Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

Also, I would like to point out that while Ayn Rand is an incredible author - in my personal opinion - we should not derive definitions from an individual in the case of possible confusion, but rather look at the definitions as it is truly defined. Capitalism (Merriam-Webster): an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free marketRight [n. ] (Dictionary. com): a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral or adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority(The definitions for "just" and "socialism" are properly defined by Pro from the afore mentioned sources)I will first begin with refuting the give claims and then make claims of my own.1. "The basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal. .. No man may initiate force against another. "The idiom laissez-faire in French means "to let people do as they please" and with the additive idea of capitalism attached to this idiom means to limit government interference in business matters and to keep government influence to a minimum. That said, laissez faire capitalism is not a "non-agression [principle]," for agression is not a part of a governmental embodiment in the first place, for that would assume the government is creating a force to hurt (in some form) "private or corporate owndership of capital goods" (referenced above). Thus, the idea that "no man may inititate force against another" is both unnecessary and fallaciously added.2. "In order to implement socialism, the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it! It's like 'gimme yo change o yur goin' to jail! ' It is probably more eloquently stated, but in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society, if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors' (in this case, the government), he usually goes to jail. The idea the governement would have to "take some of your stuff and redistribute it" is not how socialism works. Given the Merriam-Webster definition provided by Pro, there are several theories that entail various methods of the collectivity of "means of production" and "distribution of goods" such as the Marxist theory, evolutionary and institutional economics, role of state, etc. , but the idea behind the government taking my "stuff and [redistributing] it" is an inaccurate statement describing implementation of socialism. I have already spoken of the idea of laissez-faire and therefore, the statement that a laissez-faire society is a voluntarist society is inaccuarate and is also a contradiciton of the the previous statement that "laissez faire capitalism is the non agression [principle]. " Even if such were true, and given the absolute statement "in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society. .. ," the claim that "if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors'. .. he usually goes to jail. " There are a few items inaccurately stated. The idea that "if one does not surrender his goods to his 'superiors'. .. he usually goes to jail" is false unless in the case of court action, or a reasonable search and seizure with proper paperwork. Also, using the absolute "other than" is fallacious, because then you are ruling every society non-consistent of a laissez-faire (not voluntarist) government. Even if the statement made is true, I would like to see the evidence behind such a claim.3. "When stuff is taken by force or threat, it is stealing. "So when a person's house is taken by force from the government due to the building of highways, or a some other form of construction, is that stealing? While some would say "yes," that is incorrect because the government has the right to do just that using eminent domain.4. "When one company (Or the government) monopolizes the whole means of production/distribution, the townspeople are usually left with only that option. However, with capitalism, there are usually many choices. There are two general stores in town! Not just CommiesRus! "The reason behind the monopolization of a productive/distributive item can be beneficial. Take PG&E for example. Let's say there are fifteen different lines keeping your house operational and one of those lines catches fire and burns your house down. Who do you blame? In this case, all companies would have to reimburse. The example given of "two general stores" and "with capitalism, there are usually many choices" is incoherent. As for "CommiesRus," while I appreciate Pro's interest and deliberation on the topic, this statement is weakening the argument showing extreme bias.5. "With the government owning all the stores, it is often difficult for towns to have an option when it comes to shopping. With private individuals creating new products, people also get to choose from a variety of goods, not just Stalin's Spectacular Soda. .. What if they prefer Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew? This entire statement is incredibly inaccurate. What about all the stores in New York, New York? Los Angeles, California? People have plenty of options to shop. Don't forget the online shopping that has become an incredible trend. 6. "Capitalism encourages creativity, while socialism keeps it trapped. This is just and good because people benefit from having more choices in life. "Creativity is encourage 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). This said, the second sentence is true, however it is incoherent to the former statement. ContentionWhile many individuals would very well believe that socialism is equated to theft and/or capitalism offers more choices, as Pro does, it is my belief that the balance between the two ideas leads to a greater balance in a governmental system. On one hand you have a government desiring the accumulation of wealth through a competitive free market society dependant of various sources while on the other you have a government desiring to adopt all means of production and its distribution through these productive entities that are independent of themselves. Allowing for one to completely dominate a nation, historically speaking, has cause issues and problems. Even in a balanced nation there are issues and problems to be faced. However, as this deals with the idea and theory behind the creation of err, I will continue my contention. Before handing the debate over to Pro, I will say blatantly that I do not believe one is more justified than another, but a creation of both in a nation leads to a greater good and higher awareness of problems that have occurred, are occurring, and those that will occur.