Socialism is immoral

As to your comments regarding " general circumstances" and how " there is nothing that can never be taken away." I firmly disagree with you. The rights of man ( even Hitler's and criminals) cannot be taken away unless they themselves violate another persons rights. In this instance of violation on behalf of the violator his rights can then be taken away. Therefore, until a person violates another persons rights, they CANNOT have there rights taken away from them.Right, I agree with you that that is what people generally mean when they say "rights". I said this in the very first round:"When people speak of "rights", unless they are followers of unreasonably strict deontology, they really just mean something which is inherently valuable and should generally be given to people unless they do something to remove it."Once again, you have not given me exactly what you mean by " circumstances generally" many different people have many different circumstances and to say that there is a default set of circumstances is ludicrous. I will ask you once more to please answer what circumstances specifically you mean!I don't understand what else you want me to say. I'm not referring to specific circumstances, I'm saying that what a person should and should not be given depends on the circumstances surrounding the matter. You agree with this, recognizing that Hitler had no rights. That is all I am saying.A good portion of you argument is based around the " social contract theory" The very name should give you a clue as to what it really is... just a theory... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but they are also people, and people make mistakes.You're missing the point. Let me clarify several things:1. None of what I am talking about applies to America as it currently stands, because the Constitution guarantees private property. So if the government were to confiscate the private property of a person spontaneously, they would be breaking the social contract, and this is a bad thing. I do not support this. But, if in the future the Constitution were to be amended to allow the confiscation of private property by the government, since this was established legally and legitimately, the government could then take your possessions assuming it complied with all other rules in the Constitution. You have consented to a republic/democracy, so you have to deal with the decisions of that. As long as you benefit from a government, you comply with its rules, assuming the government doesn't contradict themselves or violate rights that they have established.2. Your example of the Arab Springs is just an example of a bad government. That government is bad because it allows trampling of the minority by the majority. The American government doesn't, because it has an elaborate system of checks and balances. I do have questions for that scenario specifically: Did the government do what it was suppose to, or did it violate rules that had been established? If it violated no previously established rules, then it wasn't breaking any social contract. If people were unhappy with it... Time to revolt! Change the contract by force. To me, it sounds like the government was oppressive and did not get consent from the governed, in which case it was not even a government, and it doesn't apply to our debate.3. You are blatantly strawmanning with your attack on my view of the legislative. Of course people make mistakes. Which is why we have a system of checks and balances. Unreasonable seizure of property is ILLEGAL, and no matter how many people want it today, they would have to violate the social contract to do so. I'm not advocating some psychotic Athenian democracy with tyranny by the majority, or that you suddenly lose your Constitutional rights because a lot of people want you to. Those people better deal with it, because they have consented to a contract where you get to keep your property. Your comments toward my attack against the redistribution of property are as follows "Well, a massive portion of the money that the top 5%, say, of society is illegitimately earned and kept. So, things like rent-seeking, lobbying, tax evasion, etc." You assume that because a person has obtained great amounts of wealth that they earned it illegitimately? Let me give some names from the top 5% http://www.forbes.com...... As you can see, these people have not gained their money from illegal means, they have made their money from providing services to the consumer that are completely legal. If you look at how they have attained their wealth, you will notice that many of them have done so through investment. So you see, they are not hoarding all of their money like Smoug the dragon, but rather by sharing their money in exchange for interest.This is honestly a digression from the main point of the debate. This is a whole different topic and one of the largest points of contention between the two parties in America. All I am saying is that the situation isn't cut and dried, and redistribution is not automatically bad.If you want evidence that goes far beyond what I could possibly fit into this character limit, see The Price of Inequality by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and check out my debate here:http://www.debate.org...Part of your initial argument against socialism was based in the inherent immorality of redistribution, but clearly this claim, while it may or may not be true, is very, very questionable. I don't think you want your argument against socialism based in something that lacks any concreteness. You said quote "Socialists don't want to confiscate the money of the class of people who have earned their money legitimately." But the people that you wanted to take from, the top 5%, earned their money legitimately. Doesn't this kind of go against what you previously said?Assuming they always did earn it legitimately. I MYSELF never said the top 5% always earned it legitimately, you are the one who said that. So there is no inconsistency in my argument. You then go on to assert that the only property owned is "bourgeoisie property" Here's a little statistic that will change your mind on that http://economics.about.com...... as you can see, not only will you be taking property away from the so called " oppressive" bourgeoisie, but you would also be taking away from the hard working people that you claim to love so much.Well, you are showing bad conduct and being disrespectful here. I'm trying to have a polite and productive debate with you, you make it very difficult.Why do you assume I want to take property from small business owners? You are putting words and policies into my mouth that I never even remotely made, please stop.And how exactly are the bourgeoisie abusive?... And if Marx believed that artisans deserved to everything they earned, then how come socialism has imposed some of the highest income taxes in the world?I'm not for Marxism, and I made this very clear: "The reason I reference Marx is because he is a socialist icon, so if he defies your claims on socialism, that more or less refutes your claims. However, I do not support revolutionary socialism in general." Please read your opponent's points before you shout at them incessantly.But as far as Marx, what do high income taxes have to do with his claim on artisans? He says artisan labor has disappeared, so high income taxes would not punish artisan labor, which is nonexistent. You would also go on to say that the worker is alienated from the work of their labor... Which is it?! Are they oppressive, evil, SOBs, or are they hard working, and generous?I didn't attack the wealthy in general, I attacked the practices that MANY of them employ, not all of them. I'm not going to talk to you if you are going to keep doing this, this is getting horribly exhausting.By the way, "oxymoron" isn't the word you mean.You're confusing legitimate labor with illegitimate labor. I'm not making claims on what is and what isn't, but socialism only wants to remove the illegitimate. If it removes compensation for legitimate labor, it isn't socialism. Period. Finally, I will answer your question of what I mean by full blown socialism. There are two kinds of socialism, the original version developed by Karl Marx and Engels, Then there's the slightly less extreme version of socialism used by nations like Norway, but they have a relatively high free marked standard.You think Marxism is the original version of socialism?.............. Marxism is a specific variety of many, many, many different types of socialism that were around at the time, also including Owenism, Saint-Simonianism, Fourierism, etc."Slightly" less extreme is an understatement. Very much less extreme, we are talking about implementing a few laws for workers' protections and redistribution vs mass, bloody workers' revolution.Your dichotomy of Marxism and Third Way Socialism is horribly, horribly false. This is probably why you have such a limited scope of socialism and attack Russian communism when you argue against me. If you are wondering what political ideology I hold sway to, it is American capitalist conservatism. I believe that socialism is a horrible system for a realistic world and should never be repeated as it has been so many times before.When has it been "repeated"? You think Russia was socialist? Russia was a psychotic and extreme implementation of Marxism, more accurately referred to as Leninism and Stalinism. Generalizing socialism under the communist Russia heading is like generalizing Christians under the Westborough Baptist Church.