Socialist Moron bashing me on Facebook

[Don't Tread on Mike]

I need some help. This socialist moron from my school is bashing me for having libertarian values, and believing in the free market. Help me formulate a response to silence guy once and for all. Heres what his argument is.

"Do you believe poor children deserve to be poor? This is how libertarianism works, but freedom and justice must be balanced for the maximum happiness of the populous. I like having public libraries and schools. I'm socialist.

Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor. Charities and donations alone can't provide justice."

*Then I comment to him about how socialism has failed throughout history and so on.*

He responds with:
"Everything failed throughout history. The vast majority of nations and empires have failed and have also been capitalist. They didn't fail because they were capitalist, though. They failed because of many different factors. The only way to prevent any nation from failing is for that nation to rule the entire world. Even that method is far from fool proof, though. Socialism is less than 200 years old. Much too early to tell if it is inherently flawed, just by looking at history.

What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education? If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"

Write your response to silence this globalist once and for all. And if he has a response I'll update you.

[dannno]

The reason people are poor is because they cannot afford to live comfortably. Many people who produce things day in and day out cannot afford their rent, food and utilities. The primary reason for this is that prices are too high. This is due to inflation which is caused by our banking system. Inflation isn't generally seen at McDonalds because food prices have been relatively stable. This tricks much of the general populace into believing all prices are stable. This is very far from true, however, as rent and housing prices have been skyrocketing over the decades, and this is a "price" that everybody, rich and poor, must pay. We all know that rent and housing is the greatest expense of living in general. Wages do not increase at the same rate as price inflation, and so poor people inherently suffer the most from price inflation because their finances are so close to the margin of poverty.

The other areas price inflation has occurred the most is in healthcare and energy. Healthcare, energy and housing have had a lot of government intervention over the years, and these are the areas where prices have been rising the most. People think that inflation is when ALL prices rise, and they don't realize that price inflation can occur in a specific market or set of specific markets. Price inflation is the rising of prices. Monetary inflation is the increase of the money supply, which inevitably leads to price inflation.

The ultimate cause of inflation is the Federal Reserve, which is a central bank. Many of our founding fathers fought against a central bank because they recognized that England's central bank was the primary cause of their troubles. Ben Franklin cited this as the primary reason for the American Revolution. The colonies wished to print their own currency, but England forced them to use their currency which meant they had to borrow from the Bank of England and go into debt. Therefore, the founding fathers ensured that the US government would create the money supply rather than leaving it to a private bank. Right now the United States central bank is a private banking cartel, and it is responsible for our dishonest monetary system which causes inflation and hurts the poor the most. This is the primary reason we need welfare, because of the wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy that occurs through the Federal Reserve, who is essentially allowed to counterfeit money for loans that are made primarily to large corporations because they offer the highest returns. This is also due to government intervention, recognizing corporations as persons, subsidies and tax breaks. These corporations get to spend the money first, so the value is much higher than when it enters circulation.

One thing that I do think our government should be in charge of is our money supply, as stated in the Constitution, backed by gold or silver. It is the sole reason why we have the boom and bust cycles, which hurt the people closest to the bottom of the earning pool the most because their finances are much closer to the margin.

[amonasro]

Here goes...

Socialism, in its current definition, may be 200 years old, but the idea of tyrannical, centralized government power is certainly not. Ask him how OUR country, also a mere 200 years old, became a superpower and envy of the world in such a short time period. Was it any type of Socialism? Absolutely not.

Explain to him the difference between Federal and State governments. The schools and libraries he loves are already available through State governments, so is health care. If a state has an overabundance of ghettos with stupid parents, then they can choose to implement programs to better serve them. Then, the citizens who don't choose to throw money at the state's welfare system can at least move to a different state, giving them economic freedom of choice.

You can also ask, just because one kid is born into unfortunate circumstances, does the other kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth deserve to have his money taken away to feed the citizens in unfortunate circumstances? How much is too much? 20, 30, 60% of his income? At what point will he become fed up with taxes and leave? Would it not be better to let him keep his income and donate it at will, rather than taking it forcefully through excessive taxation?

He talks about balance and "maximum happiness," but no government system provides a utopia for 100% of its citizens. We're arguing what system gives the most happiness and the most prosperity over a long period of time, not a self-serving, feel-good system where hard work, production and innovation are mutually exclusive to wealth and prosperity.

[acptulsa]

Libertarian does not mean 'no rule of law'. It doesn't mean 'no laws'. If a society wants to prohibit child labor, it isn't anti-libertarian to do so.

More diseases have been cured by researchers working under capitalist systems than socialist systems. Go with what works.

The poor child in the ghetto whose parents are slackers has more of a chance to escape the class system and work his way to wealth in a capitalist system than in a socialist system. In short, he has more hope.

