Capitalism

Well, I think we had one before where I argued for socialism and you did for capitalism, so it's not exactly the same, but similar. My rebuttal is going off of the assumption we are talking about the United States. I live in the US, and I believe my opponent does as well, so these arguments should still apply.Rights recognized in the USI would like you to explain how private property is a right. It neither appears in the declaration of independence nor the constitution of the United States. In fact, the declaration of independence was made in such a way to make sure to exclude property. John Locke had the idea of "life, liberty, and property" as rights, but Thomas Jefferson specifically took property out of the equation and instead claimed that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are rights.Now, while the 14th amendment to the United States constitution says "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."[1] this doesn't specify private property. For example, I see no reason why things couldn't be that businesses are cooperatively owned by workers. To make this the case, doesn't deny anyone their right to property, it just means they have to share it with others. They, nonetheless, still have that right to property.Now, while I wouldn't personally want the state to force companies to be cooperatively owned, I don't think it is technically unconstitutional nor against any rights that the United States recognizes. I don't know of any supreme court case that said an individual is specifically entitled to private property as opposed to jointly-owned cooperative property. I would agree that a person is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and thus they would have property. However, there are other systems of economics which still allow property, such as libertarian socialism. Private property still exists in it, for example you can own a computer as your own private property, a house and the property with the house, etc. The only difference is that the means of production would be cooperatively, democratically, and jointly-owned by the workers of that company.What I would consider to be a rightI would argue that a worker is entitled to jointly own the company they work for. How? Well, if you use the logic that a person is entitled to have the product or fruits of their labor, the growth of a company is a product of the worker working there. That company wouldn't be able to grow without other workers, thus they are entitled to own some of the company because, if not for them, that company wouldn't have grown. I consider it stealing when a business owner denies the workers' right to own the product of their labor(ie, business growth), and anyone who logically thinks about it would come to that conclusion as well. The business owner is not the sole reason behind why the company is so large. If they were, then I would say they are entitled to own the company all by themselves, and in libertarian socialism, when you own a company where you have no other workers, you would have sole ownership of that company. The whole idea behind property as a right is that you worked for it. Using the same logic, the workers worked for the company to grow, thus the business is their property, but under capitalism, this property is stolen from them by a single or multiple business owners. Potential arguments against this:"Well, the workers agreed to these conditions where they don't receive joint-ownership of the company, so it is not stealing"This would be a stronger argument if the workers had other choices. What choice does a worker have but to work for companies that are owned by a single or a few business owners(capitalist businesses)? A vast majority of businesses are capitalist businesses. There are approximately 27.9 million small businesses in the United States[2] but only about 50,000 are coops[3]. That's about 0.1% of small businesses which are coops. People need to work in order to survive. As soon as all of the coops have all of their positions filled, there is no choice but to work for a capitalist business. I can personally testify to how hard it is to find a worker coop. I've been looking for one that would hire me for over a year now, but I have found none. Thus, I am forced to settle for a capitalist business in order to survive or get the property I want. It's hard to say I did this by choice, when the only other option is to die of starvation. Sources:[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] https://www.sba.gov...[3] http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu...