Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

The first five paragraphs of my opponent's argument relies on that the libertarian and socialist parties of the United States represents and defines what libertarianism and socialism are. Therefore, refuting that one point would refute the first five paragraphs. Now, to claim that the libertarian party is what defines libertarianism, or that the socialist party defines what is socialist, is like claiming the democratic party is what defines what is democratic. Do you see the problem there? While you can say the democratic party is democratic, you can't say everything they support is what is democratic, or that they define democracy. I mean, they generally support affirmative action, what exactly is democratic about that? They support an increase in minimum wage against people's will, what is democratic about that? Similarly, many things that the socialist party supports is not inherently socialist. An increased minmum wage is not socialist, I argue that it's authoritarian. The socialist party USA is an authoritarian leftist party, and not a libertarian leftist party, so since they are authoritarian, they will, of course, have things incompatible with a libertarian party. In fact, they will be the exact opposite of the Libertarian party, since the libertarian party is a libertarian right-wing party, whereas the socialist party USA is an authoritarian left-wing party. From here, I will offer quotes from my opponent in italics and rebut them appropriately.Consumers and workers decide who is in power. The ability to spend capital, which is the driving force in the market economy, lies with consumers. I argue that in order to consent to something, you must know everything that is involved in the agreement. If you didn't know, for example, that agreeing to having someone in power meant they were going to take your rights away, you didn't actually consent to that even if you agreed to them being in power. Thus, since companies don't tell consumers how their products are made(usually) and keep many things secretive, consumers are not properly able to consent. Take this hypothetical that is basically reality because businesses do this: take company A, who, to try to increase profits, decides to create its products overseas. The reason it's less expensive to make things in other countries? Because those countries use slave labor, child labor, or pay their workers terribly. Feel free to google the amount of slaves in the world, yes, slavery is still used today, and child labor is too. If consumers were made aware of how the products are being made, then there would be consent, but in majority of cases, we don't know how the products were made, and I believe very few people would buy from a company that uses child or slave labor, or labor where people aren't paid enough to survive off of. However, under laissez-faire capitalism, there is no requirement for businesses to give information like this to their consumers. Since consumers need to buy items, such as food, or other items they need for comfort, they are not going to go out of their way to demand the company tell us how the products were made. No one has the time for that, because under capitalism, you have to spend a vast majority of your day sleeping or working in order to survive. If a business wants good workers, it must pay competitive wages. If workers feel they are being treated unfairly they can form a union, strike, or look for a better job.And employers will then just hire the unemployed instead. I know of no case where any country has had a 0% unemployment rate for an extended amount of time. Why pay your workers more when you can hire someone who's unemployed, willing to work for that amount you were paying your workers before, because a measly wage is better than no wage? So long as there is unemployment, what you say simply is not true, for it's not profitable in any way to the business owner. RE: author hypotheticalThis is not in violation of what socialism is in favor of. Redistributing wealth is only used in socialism if the wealth was generally acquired through an unjust means. Socialism is about transferring ownership of companies to the workers, which makes it democratic. Since, the author is a worker themselves, they would own their own business, assuming that the business only employs one person: the author. Under socialism, if the author wanted to take on an editor to work with them, the editor would also own the business jointly with the author. Under capitalism, the author would maintain sole-ownership of the company, in general, and would be the boss. Workers, after all, deserve the product of their labor, and one product of their labor is the business continuing to be in business and becoming larger. A business cannot grow without more workers, thus workers should own the business since it's a part of the product of their labor. When one person owns a business solely, it robs the workers' product of their labor: the business growth. It is for this reason that the United States is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Socialism can also be set up in a republican form of government. This form of socialism is known as syndicalism, it's where labor union bosses who are elected by the workers, own the means of production rather than the workers themselves. If you have a problem with direct democratic control of the means of production, well, then you can have a republican control of the means of production through syndicalism. If you agree that a republic is better at maintaining liberty and freedom, then the logic flows that a republic form of economics would do the same. Capitalism, either way, is not republican in nature, so it can be argued that it is not promotive of liberty. Seizing the means of production, whether by force or by majority vote, would necessarily involve taking what one person or group of people owns, and dividing it among a large group. This violates the right to own property, a pillar of libertarian thought. Theft is theft, whether one person or many is doing the taking. I think my points earlier on how workers are entitled to the product of their labor refutes this, as they are the reason the business grows, so they should own it. This sort of oppression is exactly what libertarians fear, and is at the center of the limited-government philosophy that defines libertarianism, as expressed in the Libertarian statement of principles. Libertarians believe that no one has a right to dictate what another person does, either in personal matters or in business ventures, saying, "the only [economic system] compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market." [2] Again, this is the libertarian party. Making them the authority on the matter of defining what is libertarian is like making the democratic party the authority on defining what is democratic, or the republican party the authority on defining what is republican. They can define what their party stands for, but they don't define the adjectives themselves. My opponent claims that a capitalist economy is not free, because even if one chooses which business owner to work for, one has no control over which business owners are out there. I concede this point, because, now that I thought about it, this would still happen under socialism, at least the type I argue for. I argue for decentralized socialism, so there would be one business out there owned by a group of workers, which you have no say over because you're not a part of that business. So, I am changing this to that this can still happen under socialism, if the socialist society is decentralized. Under centralized socialism, this would not happen. I'm not sure why I brought this point anyways, since I'm a libertarian socialist in favor of decentralized structures myself.