Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

As I mentioned in R1, Ayn Rand was an amazing individual and very inspirational. It is acceptable to take a person's belief system and use it to make a point, but the debate being used is based on the governmental principles and embodiment of the views of capitalism and socialism, and proper terminology must be used rather than taking the ideologies of an individual. Regardless of whether or not Rand has "good ethos," or that "she developed a whole philosophy and has ethos," the fact remains that bringing her views into the account of pure principalia is a form of bias that I will later mention. I would like to point out that I never said that the "non-agression principal is both unnecessary and fallacious. " If you look at my first point in R1, you will see that I give the quote from Pro stating "the basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal. .. No man may initiate force against another. " I then went on to explain how laissez faire is in no way the same idea as a "non-agression [principle]. " (Take note between "principal" and "principle" for future reference. ) The part I stated to be unecessary and fallacious was the additive phrase "no man may inititate force against another" due to the definition of laissez faire and the meaning behind the given phrase. I never said that "socialism does not require people to redistribute goods," or anything of the sort. In R1 in my second point, I argued against the statement that "the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it. " As for the statement in this round by Pro, he claims that all forms of socialism "require some government control over the distribution of goods! " This is inaccurate given Marxian Socialism. At this point I will delve into the idea behind morality and legality. While the ideas exist and can be a part of one another, they are not equal to each other. Morality and legality are two very different entities. Regardless of how immoral something is, it doesn't make it illegal. The example I gave of eminent domain is a legal principle that has been used for years and is a legal precedent. That said, it doesn't matter how immoral or wrong the law is, the law is the law and it isn't a "wrongful taking and carrying away of. .. personal goods or property of another" because it is legal and thus rightful in the eyes of the law. To continue, with the example of the multiple powerlines and the burden upon all the companies for the example of monopolization was just that: an example. It was a statement to further my claim. Also, I stated that "monopolization can be beneficial," not "monopolization is beneficial. " Those are two very different statements. Let it be known that debate can contain bias, but a debate consistent of such weakens the argument of the user. Using bias in debate can allow for discontinuity in argument and, quite oftenly, bias goes unsupported. Bias is defined (from Dictionary. com) as "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. "I would like to stop for a second to clarify a few items. Having read Pro's argument on the "non-agression principle" and "voluntaryism" and having done a little bit of background research on the subject, I now understand why Pro is making certain claims and assumptions. To allow people to understand a little more of the topic I will take some time to explain. Voluntarysm is defined as (from Dictionary. com) "1. the principle of supporting churches, schools, and various other institutions by voluntary contributions rather than with state funds, or 2. any system based on this principle. " This belief is a libertarian philosophy and is commonly used with the idea of the "non-aggression principle (NAP). " The term is also used synonomously with anarcho-capitalist and individualist anarchist philosophies. It has been justified by moral principles such as praxeological presupposition to support the NAP as well as rule utilitarianism and rule egoism. For those who are confused, a praxeological presupposition is the belief that a statement that uses an implicit assumption and utilizes a set of axioms based on the assumption. Rule utilitarianism holds the belief where an action is right if it takes the form of rules to be made of the highest good, and rule egoism is a doctrine under which an individual evaluates the optimal set of rules according to whether conformity to those rules bring the most benefit to himself (1). The followers and philosophers of such a belief system also use the justifications of natural rights and the ideas behind social contracts. With this said, I now understand why Pro is using the idea of morality as an equatable source for legality. However, whether or not this is what Pro believes is irrelevant. The idea behind stating this is that there is no justification to support the NAP to pure capitalistic society, nor is there a way for me to show to Pro that this is true, for the idea behind praxeological presupposition would lead to the utilitarinist and egoist persepectives of the argument. The information for these statements can be found in (2). To continue the debate, my opponenet says "in a socialistic world, where it is difficult for people to get their products out there due to regulations, there are less options. " This statement goes unsupported and is thus disregardable. Also Social Security is not a product, it is a mandatory regressive tax that all taxpayers have to pay (FICA I). As for the 6th rebuttal, I will point out that Pro has misquoted me by saying "Socialism does not trap creativity. " I stated the following: "Creativity is encouraged in any situation as long as it is kept to the creation of a greater good of some form (unless you are wanting to pursue destructive interests). " To whit, I was misquoted for a third time. Also, as mentioned earlier, a debate should be consistent without bias for a strong argument, and the idea behind that you "think [socialism does trap creativity]. .. " is irrelevant to the argument. As for the diffculty of production through the market, that depends on the company selling, the product, the demand for the product, etc. To continue, I will admit that while I was reading Pro's views on my contention, I disagreed with his statement, but upon review after a day, I found his statement to be true. So to allow for a clear contention, there never has been a capitalist society that has dominated, but the Roman Empire, and (recently) Brazil have failed capitalistically. As for socialism, it is obvious that the Soviet Union was heavily socialistic and ended up failing and the same goes for Zimbabwe. As for the mixture of the two, there has never been a nation that has been a blatant combination of the two, but there has been recent talk on news stations such as HLN, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX as well as the Chicago Tribune and Huffington Post that have posited the existence of two co-existing. My contention is based off of these ideas and the possibility that such a system could coexist just like many others argue. I will now hand over the argument to my opponent. (1) Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Normative Ethics. Westview Press. p. 199(2) . http://oll.libertyfund.org...