RockyRaccoon
09-26-2008, 11:59 PM
This was the title of a discussion that I attended this week organized by the Cornell University chapter of the International Socialist Organization (ISO, http://www.internationalsocialist.org). I was curious as to how they would describe the current economic situation and hoped to raise a few challenging questions.
But first, a brief background. I'm a very recent convert to the libertarian set of principles. I shamefully voted for Bush in 2000, albeit mostly because I was an uninformed voter. After I realized I was lied into Iraq, I was so dissatisfied with my government that I started to look for answers. The obvious choice was the "other party". About to pour the full force of my support behind John Kerry, I realized that if his voting record were any indication, that I would be getting more of the same. I soon stumbled upon Ralph Nader who seemed to be discussing real issues and decided that his approach made sense. The repression of Nader voters by the "democratic" party only fueled my determination and I was on the streets collecting signatures to get him on the state ballot. Fast forward to 2007. Ron Paul starts making a splash in the Republican primaries. I was immediately attracted to his foreign policy positions, but his economic positions scared me. However, I was intrigued enough to read more about it to discover "why he is wrong". To my surprise, rather than build up a powerful argument against the evils of an unregulated free market, I started to appreciate his economic message and realized that economic freedom was the missing piece of the liberty puzzle that I was otherwise pursuing with Ralph Nader. And now I can't get enough of it. I've been reading Austrian economic theory almost constantly for over 1.5 months.
Back to the socialist party. The speaker was very well-versed and persuasive. He started with a 30-40 minute critique of US imperialism, domestic restriction on our freedoms and, of course, the exploitation of workers by the "capitalists" (i.e. corporate CEOs and their friends in government). Aside from the specific word choices, his arguments really don't differ that much from the typical critiques available from the daily Mises.org articles or LewRockwell.com. The proposed solution, however, is in absolute opposition. I could barely prevent myself from laughing aloud as he transitioned from denouncing the capitalists for their exploitation of the working class (which libertarians may largely agree through government enforced monopolies and the redistribution of wealth upwards via inflation) to proposing that the working class do the same exact thing to everybody else!
At the end of the talk, I noticed that nobody in the audience was asking critical questions, an indication that the speaker was preaching to the choir. At this point I stood up and asked two questions that came to mind:
1. "You explained how the current economic crisis upon us is the fault of the unregulated free market economy and you propose a completely managed economy in its place. How would you respond to libertarians and people like Ron Paul who argue that we don't really have a free market and that, indeed, the problems we have now are precisely because of the planned economy that we have now?"
2. "You correctly pointed to the enormous power that labor can exercise through organized strikes. How do you justify preventing other workers from freely crossing picket lines to take the jobs they vacated? Aren't they just hurting their fellow workers who are working under even worse conditions than the striking workers are?"
The second question was completely ignored. As for the first question, I suppose that mentioning Ron Paul's name was a mistake, because the speaker simply denounced Ron Paul as a racist and a sexist and moved onto other questions. I suppose his opinion of Ron made any potential economic argument irrelevant. It reminds me an awful lot of what Mises had to say about Karl Marx in "Marxism Unmasked" -- unmasking a person as a "bourgoisie" is already adequate to address any potential disagreements you may have with that person. After the session ended, I proceeded to express my disappointment with the answer and politely debated four separate ISO members on the issues. One finally admitted that he didn't understand how the federal reserve operates. Another admitted they "didn't know much about economics". The third seemed very well-versed on Marxist theory. I finally stumped him when I used an argument from Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" -- i.e. that creation of products via labor doesn't necessarily entitle you to all of its worth, which made him stumble about as he continuously tried to justify Marx's theory of capitalist profits coming from "underpaying workers for the value added from labor".
This was an important learning experience for me. First of all, the obvious flaws inherent in arguments given by people even well-versed in Marxism were striking and totally solidified my confidence in the libertarian foundation. Secondly, I noticed that socialists use the same strategy that those on the right often use in discarding arguments from those they cannot refute -- label the person something unflattering and imply that a response isn't even necessary.
And finally I come to my point. Addressing the arguments are far superior than labeling others an unflattering name and being done with it. Labeling Ron Paul a "racist and a sexist" seemed adequate for the other socialists in the room, but it's not going to convince me or anybody else who isn't already convinced. The same goes for labeling leftists "communists" or "socialists". During my post-talk debates, I treated them with the utmost respect and responded to every single argument individually with counter-examples or arguments that undermine their logic. In the end, I got three well-read socialists to semi-admit their ignorance on an issue. And all this from somebody who still has quite a lot of reading left to do on the subject!
Don't forget that I have come to accept libertarian principles from a position on the far left. However, looking back, my support came from ignorance -- a lack of understanding about the economy and where economic liberty fits into the picture. But remember that leftists support their platforms out of a strong sense of justice (just look at Ralph Nader and the Green Party). I believe an appropriate debate could convince a large majority of them to our platform. But an aggressive stance only redoubles their defense as they see you as an apologist for an unfairly rigged system. The key is to logically undermine their arguments and to help them to see the full meaning of liberty and freedom.
