Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

Second, I would like to point out that Pro did not refute the premise of Voluntaryism and the ideas behind it. It is thus that I will point out that R3 was the only round where Pro did not use the term "voluntarysim" or "voluntarist," but rather used the premises and ideas behind its existence in order to divert attention to a more abstract and obscure existence of "laissez faire capitalism" and its "basic principle. .. the non aggression principle. " I make the point of an abstract and obscure existence of such due to Pro's claim that "there has never been a laissez faire system anywhere [and] a lot of the times, the plutocracies and corporatist governments fail economically, but never because of following the NAP. " So I ask this: what evidence supports your claim given that "there has never been a laissez faire system"? What evidence supports that governments who have used the NAP (an arbitrary concept) and have succeeded economically? Even if plutocracies and corporatist governments have failed economically, can you provide examples of where and why that happened? You have asked to support my contention (which I will delve into later), but your entire argument that attempts to prove that capitalism is a more just system than socialism based on the idea "the basic principle of laissez faire capitalism {NAP}," and you have not supported your claims once, but rather refute my argument (with even greater unsupported claims) and make no justification to your own. This is exactly what I mentioned upon describing voluntaryism and the its belief system. The entites I mentioned in that section (R2, P.9), is exactly what Pro is using to create an effect that seem beneficial to the majority (rule utilitarianism) by using unsupported claims that sound proper to a society (rule egoist). This same argument goes for the statement that "the government would have to to take action. .. to transform a country socialist [socialist country? ]. .. therefore violating the NAP," as well as the later claim that "getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism. "That said, I never stated that coming to a conclusion was a bias. I made the point that adding an individual's views can weaken the argument based because the beliefs of that person (no matter how well-intentioned) can bring a basis of bias, for not everyone agrees with a single individual due to their belief system. Also, I have not seen you support your claims regarding Ayn Rand's beliefs. You base your "definitions" of a subject based on unsupported claims. Even if it is true, how am I to know where these truths are and that they exist? Also, I never argued against the idea of "bringing in the NAP," I defined laissez faire to prove that the latter half of the statement made previously is contradictory to a fallacious claim stating that "laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principle. " Also, the reason I placed the correct form of "principle" was to merely inform you for future reference. I in no way, shape, or form meant for this to be ad hominem. To continue, I agree that "just because something is rightful in the eyes of the law does not make it just. " However, that was not the point I was making. I will reiterate my claim by saying that no matter how unjustified an act is, no matter how immoral, wrong, or deafening an act from an individual, or a multitude of people, if what they did is legal (by means of their constituency), then there is next to nothing to be done to revert it. As a tangent to these statements, I never made the claim that "because [you] are biased, that [your] arguments themselves are invalid or weak. " Pro claimed that "debate is supposed to be biased! " and I was thus refuting the point in R2, P.7. I would like to add that the term paraphrase means "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording (Dictionary. com). "I never made any sort of claim remotely similar to "socialism does not trap creativity. " For the second time I will re-iterate my point that is being misconstrued: I said "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). " How Pro "paraphrased" that "socialism does not trap creativity" is beyond me. The same goes for my statement and example behind monopolization. While the misquotation was by one word, I will point out that there remains a major difference between "is" and "can be. " The same goes for another misquotation where "the two {meaning capitalism and socialism} can co-exist" is different than what I originally said ("the two could co-exist"). The term "can" is an absolute, whereas the term "could" is variable among other things. Also, where Pro said "almost a bandwagon fallacy," is improper. The bandwagon fallacy is based on the idea of an object or item in existence and a group of constituents agree/disagree upon the object or item at hand and followers "join the bandwagon. " The idea that the combination of the two entities does not exist fore frontal ipso facto removes your argument that my belief upon such subject is bandwagon. As for my contention, I did argue against your contentions, however it was indirect. I used a series of arguments to lessen your claim so as to build up momentum (this is how I personally approach arguments). (Also, if I didn't argue against your contention, then why do you have a heading stating "My opponent's 3rd refutation: Socialism does not equate to theft"? ) I first argued against the idea that the NAP is not the basic principle of laissez faire economics as well as show the declining factor of adding individualistic beliefs to a pure principalia debate. It is there that the argument came to an end entirely due to that being your ultimate premise. However, I later argued against the implementation of socialism and the ideas behind voluntaryism; the former went unsupported while the latter was entirely ignored in R3. It was then that made the claim that morality does not equate to legality (to which rule egoism took place, yet again). I then delved into the idea behind monopolization and its effects on socalism v. capitalsim, to whit your claim "The refutation to point about people not getting their products on the market. .. It is supported because in any controlled economy, getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism," went unsupported. The two main items that occurred on Pro's behalf was miswording my statments to an extent that they go almost unnoticed as well as the lack of support from not only his claims throught his argument, but the argument itself as a point out in the beginning of this text. As for my contention, I never said that a society has ever existed where capitalism and socialism have co-existed, nor did I believe that a society of such would do well/bad and prosper/weaken as time continues. I base my claims off of a conglomerate of sources that have contrasting and even similar views at points. Whether or not this would be in the best interest of society - needless to say a nation - is a notion that even if made and truthful, would be undetermined until such events were to actually happen. There is no evidence to support this claim, nor is there evidence to refute this claim.