Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

Before I build my own case back up and refute theirs, I'd like to clear up the definition confusion. It is perfectly acceptable to offer definitions given by individuals, especially those with good ethos. Ayn Rand is very knowledgeable about capitalism and her branch specifically says that in a capitalist society, all interactions between people that are voluntary are okay. The same goes with her definition of the word "right". .. She developed a whole philosophy and has ethos. Okay, so my opponent claims that bringing in the non-aggression principal is both unnecessary and fallacious. I do not see it this way. In Ayn Rand's branch, it is in fact the central principal of laissez faire! In any other system besides laissez faire, the government would have to use some amount of aggression against businesses, store owners, etc. Whether it is taxation, redistribution, or anything else, it is theft. My claim that laissez faire is the only system that is compatible with voluntaryism is not fallacious because it is true! With Communism or socialism, if one does not give his goods to the government to redistribute it, he is penalized. With fascism, the state can take and give as it pleased, at the expense of the business owner. With corporatism, the government takes tax money from people (If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail) and gives it to the rich corporations. Bottom line. .. Voluntarism can only co exist with capitalism. On to my opponent's second refutation: Socialism does not require people to redistribute goods. It is very true that there are various forms of socialism and ways that it can be enacted. However, they all require some government control over the distribution of goods! The basic idea of socialism is that the government regulates or controls distribution and production! When one makes a product, it is their property by moral law. Onto the refutation saying 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". .. The basic idea is that even if he does not go to jail right away and is given a fair trial, he is still being convicted of a victimless crime. .. The crime of not surrendering your property to the state. My opponent's 3rd refutation: Socialism does not equate to theft. He provided an argument about government taking a house by force to make room for a highway. How is taking something by force not theft? Theft: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. " (Dictionary. com). Because the government may have a legal right to take the house does not mean it has a moral right. Never forget that what is legal does not always match up to what is moral. The morals that I uphold in this debate are Voluntarist morals. .. Anything (harmful) done to another person without their consent is immoral. My opponent's 4th counter argument: "Monopolization is beneficial. " He provided the argument that all powerlines would have to take the blame if a house burned down because of one. In a voluntarist society, if something like that were to happen, maybe the powerline CEO's and the homeowner could figure out a solution that would not require them to all reimburse. Besides, when offering services, they should know that there are risks to do so and the people being serviced should be aware of those risks as well. To clear up the confusion about "Two general stores Vs CommiesRus". .. In a voluntarist society, it is easier to set up a store or business, make a profit and help people versus in a socialist society, where it can range from regulations (Making it harder to set up a store, service people, and make money) to the government monopolizing a particular market. It does not have to be general stores in particular, but anything. As for the "CommiesRus". .. First of all, debate is supposed to be biased! Second of all, those of you that are tuned off by my childish jab. .. It may weaken my ethos, but the actual argument stays intact. 5th refutation to my arguments: Stalin's Spectacular Soda vs Mt Dew and Dr. Pepper. I was referring to an extreme socialistic/Communist situation. I understand that this is not the stance my opponent is taking However, my main point still stands. .. In a socialistic world, where it is difficult for people to get their products out there due to regulations, there are less options. I know that this would not be the case for something as unimportant as soda, but think Social Security, etc. Secondly, online shopping would be heavily regulated in a socialist world as well. .. Think about the internet tax that has been a topic of hot debate. 6th rebuttal: "Socialism does not trap creativity" I think it does because, like I stressed earlier, in a regulated economy, it is harder for innovators to get their product on the market, and they have trouble profiting from their creativity because the government takes away a lot of their money. Okay, now onto my opponent's contention: I do not see a clear contention other than that there should be a balance because if one dominates a nation, problems will arise. He cites no examples of when capitalism dominated the nation, (True, Voluntary, Capitalism never has) or the problems it has caused. (Yeah, I know some people are thinking "Great Depression". However, that is caused by Corporatism, The Federal Reserve, and the Smoot- Hawley Tariff act). He also mentions that with that balance, we can raise awareness of problems that have arisen. Again, no examples. As a whole, his one contention is pretty vague. Vote Capitalism for voluntarism, creativity, and cash! Once again, thank you Dywal.92 for engaging in this debate with me. .. I look forward to your response.