Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron

My opponent criticized my use of the Libertarian and Socialist parties as examples. I never claimed that they defined the terms libertarian and socialist, merely stating that the Libertarian and Socialist parties of the United States are in keeping with the values of the broader ideologies of libertarianism and socialism. I will provide further evidence that this is the case. My opponent claims that the values of the Socialist party of the United States do not speak for the values of socialism as a philosophy. This would be true, assuming that said values were unique to that party. If, however, multiple, organized entities or groups of people that identify themselves with a particular philosophy share common views, the clout that these groups have in defining the philosophy that they claim to be guided by cannot be ignored. Such is the case with socialism. Many political parties around the world that associate themselves with socialism, either directly in name (like Spanish Socialist Workers Party) [1] or by citing socialism in the party platform (such as the Labor Party of Australia) [2] adhere to principles similar to those of the Socialist party of the United States. [3] Since many, if not most, organized groups that identify as "socialist" share a common definition, it gives us some indication as to the modern understanding of the word. Combining evidence from party platforms of ostensibly socialist political parties [1] [2] [3] with the authoritarian, centralized tendencies of existing or past governments that are widely considered "socialist," [4] [5] [6] an archetype of socialism emerges. Just like the American party, it is opposed to the free market and laissez-faire economics, irreconcilable with libertarian thought. Modern libertarian philosophy stems from classical liberalism, a political ideology that emphasizes small government, individual choice, and free-market economics. A market economy, in the eyes of a classical liberal, embodies freedom. [7] I cited the Libertarian party of the United States in the previous round because it is quite clear that the values of the party are in keeping with this philosophy. [8] But the US party is merely one example. The Libertarian parties of Spain [9], the UK [10], Argentina [11], and most every other "libertarian" party in the world adopts this philosophy. I have offered definitions that are supported by facts. The majority of groups who describe themselves as "socialist" and "libertarian" have a common definition of the words that matches my own. While I have provided evidence that clearly points to a common understanding of the meaning of the terms, my opponent has no evidence other than their own assertions. Because they dismiss my definitions out of hand, without any convincing evidence to back up their own definitions, I believe that my definitions should be accepted, because they are better corroborated. Not only are most existing groups that identify as "socialist" fundamentally authoritarian, which is contrary to libertarian principles, but I argue that no socialist society can be anything but. In response to the analogy I used of an author who sells her books, I think I quite clearly illustrated the inherent fairness of the capitalist system in the matter of buying and selling. But is the system fair in regards to employment? I assert that it is. Employment of an individual is merely a trade: one person trades their labor for an agreed-upon wage. Let us expand the thought experiment. Say that the author decides that she cannot keep up with the demand for her books on her own. So she seeks the services of a person who will help her take care of printing and distribution. She sets a price that she thinks is a fair trade; he may disagree and propose a higher price. They strike a bargain. Chances are, neither is completely happy. The worker may have liked to be paid more, and the author might have paid less if she could. That is not important. The important thing is that they struck a bargain; each consented to the trade. There is nothing unfair about it. Now imagine that our author also wants someone to edit her books. Let us also assume that the editor she would like to hire ascribes to the same philosophy as my opponent. He believes that money alone is insufficient compensation for his services. The author may agree and give the editor a share of her business. This does happen in capitalist economies. [12] If she chooses to do so, great. They have reached an agreement with which each is sufficiently happy. She may want to hold on to the business she has built, and as an alternative may offer a higher wage or some other benefit. Or, she may say no to the request to concede ownership of part of the company, but be unwilling to offer higher wages. At this point, it is up to the editor. If he is willing to work for the price she has negotiated, he agrees and they have a deal. They both consent to the arrangement. If not, he walks away and seeks work elsewhere. He refuses to give his consent. Some other editor may come along, find the author"s terms reasonable, and sell her his services for the price she is willing to pay. All of these arrangements are completely voluntary and consensual. Individual freedom is upheld, because no one is forced into any arrangement. However, in my opponent"s system, business owners must give ownership over to their workers. In a capitalist economy, such a decision is a voluntary arrangement between employer and employee. In a socialist system, the choice is removed. How is this to be achieved? It must be enforced by the government, which requires authoritarian control and a large bureaucracy. This flies in the face of small-government, libertarian philosophy. If not, the workers must take it by force, which debunks my opponent"s idea of "consensual" business relations. Consent is a two-way street. A business arrangement must be agreed upon by both employer and employee. In this case, the business owner is not allowed to bargain for an arrangement that suits her, or find an arrangement that lets her keep what is hers. This is a classic example of the majority violating the rights of the minority: democratic oppression. As I said before, the fact that the workers feel entitled to more than they were compensated for does not change the fact that to forcibly appropriate a company"s resources is theft, according to the libertarian worldview. In a capitalist system, companies are free to use equity in the company as compensation for workers; the system is inherently free because they do not have to do so. With my opponent"s definition of socialism, this practice is applied across the board, which cannot be done without the use of force. As such, a socialist economy is necessarily authoritarian. I would argue that the type of government my opponent advocates, which has both universally democratic ownership of businesses and a laissez-faire economy, cannot exist. This assertion is not mere speculation. Take once again the Socialist party of the United States. The party"s statement of values corresponds with my opponent"s definition of socialism, demanding "social ownership and democratic control of productive resources." However, the methods they use to achieve such an end rely heavily on the expansion of the welfare state, higher taxes, wealth redistribution, and a more centralized, regulated economy. [3] The same is true of other "socialist" parties and governments. [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] The point of this example is that even groups which adhere to the same principles as my opponent does cannot realize their goals except through heavy-handed government action. This is irreconcilable with libertarianism. Finally, I would like to address an idea that frequently comes up in my opponent"s arguments. My opponent says that workers deserve the product of their labor, which includes business growth. They also say that a capitalist system is inherently unfair because people are pressured into taking jobs that do not pay enough because they need the money, or because someone else will often be willing to work for less. My opponent says, "You may have no other choice but to be with a bad employer, and you didn't fully consent to be under that employer." The thought process behind this statement is that if a person does not receive exactly what they want or for their labor, they did not fully consent, and thus seizing the resources of the business owner is justified. This idea is contrary to libertarian principles. Classical liberalism holds that the needs of one person do not justify taking what belongs to another, even if they feel that they deserve it. In other words, we have the right to be selfish. A business owner, just like a worker, has a fundamental right to attempt to conduct his business dealings in a way that is beneficial to him, even if the resulting (voluntary) arrangements could be seen as "unfair." [12] The only system that is compatible with this philosophy is a capitalist economy. As I have demonstrated, socialism cannot function in such a market. For this reason, socialism and libertarianism cannot coexist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] National Platform. Australian Labor Party. PDF pp 15-32, 202 [3] http://socialistparty-usa.net... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China_(1949%E2%80%9376) [6] https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://lexicon.ft.com... [8] https://www.lp.org... [9] Programa Politico Marco. Partido Libertario de Espana, 2010. [10] https://libertarianpartyuk.com... [11] https://en.wikipedia.org... [12] https://www.nceo.org... [13] http://www.goodmaninstitute.org...