And his seeming assertion that charity won't work even when people are allowed to keep enough of what they earn that they can afford it completely contradicts that the powered elite will do so with the money they steal through taxation. At least in a capitalist system there are quite a few people with the money and the power to use it for good. In socialism, the money and the power to donate it are concentrated in a few hands--and all of those hands belong to $#@*& politicians.

[Epic]

"Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor. Charities and donations alone can't provide justice"

Absolutely libertarians believe in sweatshop labor. Otherwise the people would be starving because they can't get other jobs.

Charitable organizations do much better than government than helping poor people. Government takes 70% off the top due to inefficiencies, public pensions, bureaucrats, etc. The war on poverty has been a complete failure, and has wasted 10 trillion+ dollars and just created more poverty, because it has incentivised poverty, broken up families, increased teen pregnancy, single motherhood, etc. and bred dependency in general.

Also, you could send this to the person. It's called "A Statist Intervention"

YouTube - True News 28: A Statist Intervention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh-ttsYcWb8)

[KenInMontiMN]

Both extremes are utopian ideals on opposing ends of the spectrum, in other words living hell for those who have to endure either utopia. I happen to prefer the libertarian utopia if I had to choose. That in no way implies that I wouldn't prefer to soften some of the sharper corners of that ideal with some moderation here and there.

[dannno]

I think kids should be allowed to work on their parent or guardian's property, such as a farm, but they should also be able to appeal to legal authority if their rights are being stepped on.

Explain to him that the reason why our country moved towards cheap labor in Asia is because our currency is highly valuable because other countries are essentially forced to trade oil in dollars, and much of world trade occurs in dollars. This artificially lowers the price of goods and labor in other countries.

Once again, the banks are the main culprit of causing poverty.

[dannno]

"Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor. Charities and donations alone can't provide justice"

Absolutely libertarians believe in sweatshop labor. Otherwise the people would be starving because they can't get other jobs.



That is a terrible argument and it completely ignores the reason why they are out of a job in the first place. They are out of a job because their land was taken by global corporations. They used to be farmers, but they were forced off of their land, into the city and now they have no other job. That doesn't mean that sweatshop labor is good, it means it is exploiting a group of people who had their land stolen!!

[Don't Tread on Mike]

I'm going to take all of your responses and send them to him in one big message. :D Keep em' coming!

[Epic]

That is a terrible argument and it completely ignores the reason why they are out of a job in the first place. They are out of a job because their land was taken by global corporations. They used to be farmers, but they were forced off of their land, into the city and now they have no other job. That doesn't mean that sweatshop labor is good, it means it is exploiting a group of people who had their land stolen!!

We are talking about the voluntary interaction known as sweatshop labor itself - not the circumstances that caused it.

"Sweatshop labor" is a voluntary interaction - people voluntary sell their labor to the highest bidder. These people have determined that the benefit of working in sweatshops is greater than the opportunity costs.

It seems that you are trying to explain why it is that their opportunity costs are so low, while I am simply defending the practice of selecting the voluntary, moral behavior that yields the greatest benefit.

[Epic]

A technique for argument: The "Against Me" Argument.

Go 20 minutes in.

YouTube - New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg)

Say that you are arguing about the welfare state, where government takes money using force and gives it to poor people (after taking a 70% cut).

You say: "I support your right to support the welfare state. However, I disagree with the welfare state. Am I free to disagree with you, without you advocating the use of force against me?

If he says yes --> You tell him that since you are free to disagree with him, logically you are also free to *act* upon that disagreement - which means he believes that you should not be forced to financially support the welfare state.

If he says you are free to disagree, but not free to *act* upon the disagreement, tell him that that is a logical fallacy, akin to a parent telling his daughter, "you are free to disagree with me, but I am going to pick who you marry." In this instance, note that the daughter is not actually free to disagree with him. To be free to believe something, you must logically be able to act upon that belief

If he says no --> conversation over. There can be no argument if someone advocates force against another person for simply possessing a different belief. This position creates 'thought crimes'.

[Annihilia]

"Do you believe poor children deserve to be poor? This is how libertarianism works, but freedom and justice must be balanced for the maximum happiness of the populous. I like having public libraries and schools. I'm socialist.
This is absurd. In a libertarian society, freedom is maximized and everybody is equal under the law. Is that not true justice? I don't want to get hired simply because I'm not white and a company is forced by law to hire me to fulfill a quota. That's ludicrous.

As for helping the needy, people will do that out of natural human compassion. Prior to the welfare state, private charitable associations for every conceivable cause were prevalent throughout America.

