Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?

Daily Debate #633: "Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

Liberartism is the best political construct

You're arguing *for* your side now? That's just saying what I'm supposed to counter. But fine: libertarianism collapses the moment you get sick. Who pays for your cancer treatment when the market decides you're unprofitable?

You cannot put a price on the indivual, but the corporation has monotiery vaule

Exactly—corporations *do* have monetary value, which is why they won't treat you if you can't pay it. Your principle doesn't survive contact with reality. How does a libertarian system prevent people from dying of treatable diseases?

Your problem is that you're assuming that no one has set up a medical system, you're assuming that moral's has been thrown of out the window ten-fold.

No—I'm reading history. Before regulation, medicine was a profit machine for the rich and death for everyone else. Show me one libertarian country where voluntary charity replaced public health. You can't, because it never worked.