Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism

"In socialism there is no private property."While this is true in pure Socialism, in pure Capitalism there is no public property. Imagine walking into a playground, and there being an ATM because the groundskeeper only accepts cash. Imagine being a child whose parents cannot afford books. Well if they cannot afford books, they certainly cannot afford a monthly library fee for them to get books. Finally, imagine a world where doctors can turn down patients because they don't have the money to be treated. We need public parks/playgrounds, we need public libraries, and we need universal healthcare. The idea that rich people are worth more to society than poor people is in idea that is outdated."If I'm starving then I will trade with the store say 5 dollars in exchange for a few oranges. This is precisely what is wrong about Capitalism. Under capitalist rule, the rich can easily take advantage of the poor. I'm sure that you simply used 5 dollars as an example, and not what somebody would be paying for oranges, but I must jump on this to prove a point. A store owner sees that you are starving. You have 5 dollars, and he has oranges. He could either sell you the oranges for what they're worth, or he could take advantage of your predicament and overcharge you, simply because he can. For you it's either the oranges or death, and for the shop owner, it is between some profit and more profit. https://tristate.doortodoororganics.com... one orange as costing 1 USD. You just paid $5 for four oranges that were only really worth $4. Before anybody thinks that the starving man should just go to the store's competitor in order to get cheaper oranges, keep in mind that when capitalism took over the United States in the early 1900s, companies were making alliances to keep prices high, and at the same time paying agreeing to pay their workers nothing. All of the orange shop owners see that you're vulnerable and will pay whatever they ask of you, so they will jack up the prices. If we don't have government involved in this system, the disadvantaged will continue to be dominated, and the rich will continue to dominate. I hate to use the United States as an example, as my opponent is not an American, but I will do so anyway. In the USA the economic top 1% control 40% of all of the wealth in America. The bottom 60% of the American people own less than 2% of all of the wealth in this country. The bottom 40% of people in America control 0.3% of the wealth. How can anybody consider this to be fair?93% of all new wealth created between 2009 and 2010 went to the top 1%, leaving the remaining 99% of the people to fight over to remaining 7% of the wealth. This is capitalism at it's best, the super-rich dominating the poor.(http://youtu.be...) [Bernie Sanders] "If I opted out it would make no difference to the government."Well you always have the option of moving to an Anarcho-Capitalist paradise e.g. Somalia.I would like to take a second to laugh at the phrase "Ben Bernanke's magical printing press of destiny".Moving on, Con has made the claim that there could be private miliias run by advertising. Why does that seem like a good idea? If the Walton family, the Gates family, and the Koch family decided to sponser their own private army, we're looking at $326B in military funds. That would give them a military the size of Canada's military for 14.5 years, assuming their collective incomes froze at the current numbers.This problem could give, let's say... New England, the deep South, and DelMarVa the ability to create alliances by defense contract. Private Militaries would ultimate result in defense contracts by each state. Alliances would set in, and the next thing you know, companies, and therefore states, are warring over things such as a competitor growing very fast, or negative ad campaigns. We've seen what Americans will do when they get their hands on a gun (http://www.cdc.gov...). Let's avoid giving them guns whenever a Whopper gets rated higher than a Big Mac. In conclusion, I don't believe that a pure capitalist form of government could work because of the isue with private militaries and the way that the poor are treated in a capitalist society. Also, I believe that socialism is necessary to protect people from the rich that are ready and willing to screw them over when given the chance.Also, as I mentioned Somalia before, I'd like Con to consider the state of this nation, and what Anarcho-Capitalism has done to it. I argue that government is necessary for keeping order, and protecting citizens.