The welfare state corrupts the very nature of charity by forcibly taking money from individuals and channeling it through an expensive bureaucracy, having faceless, impersonal bean counters distribute what's left after they've taken their share to fund the whole operation. It's considered force because if for some reason I do not wish to partake in this so-called charity, they will send armed IRS agents to my home and threaten me with arrest at gunpoint. It's a shakedown! Clearly the ends really do not justify the means.

I would rather donate $50 to a private charity and have the majority of that go to the recipients of the cause.


Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor. Charities and donations alone can't provide justice."

If he means utilization of overseas sweatshop labor, the government is chiefly responsible for creating such an enormous burden on businesses through taxation and regulation. It becomes cheaper to maintain factories overseas to produce goods and ship them all the way here than to hire American workers and pay them a decent wage. You really don't know how bad all of these regulations are until you are in business for yourself, and it's much worse for small businesses.


"Everything failed throughout history. The vast majority of nations and empires have failed and have also been capitalist. They didn't fail because they were capitalist, though. They failed because of many different factors. The only way to prevent any nation from failing is for that nation to rule the entire world. Even that method is far from fool proof, though. Socialism is less than 200 years old. Much too early to tell if it is inherently flawed, just by looking at history.
This is stupid. Socialism is centralizing and consolidating power in the hands of a few. Abuse and corruption are literally built into this model.

It also goes against human nature as we are creative and independent creatures with a desire to pursue our own paths in life. A socialist society that punishes success by confiscating the fruits of one's labor for redistribution is a model fit for lower order organisms like ants.


What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education? If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"
Well obviously parents don't have a right to inflict harm on a child. I don't think anyone would disagree that child abuse warrants punishment in a libertarian society. As far as health care and education, refer to the first post. Private solutions are not only better, but more genuine. Socialism erodes the very nature of compassion.

[Zeeder]

Why isn't 200 years long enough? 30-50 years was plenty of time to see Medicare and Social Security bleed money.

How's that central planning by the banks going?

Ask him to name a federal program that's working like it supposed too?


"""What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education? If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"""

No. A decent person, would HELP THAT KID with their own money if they so chose. If they choose not too, that is their choice not His. This is the difference between socialism and Free Market. Voluntary Association between people vs Forced Association. System's don't help people. People help People.

How would I know the kid had cancer..........if it were undiagnosed? This is why socialist shouldn't be in charge of heath care. It would stay undiagnosed under their system anyway due to rationing. How long would that kid have to stand in line for a cat scan? Till he is dead. That's how long.

[ARealConservative]

Your friend is an economic lightweight.

Give him just enough rope to hang himself. Make him explain how goods and services are priced outside of a capitalistic society. Make him explain how much of a certain good and service should be produced outside of a capitalistic society.

In reality, your friend isn’t opposed to capitalism, he just wished to water it down by applying heavy redistribution and progressive taxation.

[dannno]

We are talking about the voluntary interaction known as sweatshop labor itself - not the circumstances that caused it.

"Sweatshop labor" is a voluntary interaction - people voluntary sell their labor to the highest bidder. These people have determined that the benefit of working in sweatshops is greater than the opportunity costs.

It seems that you are trying to explain why it is that their opportunity costs are so low, while I am simply defending the practice of selecting the voluntary, moral behavior that yields the greatest benefit.

Yes, but the problem is that it is that on the whole, the same global corporations who pay off government officials to kick the people off their land who are hiring people in these sweatshops. That is why I cannot find their behavior on any level of the operation as moral. However, people in those countries do have the right to work and people have the right to open up factories and such. I prefer not to support the global corporations, so I don't support the poor people at the factories.. which may sound bad, but in fact what I am doing is attempting to lower the demand for goods produced by global corporations so that they don't continue kicking more indigenous people off of their lands for this purpose.

[mczerone]

"Do you believe poor children deserve to be poor? This is how libertarianism works, but freedom and justice must be balanced for the maximum happiness of the populous. I like having public libraries and schools. I'm socialist.


No one "deserves" to be poor, but unproductive people absolutely are not deserving of the products of the productive. I want to give the poor the right to own their own labor, and turn that into their own productivity. The current size of one's wallet has no bearing on his ability to turn his labor and skills into capital.

The "maximum happiness of the populous" is a false standard that leads to ridiculousness of Nazi-ism: killing the undesireables. "Freedom and justice must be balanced" - by whom and for what ends? Freedom means being able to choose, without the threat of force. Justice is the preservation of rights. How can those ideas be compromised?

I like having the best quality books available at the cheapest quality prices. I like having education meet the needs of the people that want to be educated and the labor requirements of employers. Neither of these goals are made any closer to reality by having a central power grant shelf space to select materials by favor or erecting massive behemoths of day-care centers to employ the teacher's union's needs.

