The Morality of Socialism

I shall first rebut claims by my opponent, in bold will be quotes by my opponent:"No matter the school of thought, socialism will always hinge on the redistriubtion of resources and eradication of private ownership."Socialism doesn't get rid of all private property, it only makes it so that businesses are worker-owned or worker-controlled. Private property, such as having land with your house, is still permitted under socialism. Communism has the complete eradication of property."This debate isn't focused on the morality of capitalism. Calling it immoral does nothing to prove the morality of socialism." It is relevant because if I can show that socialism is more moral than capitalism, then it, even if it is immoral to some degree, would be the more moral option because it is less immoral than the other economic systems out there. I believe I have shown that socialism is more moral than capitalism."The second part of this claim, that when one claims resources it is a violation to another's right to life, needs to be backed up by evidence." You only need to look at the percent of the world who is in poverty, and dying from that poverty. In reality, claiming resources has been resulting in these deaths and impoverished people. In fact, 80% of the people in the world today live off of less than $10 a day, and about 50% lives on less than $2.50 a day. [4] Just look at what European imperialism did to Africa, what European colonialism did to Native Americans. All of these deaths were a result of people claiming resources. As for your claim about the problem with force being used in Revolutionary Catalonia, I'll explain later why force was justified, for I will be arguing that the workers' right to property were violated to begin with, then everything done was justified in order to promote the right to property of workers and everyone. "If someone has a right that is not natural, such as a right to healthcare, someone must of course have the designated responsibility to provide that right. This is called forced labor, or, in other words, slavery."That doesn't actually happen though. Doctors are there willingly, if there were no doctors, then it would be forced labor for us to force people to be doctors, but the fact is, we don't need to force people to be doctors. There are always people who are going to be doctors. I'm willingly becoming a specialized doctor actually, a psychiatrist. Just because someone might have a right to healthcare, doesn't mean I'm forced to work. I choose to do so. There will always be some doctors out there who choose to work, and all I'm saying is that we are entitled to be able to use that work in order to have the right of life. "Proof/citation/source needed. This is a very bold claim backed up with zero facts or evidence. And once again, just because the majority decide on a certain path to action does not mean this action becomes moral all of a sudden. Morality is subjective, but violating human rights is widely accepted as immoral. Are you claiming that it is moral to undermine the natural rights of others?"Indeed, so no democracy would violate human rights, unless it was NOT accepted widely as immoral. Proof is not needed because, again, you agreed that morality is subjective, so it is determined by what society says is immoral. Why would a democracy choose to do something the majority in that society believes to be immoral? It wouldn't, a democracy naturally leads to doing what majority believe is moral, otherwise the majority wouldn't have voted for that decision. It's just simple logic, when logic is used, I don't see why proof is needed. If anything, YOU should have to show an example of a democracy that did something that majority believed was immoral, because that is counter-intuitive. Plus, if that society does view violation of human rights as immoral, but suddenly voted to violate human rights, then they clearly see it as moral to violate human rights, so they did the morally correct thing. "You went on to further your point by claiming democracy would have ended slavery, and that whatever the majority decides is automatically moral. I am not going to break this down, as it should be self-explanatory for any that choose to read this debate."Again, you said yourself that morality is subjective, so it depends on what society a person lives in. When the majority agrees something is immoral or moral in a society, then it is immoral or moral, because morality is subjective, which you conceded it was. So, a democracy naturally would result in people voting on what they believe to be moral or correct, and when the majority agree to it, that means it is moral in that society."Once again, the non-aggression principle does not condemn the use of force, it merely dictates the circumstances under which force may be applied. The non-aggression principle is pretty straightforward and is not subjective-- you brought up the example of abortion, so I will apply the principle to abortion. A woman who chooses to abort, or kill, her baby/fetus is applying unprovoked force. Therefore, abortion is considered a violation of the non-aggression principle. This isn't subjective, it's pretty straightforward."It is subjective. Many people believe we have a right to body autonomy(But not everyone agrees we do, or that it applies in this scenario), which the fetus is violating the mother's right to body autonomy without consent from the mother. Therefore, this is a justified use of force under the non-aggression principle because a right is being violated. The fact you disagree with this, shows that the non-aggression principle is subjective, because Rights are subjective. In fact, the founding fathers didn't name property as a right in the declaration of independence, even though John Locke did. It wasn't technically until the 14th amendment that property was specifically mentioned on a federal level as a right(prior to that property as a right was a states issue). Moving onto my argumentYou originally claimed socialism violates the rights of property and liberty, however, when you claimed it violated liberty, you used one specific form of socialism for this, which is when a government ownseverything essentially. However, there is libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism which are examples of how that is avoided(that was the main reason I provided Revolutionary Catalonia as an example). So I think this debate largely hinges on the idea of private property as a right, since I showed how socialism can be implemented where it doesn't violate the right to liberty.I shall start with a quote by John Locke, who you seem to look up to:"Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it, it hath by his labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others." -John Locke, Second Treatise on governmentI'd like to point out the last sentence, specifically this part: " at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."So the right to private property depends completely on whether there is enough for other people to have property as well. The fact of the matter is, there is not enough property for everyone to have to themselves because a few people horde large amount of property, only 67.4% of Americans even own property[5] And white people own 98% of all available property in the United States[6], either through their personal property for their home, or businesses owning them. This amount of property owned is excessive, especially since this seems to prevent 33.6% of Americans from owning property, which is a violation of John Locke's ideas on private property, that "there is enough, and as good left in common for others."Socialism, and the forced redistribution of property is necessary to protect the right to property. The 5 largest land-owning families in America, own more than 9 million acres[6], which is excessive and not necessary for someone to own. To protect the right of others to have access to property, we need to forcefully remove property from these land owners and give them to the workers who own no property. This is, therefore, not a violation of the non-aggression principle since it is protecting the right to property of those who do not own property.Socialism merely makes it that business property is owned by each worker of that company, which I believe is necessary to protect the right to property for the workers. I believe I have made my point sufficiently on why property needs to be redistributed, and that this is actually not a violation of the right to private property, but actually protecting the right to private property.Sources:[4] http://www.globalissues.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[6] http://inequality.org...;