-RockyRaccoon
But first, a brief background. I'm a very recent convert to the libertarian set of principles. I shamefully voted for Bush in 2000, albeit mostly because I was an uninformed voter. After I realized I was lied into Iraq, I was so dissatisfied with my government that I started to look for answers. The obvious choice was the "other party". About to pour the full force of my support behind John Kerry, I realized that if his voting record were any indication, that I would be getting more of the same. I soon stumbled upon Ralph Nader who seemed to be discussing real issues and decided that his approach made sense. The repression of Nader voters by the "democratic" party only fueled my determination and I was on the streets collecting signatures to get him on the state ballot. Fast forward to 2007. Ron Paul starts making a splash in the Republican primaries. I was immediately attracted to his foreign policy positions, but his economic positions scared me. However, I was intrigued enough to read more about it to discover "why he is wrong". To my surprise, rather than build up a powerful argument against the evils of an unregulated free market, I started to appreciate his economic message and realized that economic freedom was the missing piece of the liberty puzzle that I was otherwise pursuing with Ralph Nader. And now I can't get enough of it. I've been reading Austrian economic theory almost constantly for over 1.5 months.
Back to the socialist party. The speaker was very well-versed and persuasive. He started with a 30-40 minute critique of US imperialism, domestic restriction on our freedoms and, of course, the exploitation of workers by the "capitalists" (i.e. corporate CEOs and their friends in government). Aside from the specific word choices, his arguments really don't differ that much from the typical critiques available from the daily Mises.org articles or LewRockwell.com. The proposed solution, however, is in absolute opposition. I could barely prevent myself from laughing aloud as he transitioned from denouncing the capitalists for their exploitation of the working class (which libertarians may largely agree through government enforced monopolies and the redistribution of wealth upwards via inflation) to proposing that the working class do the same exact thing to everybody else!
At the end of the talk, I noticed that nobody in the audience was asking critical questions, an indication that the speaker was preaching to the choir. At this point I stood up and asked two questions that came to mind:
1. "You explained how the current economic crisis upon us is the fault of the unregulated free market economy and you propose a completely managed economy in its place. How would you respond to libertarians and people like Ron Paul who argue that we don't really have a free market and that, indeed, the problems we have now are precisely because of the planned economy that we have now?"
2. "You correctly pointed to the enormous power that labor can exercise through organized strikes. How do you justify preventing other workers from freely crossing picket lines to take the jobs they vacated? Aren't they just hurting their fellow workers who are working under even worse conditions than the striking workers are?"
The second question was completely ignored. As for the first question, I suppose that mentioning Ron Paul's name was a mistake, because the speaker simply denounced Ron Paul as a racist and a sexist and moved onto other questions. I suppose his opinion of Ron made any potential economic argument irrelevant. It reminds me an awful lot of what Mises had to say about Karl Marx in "Marxism Unmasked" -- unmasking a person as a "bourgoisie" is already adequate to address any potential disagreements you may have with that person. After the session ended, I proceeded to express my disappointment with the answer and politely debated four separate ISO members on the issues. One finally admitted that he didn't understand how the federal reserve operates. Another admitted they "didn't know much about economics". The third seemed very well-versed on Marxist theory. I finally stumped him when I used an argument from Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" -- i.e. that creation of products via labor doesn't necessarily entitle you to all of its worth, which made him stumble about as he continuously tried to justify Marx's theory of capitalist profits coming from "underpaying workers for the value added from labor".
This was an important learning experience for me. First of all, the obvious flaws inherent in arguments given by people even well-versed in Marxism were striking and totally solidified my confidence in the libertarian foundation. Secondly, I noticed that socialists use the same strategy that those on the right often use in discarding arguments from those they cannot refute -- label the person something unflattering and imply that a response isn't even necessary.
And finally I come to my point. Addressing the arguments are far superior than labeling others an unflattering name and being done with it. Labeling Ron Paul a "racist and a sexist" seemed adequate for the other socialists in the room, but it's not going to convince me or anybody else who isn't already convinced. The same goes for labeling leftists "communists" or "socialists". During my post-talk debates, I treated them with the utmost respect and responded to every single argument individually with counter-examples or arguments that undermine their logic. In the end, I got three well-read socialists to semi-admit their ignorance on an issue. And all this from somebody who still has quite a lot of reading left to do on the subject!
Don't forget that I have come to accept libertarian principles from a position on the far left. However, looking back, my support came from ignorance -- a lack of understanding about the economy and where economic liberty fits into the picture. But remember that leftists support their platforms out of a strong sense of justice (just look at Ralph Nader and the Green Party). I believe an appropriate debate could convince a large majority of them to our platform. But an aggressive stance only redoubles their defense as they see you as an apologist for an unfairly rigged system. The key is to logically undermine their arguments and to help them to see the full meaning of liberty and freedom.
-RockyRaccoon