And to claim that you can steal my tax money to further your goals is evil. EVIL. Spend your money by donating to libraries and schools, but theft can't be justified even if the progams could be.


Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor. Charities and donations alone can't provide justice."


Absolutely not - A libertarian approves of employees and employers to be able to freely contract, whatever the conditions. Further, if a consumer believe an employer is being unjust, BOYCOTT! It's hard to make a profit, even off of cheap labor, when people don't buy your products.

Further, whats the alternative? Minimum wages? OSHA?

The Story of ACORN:

Step 1: Lobby for a higher minimum wage to "help the poor"

Step 2: grow your organization so that there is a great need for labor

Step 3: Ask for an exemption to minimum wage law, because, after all, "It's better to have a bunch of people employed at a low wage, then to only be able to employ a few people at that wage; the same amount of money can be more productive because the work isn't worth the minimum wage." (paraphrased)

And of course charities and donations alone can't provide justice - but neither can those alone provide, say, shoes. Must we then create a State Shoe Agency to clothe our feet? Or, gasp, may we rely on competing, private, liable, for-profit agencies to be able to meet the consumer need for justice?

It can't be worse than the kangaroo courts we have now (that mostly are right, but are very susceptible to State and lobbying in high-profile or far-reaching cases).



"Everything failed throughout history.

Wrong. Sometimes things were eclipsed by another movement before running its course. Losing a war to a foreign power doesn't prove that your governing system is wrong. The total implosion of the Soviets, the fall of the centralized Western Roman Empire, and numerous other historical examples show that central control over money, production, and capital lead to an implosion.




The vast majority of nations and empires have failed and have also been capitalist. They didn't fail because they were capitalist, though. They failed because of many different factors. The only way to prevent any nation from failing is for that nation to rule the entire world. Even that method is far from fool proof, though. Socialism is less than 200 years old. Much too early to tell if it is inherently flawed, just by looking at history.


Agreed, however I don't think ANY nation or Empire could be called "capitalist" rather than "merchantilist."

"Ruling the entire world" is the RISK end game - but why can't there exist a solution with perpetually fluctuating States, or even No State At All?

Socialism has inherent flaws: Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (link to mp3 (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=search&q=socialist%20commonwealth))


What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education? If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"


I would think "poor kid." I would be more likely to support a charity that could help the kids in these situations.

Further, just making health care "free" won't give incentives to your hypothetical deadbeat parents to take their kid in. In fact, it will stifle new developments, techniques and treatments, and make access more cumbersome, more expensive, and less effective. I'd rather a few rich people have access to innovative techniques for a few years while the bugs are worked out, and then have the prices fall with increased efficiency and better methods, with increased demand. Instead, Socialized Health Care will slowly, if at all, develop new technology, and it will be mandated by some central agency that is more responsive to pay-offs than peer-reviewed quality research testing the effects. It will kill people and not be liable to them. It will make people sicker. It will make doctors pariahs.

I grew up poor, and it isn't the State that offers a solution to that predicament - the State offers perpetual poverty, and Socialism is simply putting all but a select group of "leaders" into that ever-worsening state of poverty. These poor people have no political pull in a socialist system. In a free-capitalist system, they are entitled to keep every drop of their labor, and can make whatever future they plan for.

When you look at a kid in subsidized housing, thrust into a life of black-markets and violence, of kill or be killed, with no jobs to provide above the board income, and no quality school to teach actual skills useful to them, do you think "This is the way its supposed to be, the Socialist State is maintaining Class division just fine."



I doubt your opponent has the fortitude to make it through even a few paragraphs of these responses, but I don't see how they could be disagreed with from his POV.

[Elwar]

Write your response to silence this globalist once and for all. And if he has a response I'll update you.

As long as the person is somewhat intelligent and expresses his own views as opposed to popping out tired old sound bites, I say embrace the debate. I debated with a Socialist/Communist for a long time in a semi-cordial manner when I was in college and afterwards, it helped me to grow as a libertarian. It's good to know that the opposition isn't an evil monster who wants to throw everyone into gas chambers and cackle in glee at your suffering. They are people who have their opinion and, however screwed up it might be, they believe it and are just as passionate about it as you are about libertarianism.

Debate with him in an honest manner, don't take pot shots at him as a person, debate the underlying ideals.

A true socialist or communist or facist (I don't think I've ever met anyone who calls themselves a facist) are more fun to debate because they actually have some knowledge of what they're talking about. They're not out there saying that Bush rocks because he's for freedom and patriotism like the Patriot Act. Socialist tend to be able to see through the game in the same way we see through it.

