The Morality of Socialism

I'm going to go paragraph-by-paragraph and break down each of the claims made in your previous argument.In my initial argument I did specify that I was referring to the real-world application of socialism. I find it a tad bit strange to debate imaginary concepts, as there will obviously never be such a thing as a utopian socialist society-- any debate on socialism should be grounded in reality rather than theory/fantasy. If socialist theory stands the test of reality then it is of course valid and fair, but stating that according to socialist theory everyone shared and got along and they lived happily ever after is not tangible and will never fly in an intellectual setting. I am never going to deny that socialism can be applied in inumerable forms, yet I will deny that it is impossible to refute the morality of each and every one of those scenarios. No matter the school of thought, socialism will always hinge on the redistriubtion of resources and eradication of private ownership. It doesn't matter if you're adhereing to collectivism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, marxist communism-- if I can prove that the forced removal of private property is in fact immoral, socialism as a whole is discredited.Native Americans did have a concept of property, just in a different way than modern day Americans. Natives didn't believe in land ownership, but by no means were they against private property as a whole. Even those that monoplized the ownership of land were few and far between. There's a reason Native Americans never got along with white settlers. They saw white settlements as an infringement on Native soil. Even if Native Americans didn't believe in private property, this wouldn't change the course of the debate. Morals don't stem from Native American thoughts/practices.The concept of private property does not put some people above others, competition does, and naturally so. To say that simply eradicating private ownership will create perfect equality is absurd, once again, there is no such thing as a utopia. People will be born at different levels, physically, mentally, even geographically. There is no way to eliminate competition in the real world, so naturally there is no way to eliminate inequality. This isn't necessarily wrong, it's just the natural order of things, a consequence of biology.This debate isn't focused on the morality of capitalism. Calling it immoral does nothing to prove the morality of socialism.The second part of this claim, that when one claims resources it is a violation to another's right to life, needs to be backed up by evidence. Under very few circumstances has one's success meant another's death in the economic world; in fact, most economists agree that the success of business results in an overall improvement in the economy. What you're suggesting is everyone be dragged to the same level of poverty in order to establish equality-- this is insane. Since when has it been immoral for someone to thrive? Claiming that this happens at the expense of others is equally absurd, as slavery is obviously illegal and has been for centuries. The only modern day example of someone being forced to work for the gain of another would be found, ironically, within socialist theory.You asked to cite where force was used during the creation and maintenance of Revolutionary Catalonia. I have copied and pasted several instances from your original linked article below.(Before establishment)"Socialist rule of the region began with the Spanish Revolution of 1936, resulting in workers' control of businesses and factories, collective farming in the countryside, and attacks against Spanish nationalists and the Catholic clergy.""The growing influence of the Communist Party of Spain's (PCE) Popular Front government and their desire to nationalize revolutionary committees and militias brought it into conflict with the CNT and POUM, resulting in the May Days...""During the Second Spanish Republic, anarchists continued to lead uprisings such as the Casas Viejas revolt in 1933 and the Asturian miners' strike of 1934 which was brutally put down by Francisco Franco with the aid of Moorish troops.""During the Spanish coup of July 1936, anarchist and socialist militias, along with Republican forces including the Assault and Civil Guards, defeated the forces controlled by Nationalist army officers in Catalonia and parts of eastern Aragon."(During Revolutionary Occupation)"The CNT and Companys worked together to set up the Central Anti-Fascist Militia Committee, which became the main governing body in the region.""Just as in the cities, peasant revolutionaries seized land in the countryside and organized collective farms.""...a larger proportion of them opposed collectivization or joined only after extreme duress.[29] The presence of armed CNT militiamen also had the effect of imposing fear on those who opposed collectivization. Those smallholders who refused collectivization were prevented from hiring any laborers and usually were forced to sell their crops directly to the committees, on their terms. They were also often denied the services of the collectivized businesses such as the barbershops and bakeries, use of communal transport, farm equipment and food supplies from communal warehouses.[29] All of these economic pressures combined caused many tenant farmers and smallholders to give up their land and join the collectives.""While some joined voluntarily, others, especially in the beginning of the revolution, were forced to join the collectives by anarchist militias.""According to Ralph Bates: "While there were plenty of abuses, forced collectivization, etc...""A number of scholars and writers on the subject of the Spanish Civil War counter that the presence of a "coercive climate" was an unavoidable aspect of the war that the anarchists cannot be fairly blamed for..."These are all taken from the first portion of the article you cited. If one were to nitpick, nearly every other sentence points to the use of force against those who opposed the revolution and opposed the socialist theory. Once again, I'm curious as to why you chose this as your source, as it goes to further my argument tenfold.Force does in fact have to be used to protect rights, under certain circumstances. This is the nature of the non-aggression principle? I'm not sure as to what you're getting at here. And claiming that someone's right to life equates to the forced labor of doctors and physicians is also fallacious, as this is slavery. If someone has a right that is not natural, such as a right to healthcare, someone must of course have the designated responsibility to provide that right. This is called forced labor, or, in other words, slavery."All we have is a system that is MOST LIKELY to lead to a moral system, and a democratic government generally does." Proof/citation/source needed. This is a very bold claim backed up with zero facts or evidence. And once again, just because the majority decide on a certain path to action does not mean this action becomes moral all of a sudden. Morality is subjective, but violating human rights is widely accepted as immoral. Are you claiming that it is moral to undermine the natural rights of others?You went on to further your point by claiming democracy would have ended slavery, and that whatever the majority decides is automatically moral. I am not going to break this down, as it should be self-explanatory for any that choose to read this debate.Once again, the non-aggression principle does not condemn the use of force, it merely dictates the circumstances under which force may be applied. The non-aggression principle is pretty straightforward and is not subjective-- you brought up the example of abortion, so I will apply the principle to abortion. A woman who chooses to abort, or kill, her baby/fetus is applying unprovoked force. Therefore, abortion is considered a violation of the non-aggression principle. This isn't subjective, it's pretty straightforward.So far your definition of rights have hinged on an appeal to authority and an appeal to the masses, both of which are fallacies in argument and debate. While rights are subjective, they cannot be dismissed because of their subjective nature. Claiming that socialism doesn't violate human rights simply because human rights are subjective is also fallacious-- we both agreed that Locke's three natural rights are in fact rights, socialism violates two of the three, therefore socialism is immoral.I will now address your final two statements. Property is a right, because everything must be owned by something. Whether this be the community, government, or individual, property cannot simply be neutral. Now, to claim that individual ownership of property is not a right is to say that the individual has no right to do anything, frankly. If the individual does not have the right to lay claim to the fruit of his labors than said individual is owned by the government, corporation, or community that does indeed lay claim to the product of his works. "...and if the right to property does in fact violate the right to life when used in extremity, as I pointed out, then there can be legitimate reason to limit private property with force." Once again, to ascertain that other's rights depend on the labor of others is to claim that Person A is responsible for the safety and well-being of Person B. Just because Person A is successful and thrives, this does not make Person B entitled to his labor, time, and resources. This would be known as slavery. In conclusion, my opponent has declared that socialism is moral, simply put, because if the majority choose to enforce socialist policies on the minority this is fine, simply because the majority's decision is always moral. How is this rational thought? Once again, the entire premise of this argument is hinged upon a fallacy.