"There are no economic systems that innately correct just as there are no mathematical axioms that are more than an agreed set of rules."

Economic sytems are all about trading. So someone with sack of potatoes trades it to someone for a bootle of wine is innately correct if both parties are happy with the trade.
Free trade is "innately correct". In same sense that being able to talk to people is "innately correct".

"Everyone used to think for example parallel lines never met until Gauss started to question it. All economic systems work to some degree, communism worked, socialism still works, fascism works, dictatorships work, but all have various flaws that can make them unstable or inefficient."
Probably more accurate to say people can "work", and are capable of working despite various screwy systems.

"So which is the "right" system and who gets to decide what is "right"? The idea that private property and one's possessions are one's own is not a principle it is a made up rule of a game one decides to play."

If the culture is hunting & gathering or herding animals, then land ownership doesn't make much sense. But if you are farming or mining, or building permanent homes then land ownership makes sense- you are investing time into improving the land so you can "make a living".
Obviously hunting & gathering or herding animals isn't going work very well if the land occupied by a bunch of farmers.

"So your real question is, why doesn't everyone prefer the system I prefer? Ayn Rand of course asked the same question and tried to imagine a society that ran that way. Perhaps that leads to the next question, if this is so self evident and correct why has no society in the history of man ever been run completely that way?"

Because using armed force trumps other "economic systems"?
Armed force controls the wealth, but doesn't generate it.

"You would think if it was so obviously true then somewhere everyone would have preferred it.
In fact the principles you are saying are simply radical to all known civilisations so far. There have been many cases where people have accumulated wealth through trade in peace, and then when there is enough of an imbalance then the poor take some of it back by voting or force."

Accumulation of wealth has never been a real problem, it's usually poor management and overtaxation. Or external warfare- people to take the wealth.

"The thing is the poor know that they will do better under some socialism and see know reason to pick the rules of a game that guarantees they lose. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work for the poor, it never has in the history of man and it never will. "

Generally, in a free society, people will form into groups which will represent their interests- co-ops for instance, or they form union type groups. It is this behavior which was studied that lead to the invention of Socialism. Socialism as a govt system has never worked.

"The system that does work is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Knowing as we do that that works the question then is why do you prefer a logical system that doesn't work for everyone? "

Socialism can be supported by capitalism. That socialism seems to work is illusionary.

"You give the example of someone being robbed here is a counterexample. A few people have accumulated all the money and food and the rest of the people have none. Why should they starve because of a so called moral property right, and what is so moral about them all starving?"

Because the "few people" have worked to get the food and money. Why were all these other people unable work and get food and money?

"There is no Robin Hood principle involved, it is setting up an arbitary set of economic rules that favor one group, namely the smartest, the strongest and the sneakiest. The rest of the population has no obligation to prefer that system."

That's why the "smartest, the strongest and the sneakiest" better have a police force and army- because there we always be people who think, "those guys cheated, therefore it's ok if I steal their stuff". In other words, there are people who "make a living" by being theives- and these people are never rich.

"Zoning officials are a good example, when there is no control over zonings you end up with slums and a complete disaster. How could this be possible if the principles you are saying are logically impossible to be wrong?"

I don't think Tom was objecting to the idea of city planning, but rather the discretionary power of the offical.