They just have a difference of opinion, on all sorts of levels. Don't try to change him, let him change you...into a more informed and more polished libertarian.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

As long as the person is somewhat intelligent and expresses his own views as opposed to popping out tired old sound bites, I say embrace the debate. I debated with a Socialist/Communist for a long time in a semi-cordial manner when I was in college and afterwards, it helped me to grow as a libertarian. It's good to know that the opposition isn't an evil monster who wants to throw everyone into gas chambers and cackle in glee at your suffering. They are people who have their opinion and, however screwed up it might be, they believe it and are just as passionate about it as you are about libertarianism.

Debate with him in an honest manner, don't take pot shots at him as a person, debate the underlying ideals.

A true socialist or communist or facist (I don't think I've ever met anyone who calls themselves a facist) are more fun to debate because they actually have some knowledge of what they're talking about. They're not out there saying that Bush rocks because he's for freedom and patriotism like the Patriot Act. Socialist tend to be able to see through the game in the same way we see through it.

They just have a difference of opinion, on all sorts of levels. Don't try to change him, let him change you...into a more informed and more polished libertarian.

Oh I know, I respect him as a person and I respect his right to disagree. But I do not respect his choice of wording making me look like the one that advocates poor people deserving to die. I simply want to inform him of why this is not true and back it up with fact somehow. I am still new to debating and I am not the master of laissez fair free market capitalism, and I am not the head of the libertarian party. SO I figured what better a way to debate than to use a collaborative opinion to turn this debate around and make me not look like the guilty one and back it up with your arguments why his opinion of capitalism and libertarianism is false.

[mczerone]

I'm going to take all of your responses and send them to him in one big message. :D Keep em' coming!

Don't necessarily bombard him; we want to teach him, not scare him away.

Offer to take a look at some of his resource materials - ask him what a good book on the topic is. He won't have an answer - he doesn't have real academic though behind his ideas, just gossip.

He believes what he does because he learned it from someone he trusts - whether friends, teachers, MSM, or the State propaganda itself. Likely he hasn't rationally justified any of it, he has just been convinced that "everybody else likes that answer".

[dannno]

It's good to know that the opposition isn't an evil monster who wants to throw everyone into gas chambers and cackle in glee at your suffering. They are people who have their opinion and, however screwed up it might be, they believe it and are just as passionate about it as you are about libertarianism.

They're not out there saying that Bush rocks because he's for freedom and patriotism like the Patriot Act. Socialist tend to be able to see through the game in the same way we see through it.



Yup.

My progression went from understanding the theoretical reasons why conservatism is good for the economy into seeing that the system was rigged and pushing the political establishment to help push up the underdog through socialism and then to understanding HOW the system was rigged (via central banks and banking cartels), and thus how to fix the root of the problem which leads back to conservatism, liberty, etc.

Many socialists are only one degree of separation from political enlightenment, whereas many conservatives are several steps away..

[powerofreason]

Ask him who ought to be enslaved to provide the poor cancer kid with healthcare.

[Danke]

No one "deserves" to be poor, but unproductive people absolutely are not deserving of the products of the productive. I want to give the poor the right to own their own labor, and turn that into their own productivity. The current size of one's wallet has no bearing on his ability to turn his labor and skills into capital.

The "maximum happiness of the populous" is a false standard that leads to ridiculousness of Nazi-ism: killing the undesireables. "Freedom and justice must be balanced" - by whom and for what ends? Freedom means being able to choose, without the threat of force. Justice is the preservation of rights. How can those ideas be compromised?

I like having the best quality books available at the cheapest quality prices. I like having education meet the needs of the people that want to be educated and the labor requirements of employers. Neither of these goals are made any closer to reality by having a central power grant shelf space to select materials by favor or erecting massive behemoths of day-care centers to employ the teacher's union's needs.

And to claim that you can steal my tax money to further your goals is evil. EVIL. Spend your money by donating to libraries and schools, but theft can't be justified even if the progams could be.



Absolutely not - A libertarian approves of employees and employers to be able to freely contract, whatever the conditions. Further, if a consumer believe an employer is being unjust, BOYCOTT! It's hard to make a profit, even off of cheap labor, when people don't buy your products.

Further, whats the alternative? Minimum wages? OSHA?

The Story of ACORN:

Step 1: Lobby for a higher minimum wage to "help the poor"

Step 2: grow your organization so that there is a great need for labor

Step 3: Ask for an exemption to minimum wage law, because, after all, "It's better to have a bunch of people employed at a low wage, then to only be able to employ a few people at that wage; the same amount of money can be more productive because the work isn't worth the minimum wage." (paraphrased)

And of course charities and donations alone can't provide justice - but neither can those alone provide, say, shoes. Must we then create a State Shoe Agency to clothe our feet? Or, gasp, may we rely on competing, private, liable, for-profit agencies to be able to meet the consumer need for justice?

