Posted on 04/19/2010 8:58:08 AM PDT by AngryCapitalist
Socialism broadly applied invariably leads to tyranny, because in order for it to function, any freedom to opt out of participation cannot long be tolerated.
Socialism is the belief that welfare recipients will out-invent entrepreneurs instead of simply blissing out.
Capitalism is the belief that people will live to their standard of contributing to society....or put another way, that people have the right to set their own price on whatever they sell.
Best Yet. Like the Borg on Star Trek.
I also don't think large corporations owe us a thing - most do donate money to charities but they pay employees - that's all you should expect, a paycheck. If you want a Mommy to hug you, then work for Mommy.
One other thing - if this professor has someone who cuts his lawn or babysits his kids, does he give them extra money to do so? Health care benefits? Vacation pay? Bonus? A break in the shade with a cool drink and snacks? Of course not - so if he doesn't feel a one on one relationship with a person he is paying deserves to be given perks, why does he think anyone else should give their employees the perks?
Remind your professor that the wordCapitalism
is a pejorative term created by Marxists to describe
Freedom and LibertyMarx's book was entitled Capital: Das Kapital
Capitalist countries have to build walls to keep people OUT.
Socialist countries have to build walls to keep people IN.
How does he feel about giving each of his students an A, no matter how much effort they put into his class?
Offer a grade of C even if you do not attend the class. See how many hands go up accepting the offer.
Simply ask your professor to name a single socialist country with collective farming that produces enough food to feed all its citizens. When he is unable to name one, point out that without capitalist nations, socialist nations would starve.
As my husband has said, socialism is great .... ON PAPER. It can work for smaller groups, but not for whole societies. Even in smaller groups, someone will eventually buck against it, because we are human and not machines.
One of the criticisms of socialism that you might want to stress is the “economic calculation problem”, something identified by both Mises and Hayek.
The free market prices goods according to their scarcity and according to demand for them. Producers can plan ahead using that pricing as a key.
Socialism lacks this pricing function of the free market, and allocates goods according to political calculation. So by its very nature a socialist economy deprives itself of this pricing information, the feedback loop, that a market economy generates. The result is shortages, misallocation of resources, and no innovation other than what is dictated from above. It’s no surprise that Cuba is a poor society of shoddy goods, when prior to Castro it was the wealthiest of Caribbean countries. Economies are far too complex to be run by political calculation. Socialist economies that have existed have always needed to piggyback on market economies to get their pricing information, they can’t survive on their own.
Socialism and Freedom of speech are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed to one another. Socialism is the socio-economic structure put in place to fund Communism (aka Totalitarianism).
Even Socialistic China is allowing large swaths of capitalism to be applied to its economic structure with some limited degree of success but will never be able to realize its full market potential unless it completely relinquishes its governmental market controls.
There are no success driven incentives for the individual at the very elementary levels of socialism, that is why socialistic countries rely heavily on the west for innovation and production.
if you are debating in front of an audience, your first need to define you stance...stay away from socialism...define capitalism...in terms the audience can understand...Is this based on a moral issue? or less Government intrusion? Who is your audience? Use relevant terms and people, experiences they can understand,,,
if its just you and your professor...I would go for the premise of our Republic...the foundation of our Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.....How Capitalism supports our foundational principles and the right for every person to have that liberty to pursuit...what is their definition of happiness....socialism does the opposite....no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens—”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Who is the definer of “need”?
The man thing is speak from what you know...you will know when you speak from your heart, if you try to out professor a professor he will be very good at triangulating your thoughts....he probably eats students for breakfast daily....avoid arguing semantics!!! Stay on your point!
What is your point? This is the start of your argument!
But that doesn’t really punish the kids that get As. So you have to take away from the high achievers to pay for the under achievers.
This way you will really see the impact of socialism. If it was as easy as saying everyone gets a free house then I’m all for it, but the fact is someone has to pay for it.
In order for one person to receive welfare, another person has to be enslaved to pay for it. This is not freedom. It's bondage. The only person left free is the welfare recipient who has done absolutely nothing at all to earn it.
I believe that the most important point on your side is that free market economies provide for the optimum output at the lowest price. Its the power of demand and supply. When the government regulates prices too high, there is a surplus and when it regulates prices too low, it creates a shortage. Markets will yield a price and quantity of goods and services produced through voluntary exchange rather by decree of the government.
Be prepared, be very prepared, for him to hit you with the pro-socialist dreck that has been going around the internet in which they claim we are ALREADY living in a socialist society through public roads, medicare, etc.
This meme seems to be getting a lot of play among teens and young adults who are being programmed into accepting a government-as-provider mentality.
Have some concrete example where the private sector does it better, faster, cheaper than a government beuracracy ever could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.