Right Libertarianism (Pro) vs Left Libertarianism (Con)

Con's arguments First of all to back yourself up about Socialism not being inherently Authoritarian, you give the example of Mutualism. But Mutualism is simply not Socialism. According to Wikipedia the definition of Mutualism (economic theory) is 'an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labour in a free market.' [http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(economic_theory)]. Basically it means that people sell their labour and receive 'goods or services' that embodies their labour in a free market. However someone selling their labour and receiving services for it is not an example of Socialism but an example of Capitalism because Capitalism involves the voluntary exchange of services between a given number of individuals privately which is exactly what is going on in Mutualism. Furthermore you say in your first argument that Libertarianism was first thought up by Socialists and Anarcho-Communists. The whole point of this debate is proving them wrong. And then when trying to disprove me you claimed that some 'Libertarians' reject the NAP. If they reject the non-aggression principle than they are saying that it is alright to steal, murder, rape, vandalise and do more to an innocent individual and his justly acquired property. In other words it is alright that some people impose authority on other people. As I repeatedly said in my previous argument authority is the opposite of Liberty which is the prime goal of Libertarianism. Then you say I did not justify 'the statement that the private property that Socialists wish to abolish was justly acquired.' Well if it was not justly acquired it must have violated the NAP. You also say that I 'barely (assert) that authority would be responsible for the elimination of private property, without providing any justification whatsoever'. Once again you have missed the point. The action of eliminating private property in itself is an action of authority because according to the Oxford Dictionary Authority is the 'power or right to....enforce obedience.' By stealing someone's private property you are enforcing obedience. You then say that 'not all communists [SIC] are Marxists.' Perhaps not but according to the Oxford Dictionary Communism is 'a theory... In which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.' According to you the definition 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' is 'misrepresentative.' That is a very bold claim to argue that the dictionary's definition of Communism is 'misrepresentative.' You carry on making bold claims about how the dictionary is wrong by saying 'defining capitalism [SIC] in terms of trade or markets is unsatisfactory.' Let us turn again to the Oxford Dictionary which says that Capitalism is 'an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.' Anarchism Throughout your argument you have talked about Anarchism and 'the perspective of anarchist theory' and used these terms synonymously with Left-Libertarianism. But now I will prove you wrong. First of all we need to define Anarchism and according to the Oxford Dictionary the definition is 'belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary basis without recourse to force or compulsion.' There are several people who claim to be 'Anarcho-Communists', 'Anarcho-Syndicalists', 'SocioAnarchists' and several more contradictory terms. Why are they contradictory? Because they claim to be in favour of authority being abolished and at the same time in favour of imposing authority on people who voluntary exchange services (regarding that as 'wage slavery') or people who have justly acquired property by working for it. These so called 'Anarchists are in favour of abolishing private property. However let us properly define private property. Property is 'thing or things owned by someone' while private means that it is owned by an individual. To say that property should be owned collectively by the community as Communists do you are saying that everything that you own including your own body belongs to everyone else just as much as it belongs to you so everyone else has a say in what happens to your body just as much as you do. In other words you are enslaved by this 'collective' which is really just another term for a government. However Libertarianism and Anarchism advocate self-ownership which is the very thing Communism and Socialism are against. The only true Anarchists are the Anarcho-Capitalists because they are the on,y ones to realise that Capitalism is the opposite of government intervention and that Capitalism is the economic aspect of freedom. The Importance of the Non-Aggression Principle The NAP merely states that the initiation of force or fraud on another individual's life, liberty, privacy and justly acquired property is immoral. Therefore if you reject the NAP you believe that it is not immoral to murder, rape, spy on, enslave, vandalise, steal from and harm another individual and his property. However Left-Libertarians reject the NAP particularly the immorality of force onto another person's justly acquired property because they believe that it is alright to steal. Because stealing is what forcefully taking another person's property is and that is an example of the initiation of authority and the denial of Liberty. That is why Right Libertarianism is better and more moral than Left Libertarianism. In fact as I have proven Right-Libertarianism is not just the best form of Libertarianism but the only form.