It can't be worse than the kangaroo courts we have now (that mostly are right, but are very susceptible to State and lobbying in high-profile or far-reaching cases).



Wrong. Sometimes things were eclipsed by another movement before running its course. Losing a war to a foreign power doesn't prove that your governing system is wrong. The total implosion of the Soviets, the fall of the centralized Western Roman Empire, and numerous other historical examples show that central control over money, production, and capital lead to an implosion.





Agreed, however I don't think ANY nation or Empire could be called "capitalist" rather than "merchantilist."

"Ruling the entire world" is the RISK end game - but why can't there exist a solution with perpetually fluctuating States, or even No State At All?

Socialism has inherent flaws: Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (link to mp3 (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=search&q=socialist%20commonwealth))



I would think "poor kid." I would be more likely to support a charity that could help the kids in these situations.

Further, just making health care "free" won't give incentives to your hypothetical deadbeat parents to take their kid in. In fact, it will stifle new developments, techniques and treatments, and make access more cumbersome, more expensive, and less effective. I'd rather a few rich people have access to innovative techniques for a few years while the bugs are worked out, and then have the prices fall with increased efficiency and better methods, with increased demand. Instead, Socialized Health Care will slowly, if at all, develop new technology, and it will be mandated by some central agency that is more responsive to pay-offs than peer-reviewed quality research testing the effects. It will kill people and not be liable to them. It will make people sicker. It will make doctors pariahs.

I grew up poor, and it isn't the State that offers a solution to that predicament - the State offers perpetual poverty, and Socialism is simply putting all but a select group of "leaders" into that ever-worsening state of poverty. These poor people have no political pull in a socialist system. In a free-capitalist system, they are entitled to keep every drop of their labor, and can make whatever future they plan for.

When you look at a kid in subsidized housing, thrust into a life of black-markets and violence, of kill or be killed, with no jobs to provide above the board income, and no quality school to teach actual skills useful to them, do you think "This is the way its supposed to be, the Socialist State is maintaining Class division just fine."



I doubt your opponent has the fortitude to make it through even a few paragraphs of these responses, but I don't see how they could be disagreed with from his POV.

Great post!

[Stary Hickory]

Well to make it simple. Socialism is theft and violence institutionalized. Societies do not develop and prosper with rampant theft and violence in them. A healthy and growing society depends on mutual respect of rights and free trade.

Everything about socialism is backwards. It interjects violent theft and looting into a society with disastrous results. Looting and pillaging is a very old concept, and using the government to loot is not a novel idea either. Your friend has a very short sighted understanding of the world, and he is not asking himself where the money comes from. He has simply taken hold to the notion that the money comes from evil capitalists.

He seems like a crazy left wing socialist/liberal. And truly they are lost, conservatives understand that taxing the "rich" is not going to help the country. This is a good start. Liberals think that the rich are a problem. It's been stated before, but the best way to help a poor child is to make sure that he has opportunity to succeed. In Socialism self determination is limited, your ability to better your situation is destroyed.

And you must sit back and watch as the institutionalized looting degrades society and the economic situation. Not to mention the corruption that develops. America created the richest poor in the world thatnks to free trade and capitalism. Capitalism has done more for the common man than any social government program could ever do.

In fact we have seen every social program fail that was ever implemented in America. It makes no sense to use guns and force to increase these programs, they are not wanted. If they were people would not be forced into them.

[Carole]

A recent interesting example of how centralized government does not work is the example in Hawaii in which some businesses which would be directly affected by a deteriorating road, decided they could not wait up to the two years and and $4 billion dollars the "government" said it would take to get the road repaired.


Island DIY: Kauai residents don't wait for state to repair road
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html

"It would not have been open this summer, and it probably wouldn't be open next summer," said Bruce Pleas, a local surfer who helped organize the volunteers. "They said it would probably take two years. And with the way they are cutting funds, we felt like they'd never get the money to fix it."

"If the park is not open, it would be extreme for us, to say the least," he said. "Bankruptcy would be imminent. How many years can you be expected to continue operating, owning 15-passenger vans, $2 million in insurance and a staff? For us, it was crucial, and our survival was dependent on it. That park is the key to the sheer survival of the business."

The business owners got together and had the work done themselves:

"And after only eight days, all of the repairs were done, Pleas said. It was a shockingly quick fix to a problem that may have taken much longer if they waited for state money to funnel in."

""We shouldn't have to do this, but when it gets to a state level, it just gets so bureaucratic, something that took us eight days would have taken them years," said Troy Martin of Martin Steel, who donated machinery and steel for the repairs. "So we got together -- the community -- and we got it done." "

Big government, central planning/socialism is completely wastelful and inefficient. Additionally, it creates poverty, from which there is no way out and destroys the middle classes.

