Socialism is immoral

First off, you did not answer my question. By accepting this debate you have accepted the conditions and the guide lines that I have set out for this debate. I will not expect you to answer the questions above in your next turn but be aware that this will take points off of your final score. Also, yes; it was a trap, but a rather reasonable trap.I did answer it. What didn't I answer? You even quote my answer in the rest of your argument :/In your second paragraph, you said quote " I say there are no inherent rights of man, because there is nothing that can never be taken from a man given the circumstances" First off, we are not discussing weather or not the rights man exist. Generally, most people accept that the rights of man exist, so lets try and keep away from discussing the subject of what constitutes a right or if they exist at all. Secondly, you said that " there is nothing that can never be taken from a man given the circumstances." This was either a typo or just poorly worded, please rewrite this correctly in your argument below ( what circumstances are you talking about?)I was answering your questions. Are you getting your debates confused or something? You asked: "Before we get started, please answer the following: are the rights of man be summed up in life, liberty, and property". So I answered. Before we got started. Like you said. If you want to "keep away from the subject", why in the world would you ask the question? What do you want from me?I meant circumstances generally, I really think you are confused about something. Circumstances generally, because Hitler can be deprived of his "right" to life, criminals can be deprived of their "rights" to liberty and property, for example. So, as I said, there is nothing that can NEVER be taken away. So, it wasn't a typo or poorly worded. Are you not familiar with what circumstances mean?...First, lets get a general definition of socialism from our good ole friends at Wikipedia " Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Lets start off with the social ownership of the means of production and management. For this to take into effect, things like factories and farms must be provided by the state to the people to manage as a collective. But, as is common knowledge, the government cannot provide you anything that it did not already take from someone else ( unless the government completely starts off from scratch and has to build everything from the ground up) Meaning, that if say a farmer who owns say 50 acres were to live in a socialist government, those fifty acres would no longer belong to him rather, they would be redistributed to the people. So even thought that the farmer was the one who worked those fields on his own, harvested those fields on his own, and sold the product of his fields on his own, he may no longer own his fields due to government redistribution. Now, the farmer must share his 50 acres with 50 other farmers. This process is called the abolition of private property and the redistribution of land; two core principles of socialism. As you can see here, the farmer was legally robbed of his lands.Actually, it's basic social contract theory. If the people of a society decide by whatever legal system has been established by their legistlative, whether it be democratic or monarchical, since the people assent, the government can do whatever it wants, assuming it doesn't eliminate people's rights to leave the society. The collective decision to deprive the farmer of his property would only be immoral if the government didn't provide for safe and effective transport of the farmer and his goods to a society that he prefers to live in. Otherwise, the farmer's existence in the society and use of government benefits is implied consent to the social contract, and is thus bound unless he wants to leave the contract. If the farmer has a problem with it, he can either try to keep his property by social/governmental/legislative channels or leave the society.You may ask your self, what does he mean by legally robbed? Well, first lets just clarify just what robbing is. " the act of taking a possession from a person or group without consent and without compensation." When people hear the word robbery, most think about 'illegal' robbery. An example of this would be a mugger brandishing a knife at you and demanding your money. Then there is 'legal' robbery. An example of this would be a police or civil force coming on to your property, seizing farm equipment, seed, and livestock; then handing you documents for your forced resignation of your land to the state. The difference between 'illegal' robbery, and 'legal' robbery, is that 'legal' robbery is approved by the state ( usually by legislature) and 'illegal' robbery is not approved by the state. Well, the situation you described is only robbery if two conditions are met. 1) The confiscation of the farmer's property was not fairly established by whatever legislative channels the farmer has assented to by means of social contract and 2) The farmer was not given any opportunity by the government to have himself and his property completely and safely transported to a society he preferred to live in. Ah, but once the state controls the means of production then doesn't it then provide the people with the land that it stole? Yes it does, kind of like a perverted version of Robin Hood. The difference between socialists and Robin Hood however, is that Robin Hood stole from tyrants, socialists steal from everybody who has and gives it to those who have not. Stealing from one person to give to another is theft plain and simple. Even if you are giving what you stole to another does that still justify the heinous act that you committed in order to obtain it? No! If you were mugged in the streets buy some thug, but then that thug gave the money he stole from you to a beggar on the street, does that make up for the crime he committed?This false sense of philanthropy is often over looked by socialists and those whom advocate it. Well, a massive portion of the money that the top 5%, say, of society is illegitimately earned and kept. So, things like rent-seeking, lobbying, tax evasion, etc. So, whether or not what they are doing is considering "crime", it circumvents the political system established by the collective body of people. Practices like predatory lending and regressive taxation actually HURT the poor. If anything is a perverted Robin Hood, it's siphoning money from the already poor to the rich by illegal means; neither the people who lose their money nor the wealthy who obtain it get what they deserve. Redistribution in this case is enormously moral, one of the most moral ways to handle it.Socialists don't want to confiscate the money of the class of people who have earned their money legitimately. There is even a passage in the Communist Manifesto in which Marx responds to this criticism. He says that the only reason he is willing to abolish private property is because the only current property that exists is "bourgeoisie property". As I'm sure you're aware, Marx considered the bourgeoisie to be generally abusive of the proletariat and to have enslaved the proletariat to their labor. Whether or not this is a realistic assessment of capitalism in general (in some ways it is, some ways it isn't), the point is that one of the MOST socialist socialists of all time by most counts only wanted to abolish the property of those who earned their property illegitimately. He says that he would most definitely NOT abolish the property of hard-working artisans of pre-Industrial Revolution times. Marx thought that the artisans were ideal, and certainly deserved everything they earned.So, in your example of the farmer, even Marx, and by extension the majority of reasonable socialists, would disagree with the confiscation, because, as far as I know, farming is one of the most directly labor-based occupations and does not engage in any predatory practices or subject other people to bad conditions for minimal pay where they are alienated from their labor.Lastly, Marx spoke very, very much about the alienation of workers from their labor and the products of their labor. He specifically WANTED people to be able to keep what they worked for and have the full experience of labor that was not de-humanizing and mechanical. Agricultural workers are the kind of hard-working people that he would support, even if they were among the wealthy. Marx, at least, did not care about who was wealthy and who wasn't, but rather who was oppressed proletariat and who was abusive bourgeoisie. Simple wealth distinctions mean nothing, and I would chastise any "socialist" who wanted to redistribute according to a simple wealth schematic. Even if the farmer was very wealthy, the very nature of their work means socialism would not confiscate their legitimately earned property. I would have quite a bit more to write but I have business to attend to. I am not sure weather or not you are arguing for full blown socialism, like the one I have described above, or democratic socialism. Please tell me in your next argument so that I may be prepared to answer you back.I don't know what you mean by "full blown socialism". I suppose democratic socialism is what I support? The reason I reference Marx is because he is a socialist icon, so if he defies your claims on socialism, that more or less refutes your claims. However, I do not support revolutionary socialism in general.I personally hold something along the lines of libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism, I think. Socialism is and can be a very good and fair thing if it is established through legitimate social channels and legislation.