no limits.

Modern American capitalism “business-as-usual” model, which requires endless economic growth and endless job creation, is no longer physically possible because net energy is on a rapid decline.

Net Energy Gain (NEG) is a concept used in energy economics that refers to the difference between the energy expended to harvest an energy source and the amount of energy gained from that harvest.

During the 1920s, 50 barrels of crude oil were extracted for every barrel of crude used in the extraction and refining process. Today only 5 barrels are harvested for every barrel used. When the net energy gain of an energy source reaches zero, then the source is no longer contributing energy to an economy.

In 1972, the Club of Rome "COR" shocked the world with a study titled The Limits To Growth.

The Limits To Growth. en.wikipedia.org...

Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with no major change in the physical, economic, or social relationships that have traditionally governed world development, society will run out of the nonrenewable resources on which the industrial base depends. When the resources have been depleted, a precipitous collapse of the economic system will result, manifested in massive unemployment, decreased food production, and a decline in population as the death rate soars. There is no smooth transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather, the economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse.

The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches to solving the individual problems will not be successful. To demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily double their estimates of the resource base and allow the model to trace out an alternative vision based on this new higher level of resources. In this alternative vision the collapse still occurs, but this time it is caused by excessive pollution generated by the increased pace of industrialization permitted by the greater availability of resources. The authors then suggest that if the depletable resource and pollution problems were somehow jointly solved, population would grow unabated and the availability of food would become the binding constraint. In this model the removal of one limit merely causes the system to bump subsequently into another one, usually with more dire consequences.

As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate limit on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of economic growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible outcomes: the termination of growth by self-restraint and conscious policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the termination of growth by a collision with the natural limits, resulting in societal collapse. Thus, according to this study, one way or the other, growth will cease. The only issue is whether the conditions under which it will cease will be congenial or hostile.

In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality".[6][7] It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.[8]

My opponent:

Modern American capitalism is better for more people no matter how you slice it. Ridiculous apocalyptic predictions aside; this system is booming and medieval monarchies are dead.

You are right about that medieval times is dead and will probably never be experienced again; When the capitalistic system has drained the earth for valuable resources, polluted and destroyed the land and waters beyond repair for thousands of years; Humanity will rapidly fall to a age when humans were once scavengers; if they are that lucky.

Modern American capitalism and its energy consumption is what made population growth reach close to 7 billion people possible. Medieval times didn’t have the resources and technology to make that happen. It only laid the foundation for it to happen. But there are no access resources left to sustain the modern American capitalistic system as it is being drifted today.

Modern American capitalism won’t last because of the constant demand for exponential growth, and as medieval time’s humanity will most likely never ever experience modern American capitalism again.

A medieval monarchy drifted system is a more long term and sustainable system than modern American capitalism. “Medieval monarchy = 482 years, Modern American capitalism = 100+ years.

The only negative with a monarchy is that it is dangerously close to becoming/being a dictatorship or tyranny. But people can at least do something about that. But Modern American capitalism is a fast exit to a possible human extinction event and there is nothing we can do about it; if we keep a present course of action.

Net Energy Will Lead To The End Of American Capitalism And To A Rapid Decline In World Population.

This is certainly the thrust of your closing argument, and - in my opinion - the idea that America will come to an end is the most grounded and therefore serious objection that you have raised to my position. So, this is the idea that I will address here, although even this point is not clearly essential to the topic of our debate. I would like to remind readers that we’re debating the merits of “modern American capitalism,” not “the future of. . .”

The apparent looming energy crisis is by no means a foregone conclusion. The issue is hotly debated, although my opponent’s position has considerable support. Traditionally, the obvious flaw to that position is that it totally discounts human ingenuity. Exponential growth has been maintained up to this point; there are renewable energy sources such as solar and power that are available and that are being developed to be more efficient and useful; and a tremendous amount of progress has been made in the areas of categorically novel energy sources, most notably high energy fusion, in addition to a renewed interest in cold fusion.

We know hydrogen powered motors can - in principal - replace all internal combustion engines. We also know how to make hydrogen using electricity. To top it off, we know how to make electricity from the sun’s rays, the wind, and various other renewable or novel sources. So, if the situation ever becomes as dire as my opponent describes, do you suppose that humanity will just keep burning gasoline until we all starve to death, or will we just build solar panels and alternative energy plants in order to maintain business-as-usual? Clearly there is a realistic solution at hand, there’s just not yet the economic incentive to fully embrace it. If things ever get as bad as my opponent would lead you to believe that they will, the economic incentive will exist and the solution will be adopted; exponential growth will continue, there won’t be a massive die off, and modern American capitalism will continue to reign supreme. In fact, it will be capitalist markets that ensure the economic viability of alternative energies, should they ever become a necessity.

Because of our easy access to fossil fuel energy; there is a significantly larger population today than could have ever survived without it.

Isn’t that a good thing though? That less people are starving and dying? There’s more to go around today because of our system, and it’s providing far more for a far greater number of people than medieval systems ever could. My opponent makes it sound as though the fact that fossil fuels are finite means that the billions of people sustained indirectly by the energy produced from this source are a negative consequence of the modern system. The system is successful; it provides more than alternative systems did and as a result there are more people depending on it. This cannot rationally be considered an undesirable attribute of the system. Consider that this line of reasoning would lead one to the absurd conclusion that a system which produced insufficient food to feed the population was superior. Anyone starving in medieval times would change places with the poor who are fed by our modern system in a heartbeat.

The only negative with a monarchy is that it is dangerously close to becoming/being a dictatorship or tyranny. But people can at least do something about that. But Modern American capitalism is a fast exit to a possible human extinction event and there is nothing we can do about it; if we keep a present course of action.

The above is essentially what my opponent has been saying all along, and none of it is true. There isn’t one thing that is “the only negative” about medieval monarchy. Poverty was the norm, oppression was inherent in the nature of the system, and life for everyone in involved - except perhaps the monarch - was worse. Modern American capitalism sustains a much higher quality of life for many more people, and our form of government - although it is not even the subject of this debate - is far superior than a monarchy and grants its citizens far more freedoms, rights, and powers. The idea that modern American capitalism is somehow “a fast exit” to human extinction couldn’t be farther from the truth. Humanity is thriving to a far greater degree in modern times - by any measure - than it was in medieval times. More people are alive and well, and more people are living higher quality of lives, than ever were under medieval monarchies. There is truly no sense in which a medieval monarchy is superior to modern American capitalism, and this fact is overwhelming supported by the evidence discussed in this debate.

So long as readers keep in mind the topic of this debate and distinguish between speculation and fact, the conclusion will be inevitable: modern American capitalism is better than medieval monarchy.