Dude you admitted in the paragraph above that personal property is exclusive. Or are you saying my house isn't exclusive?
Personal property is materially different to the means of production, which determines our ability to survive. A house wouldn't necessarily qualify as personal property, as we have already discussed. However, people could be protected from random strangers wandering into their house, with exclusive use rights, which is not the same as owning the house.
The US constitution was written to defend your private property and prevent the government from interfering with your ability to make contracts with others. That the US has not been following the constitution is another problem in and of itself.
The U.S. Constitution seeks to protect people from undue interference by the government, but it does not determine the economic system that should exist in the states, irrespective of whether the intention was to protect private property or not.
Legitimacy means following an approved framework. Thus any system can be legitimate if it's at least internally consistent.
Like I said, what is considered legitimate is subjective. At one point slavery was considered legitimate in the United States, and slaves were considered legitimate private property. Things change.
This is just restating your previous statement without addressing anything I mentioned. Speaking from the experience of a post Soviet satelite state I think I can say millions of people are better off now, under liberal democracy and capitalism than they were under socialism. I also think on average, people in Taiwan are better off than people in China, and likewise with the people of South Korea and North Korea. But even if we stick to pure hypothetical, we can hypothetically say capitalism makes people better off than hypothetically socialism because just like hypothetical socialism shares wealth evenly and there is plenty of it, hypothetical capitalism has plenty of wealth and shares and creates plenty of it.
Many millions of people are also worse off as a result of capitalism's exploitation, cruelty and imperialism.
Despite Soviet Russia's authoritarian system, most Russian's regret its fall, which is an indictment of the current capitalist system.
The economic development that took place in Soviet Russia and that has taken place in China are the most rapid in economic history and have taken unprecedented numbers of people out of poverty at an unprecedented pace. One has to also remember that any attempt to build alternative systems to capitalism have been met with violent hostility by capitalist powers, especially the United States, which has and continues to use all its military and economic might to destroy attempts to create economies outside of its influence.
Thats asymmetrical utility, not exploitation. Exploitation would require one party member to be better off while the other partner is no better off. Once again, if I love mint ice cream but everyone else at the stand is meh about it, the fact that I pay the same price for it as you do means I'm deriving additional utility from the ice cream, which I have not compensated the ice cream vendor for. Is it exploitation to pay him 1$ for his work if I value it at at least $3?
No, that's exploitation.
The whole basis of capitalism is some people being better off at the expense of a lot of other people being worse off.
Your ice cream vendor is being exploited if someone else disproportionately profits from his labour, not if he sells you ice cream $2 less than you are willing to pay for it.
You seem to think employment contracts are not willingly signed or one party derives surplus utility from the contract. You need to work otherwise you starve. Yes, but the business needs workers otherwise it will go out of business. You both have something the other one needs to survive, so you trade. Seems cooperative to me, rather than exploitative.
It doesn't seem exploitative to you because you are a brainwashed ideologue of capitalism. However, the very structure of capitalism creates unwarranted power imbalances that put most of the population in an inferior negotiating position, such that what choices they have are very limited and are controlled by the capitalist owner class. Like I said before, capitalism creates a false choice of bad options for most people. It is the antithesis of freedom and democracy.