I would also suggest that centralized/socialized education is dragging the quality of education down further each year. They throw money at it form DC, then dictate the rules and what and how subjects are taught. They politicize the entire system rather than allowing states and communities to determine locally these matters. They lower standards and discourage individual achievement through the grading system. No one is allowed to fail; therefore, our education system is turning out poeple who cannot read, do math, or understand history and science.
Instead the government is indoctrinating children in our schools with bad science and bad behavioral and study habits by not allowing them to fail, and creating a "forever" class of citizens who will become dependent upon government.

Children are dropping out from sheer boredom and those who stay in the system are learning less. Instead the government is using the education system to socialize and indoctrinate children and prepare them for low-paying jobs. This is another way in which the poor are punished by socialism and big government. The result is that many of these disadvantaged students will become suitable for ONLY low-paying jobs. And only low-paying jobs will be left in America as we become more and more globalized. Today's Chinese sweatshops will be America's sweatshops of the future, thanks to socialism.

[mczerone]

Great post!

Thank you, I try.

/sad, ain't it?

[Danke]

Thank you, I try.

/sad, ain't it?

Sad yes. I run across so many Statist. And I am just not as articulate as so many of you posters here on RPFs. I have the ideas in my head from lots of reading and life experiences, but just can't convey them well to the brain-washed that I talk to in the public domain.

[Objectivist]

The idea that anyone "deserves" anything is a fallacy. Where does the idea that you deserve a certain type of a behavior come from? Why doesn't the so called socialist provide for the kid with cancer? Isn't that their ideal?

Altruistic behavior is illogical but if you feel the need to provide for other people and it makes you feel good then by all means go ahead, I owe you nothing. Does this person suggest because we share the planet that I somehow am responsible for his/her life?

In the realm of child labor, how dare he keep children from working and supporting themselves or their families. I had jobs when I was a kid, I made money and how can he justify taking food off my table, or clothes off my back?

The truth about so called Socialists is that they have everything at their disposal to create a social utopia but they are not about doing it themselves, they want others to do it via coercion and force. The 70 million people that voted for Obama could pool their resources and live the socialist wet dream, but they don't want that, they want to steal other peoples money to live that same wet dream. And at the base they cannot sustain socialism without sucking the lifeblood out of capitalism.

Send your friend a message that you need $50 for a pair of shoes and see if they send it to you. Then ask why they didn't give you the money as you truly need a pair of shoes. I doubt they'd send you a pair of used shoes let alone the money.

Ask your friend to name 5 government programs that have been successful.

There are ways to spend money, one is where I spend the money I earn.... here Milton says it better
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A)
YouTube - The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4-eI1T71E&feature=related)
YouTube - Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw&feature=related)

[Ninja Homer]

The quickest way to teach him how socialism really works would be a little demonstration. But don't really do this!!

Tell him you don't have any money and he has to give you half of what he has. If he refuses, kick his ass and take it. That's socialism.

Under capitalism, the US experienced more technological advances, more freedom, and more wealth than any other people in known history. It wasn't until socialist programs were put in place that the government started to fail. It's really very obvious... so obvious that you have to believe a bunch of lies and completely ignore history to believe otherwise.

Who knows, maybe some day there will be a country that has a socialist government that works. I think the biggest problem is keeping corporations out of the system... it's damn hard to do with socialism.

Of course, corporatism has crept into the US over time as well. The current US government is NOT an example of how capitalism fails; it is an example of what happens when corporatism and socialism are allowed to exist in a capitalist government. If you want an example of how capitalism works, you have to go back 100 years or so and look at the US then.

If the US moves to socialism now, it will have failed before it even began. It would be corporate controlled socialism right from the start. Take money from the people, give it to the corporations so they can give services and products to the poor people, repeat forever. The middle class disappears, everybody is poor except for corporations, they become the only real people with power, they become the ruling class, they do whatever they want. All the poor people get pissed off, they unite and decide to take back their country, there's a bloody revolution, they recreate a capitalist limited republic in the US.

So what's our role in this? We see and understand what's going on, and we're just trying to wake everybody up and educate them so we can get back to the original form of US government without a bloody revolution.

[Revolution0918]

when u go to school tomorrow go take his stuff and say that its for the good of the people....see how much he likes it

[Conza88]

"Everything failed throughout history. The vast majority of nations and empires have failed and have also been capitalist. They didn't fail because they were capitalist, though. They failed because of many different factors. The only way to prevent any nation from failing is for that nation to rule the entire world. Even that method is far from fool proof, though. Socialism is less than 200 years old. Much too early to tell if it is inherently flawed, just by looking at history.

