PDA

View Full Version : Destroying Fallacies: Part 1 - The Global Marketplace




derdy
09-16-2007, 05:15 AM
My hope for this thread is to establish a rebuttal for everyday arguments/bullshit you get when encountering people face to face or even online.

Today, the first gentleman I encountered I engaged in an almost 20 minute conversation. He was a life-long Democrat and we covered: the War on Drugs, the profit incentives teenagers in highschool are exposed to due to prohibition, the fact I went to a CHRISTIAN ROTC highschool, yet, I could get any drug you can imagine easier than I could aquire alcohol; we covered the IRS and the income tax; monetary policy and economic policy; and, finally, we covered the North American Union. He ALMOST stumped me....

After telling him about the NAU, he said, "What's wrong with the North American Union? It sounds like a good thing to me so long as we take over Canada and Mexico. We're living and competing in a global marketplace, so we need to do these things"

So, the fallicy is: THe North American Union will be a good thing because the US will take over Canada and Mexico and we need cheap labor and cheap goods to compete in the global marketplace."

My on-the-spot Rebuttal was this :

When HASN'T the world had a global marketplace??!! The only difference now is that corporations can reside in one nation-state, while exporting their manufacturing base to a poor nation-state, thus exploiting their standard of living. I then proceeded to tell him that once the commoner in the Asian marketplace has a higher standard of living because we shipped them all of our manufacturing jobs, the Chinese, for example, would now not have to rely on the American consumer to buy their product because they can sell their domestic goods to the newly wealthy domestic consumer. However, once the corporations in that country are not making the margins they once were, you know, like when they were offshoring to poorer countries from America?, they will take the manufacturing base and ship it to Africa. The process repeats at the expense of the middle class and the poor and to the favor of those that are in charge.

So, that was quite lengthy, but if anyone gives you BS about what we need to compete in a global market place and, therefore, we need cheap labor tell them this:

We've had a global marketplace since the inception of our Union and, as a matter of fact, the federal government was delegated the responsibility to engage in treaties with other nations!

Also tell them, that while yes, we may impose our will on Canada and Mexico, it favors the corporations NOT the people of the US! To combine the three countries is a VERY big redistribushing of wealth and our standards of living, while already in decline, will decline even more so!


In Ron We Trust

derdy
09-16-2007, 05:28 AM
I''ll elaborate more tomorrow.!

bcmiller
09-16-2007, 08:16 AM
The big argument that I have seen lately and that they tried against me on RedState.com was, "Show me where the patriot act takes your liberty" and "Have you really lost any freedom?"

I answered and then was banned. (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bcmiller/2007/sep/03/the_real_threat_to_our_freedom) What would your answer be to that question? Just curious. I looked at the Patriot Act and it seems to add loopholes and catchalls to other laws. Where it used to say "with a warrant" it now included or "other request"...

So no matter what I pointed out they refuted it by saying, "That is not what it says".

constituent
09-16-2007, 10:02 AM
if you have to get into that in depth w/ them... they're not going to listen.

after something like three sentences people will turn you off. this is true
for writing and speaking.

-NAU = a corporate monopoly on the global life experience. homogenization.
ask anyone when american culture 'died.' brand america has made us a
commercial and nothing more.

if you are a lover of art, music, culture, anything... increased homogenization is not a good thing. facilitating trade is a positive development. i live near the border, so a highway i could safely drive across mexico down to the pacific (from the gulf coast of texas) would be awesome.

but i like cultural differences and think we should seek to encourage, rather than water them down to cardboard, styrofoam and brand america.

no bueno.

cjhowe
09-16-2007, 10:48 AM
The rebuttal for average Joe may be homogenization of culture, however the more blanket rebuttal is homogenization of laws, loss of actual sovereignty and the furthering of moving complex policy away from the local level. We have seen the failures of having our own federal government determine policy that should be determined on the local level. Education (no child left behind), Energy (fighting wars over oil), Violence crimes (Roe v. Wade), FEMA(Katrina), and FAA (9/11 - no guns on planes) should all be seen as massive failures. These are all decisions that need to be made on the local level to work in the best interest of the people. An NAU provides to further push these decisions away from the local level, away from the people that are ultimately affected by the decisions.

In an NAU, we don't take over Mexico and Canada; they don't follow our rules. We make new rules so everyone is accommodated.

constituent
09-16-2007, 12:49 PM
"the rebuttal for average joe"

what the hell does that mean?

cjhowe
09-16-2007, 01:30 PM
"the rebuttal for average joe"

what the hell does that mean?

I'm sorry, I could have phrased that better. The average joe meaning someone who just needs a reason, any reason to support a viewpoint. The average joe needs a talking point. This has been proven in the Bush administration. If you consider yourself Republican, you're given three talking points on why a Republican should support Bush's position. Someone who identifies with Republican values should have been screaming at the top of their lungs over No Child Left Behind and the Iraq war. Did they? No, they had a talking point on why they should support it. So, the average joe only needs a talking point on why they need to reject the NAU.

sickmint79
09-16-2007, 01:36 PM
for NAU, i just ask if there's something like that in the works, shouldn't it be coordinated by the congress in both of our countries; instead of by the elitists rich guys behind closed doors at the CFR?

for which rights did YOU lose, i point out that an attack on one person's rights is an attack on all of ours. the constitution was not just written for "criminals". i didn't lose anyone to terrorism either, does that mean it doesn't exist? their argument is totally moronic.

Mesogen
09-17-2007, 07:12 AM
You can say that slavery was a product of the global market place. It would be again (or still) if it hadn't been for people's revulsion at the idea.

fsk
09-17-2007, 10:46 AM
A lot of times, conditions of poverty were intentionally created in these 3rd world countries. Then, we can "raise their standard of living" by sending them manufacturing jobs, because the people there are desperate for any work at all.

sickmint79
09-17-2007, 10:48 AM
A lot of times, conditions of poverty were intentionally created in these 3rd world countries. Then, we can "raise their standard of living" by sending them manufacturing jobs, because the people there are desperate for any work at all.

and selling them infrastructure projects to be performed by the Us to make them indebted to us...

confessions of an economic hit man is a good book