Define your terms. What is Socialism? What is Capitalism?

I'll do it for you.
Socialism: Public ownership of the means of production. Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.

The Soviet Union - 97% public ownership of the means of production. And where is the Soviet Union now? Oh yeah it COLLAPSED, because of its inability to economically calculate, due to no market pricing mechanism.


What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education? If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"

Why is there a ghetto? Why are there stupid parents? Why isn't a decent education accessible to him? Why is healthcare too expensive?

= ALL problems of government intervention in the market. Your problems exists because of it... and YET, you want MORE of the problem? And think it will some how SOLVE it?

:rolleyes:

[Conza88]

when u go to school tomorrow go take his stuff and say that its for the good of the people....see how much he likes it

Lmao, yes! Tell him you were just redistributing wealth.

When he asks for it back... response: Why do you hate poor people? You are so SELFISH! In as sarcastic tone.

Essentially though OP, use the against me argument.

Ask him if he would use force against you, show him the gun in the room.

Hint: It's in his hands aimed at your face.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

when u go to school tomorrow go take his stuff and say that its for the good of the people....see how much he likes it

Oh I would so do that! But..... we both graduated last year. Good idea though. :)

[Bman]

Do you believe poor children deserve to be poor? This is how libertarianism works, but freedom and justice must be balanced for the maximum happiness of the populous. I like having public libraries and schools. I'm socialist.

Why not ask me if I think fat children deserve to be fat? Of course freedom and justice must be balanced. What lack of freedom or justice are you talking about that causes someone to be poor? Libertarianism is not about making people poor. It's an understanding that government cannot make people not poor. You cannot solve poorness with Government. Government can only take money from someone and give it to someone else. It cannot create actual productive jobs that can cure poorness.

I'm sure you like libraries and schools. Is there any reason you need money from another community to make these things happen? Even if you did how does forcing government to steal the money from another help you. There's a difference between earning something and taking something. Taking is archaic and intellectual sloth. Problems cannot be solved by merely forcing someone to give you money.

I'm not a socialist. I do not believe that force is answer to all things.



Every time you say you are libertarian you're also saying you approve of sweatshop labor.


Are you being serious? Sweatshops? Being Libertarian does not mean you do not believe in law and order. The protection of personal liberties is the most critical part of being a libertarian. How you think libertarianism = sweatshops is beyond me.


Charities and donations alone can't provide justice.

But forcing people to hand over money they have earned can? Justice from injustice? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.



Everything failed throughout history. The vast majority of nations and empires have failed and have also been capitalist.

Go ahead and name one.


They didn't fail because they were capitalist, though. They failed because of many different factors.

One of those factors in some cases may have come from turning socialist. There's some compelling evidence on why Rome eventually declined. I'd ask you to read some things from Michael Rostovtzeff, Ludwig von Mises, Bruce Bartlett, Arnold J. Toynbee, and James Burke to name a few.




The only way to prevent any nation from failing is for that nation to rule the entire world. Even that method is far from fool proof, though. Socialism is less than 200 years old. Much too early to tell if it is inherently flawed, just by looking at history.

If something fails there is no question of whether or not it is inherently flawed. Failure only happens with flaws. You just believe that you can fix these flaws. Without probably ever asking yourself if the flaw would even exist if Government was not involved. Wanting a single Government entity is one of the most flawed ideas in History. It's simple math. You have one of something, let’s say a house. Now something happens to that house. It collapses. Now what are you going to do. What if there were 200 houses. Maybe someone would help you out if your house collapsed. If you think putting your eggs in one basket is a good idea I'd have to say you have completely disregarded history.



What I want to know is, if a little kid in the ghetto has stupid parents that are slackers, does that mean he doesn't deserve health care and a decent education?

I certainly wouldn't prevent someone from these things. How you expect to give people this stuff is what is ludicrous. For example. Germany a few years back realized that a part of the country was not productive. In other words the money spent there would never amount to anything. So they told the people in the area that they were closing down government institutions for the area and that anyone who needed Government institutions should move from the area. The town has become virtually deserted. Now whether or not the area should have failed and people should have moved is not what is important. What is important is to notice that the area failed because of Government interference.

Without Government the area would not have had the inflated population. People do not move to places where there is nothing for them. A Government, especially a centralized government do not need to control whether or not a place fails or succeeds. We as humans can do this on our own. Helping someone is one thing, making people dependant on something is completely another.



If you saw a little kid like this, dying from undiagnosed cancer because he doesn't have health care, would you think "This is the way it's supposed to be. Capitalism is working fine" ?"

And if the same situation happened with a universal health care how should I feel about that? People do die in socialist governments. Again, helping is one thing, making people dependant on something is completely another.

Those are some of my answers. Someone give me a grade.