Posted on 04/19/2010 8:58:08 AM PDT by AngryCapitalist
Waht really counfounds socialists and their ilk is an argument based upon first principles. It starts with a simple question:
“To whom does your life belong?”
All else follows from that. Statists operate from the premise that your life does NOT in fact belong to you. The corollary and logical extention of that premise is slavery. You’ll have your prof rotating his head and spewing pea soup in no time.
Frederic Bastiat....that is all.
Soicalism doesn’t really do that though. They just tax the sh!t out of the successful, but they don’t try to set prices. Setting prices is more communist concept.
Capitalism is morally superior to socialism.
Stated simply: It is the difference between voluntary and involuntary relationships. In your personal life, which type of relationships seemed to work better?
“The average man is both better informed and less corruptible when buying in the marketplace than when voting in political elections.” — Ludwig von Mises.
ADAM SMITH PROMOTED PRODUCTION
KARL MARX PROMOTED REDISTRIBUTION
NOW, AFTER THE MURDER OF MILLIONS
GUESS WHICH IS TAUGHT ON CAMPUS?
Socialism:
Two guys show up every day for the same exact job and are paid the exact same wage.
One guy is always on time, does a good job and exceeds what is required.
The other guy shows up drunk and late, falls asleep, does a poor job and no one cares.
Neither will be promoted, fired or get a raise.
The product/service they produce is SO poor that no one wants it. Can’t even be sold domestically.
Welcome to the wonderful world of price and wage controls
Start earlier than the day before the debate.
That’s communism.
He will lose the debate if he tries to use communist analogies against a socialist.
BTW, when I got to Moscow in the mid 90s, the first limo I saw was a Cadillac. I later saw a Zil near the Kremlin. Those still traveled on special roads not accessible to the public.
The best argument against socialism or any other form of central planning is that it isn’t possible for it to work.
Let’s take it for a given that all parties have only the best intentions, which is of course never the case. Central planning assumes some select group of people have the knowledge and wisdom to run not only their own lives, but also the lives of everybody else.
In actual fact, nobody has or can have this degree of knowledge and wisdom. As an economy and society becomes larger and more complex, it becomes proportionately less and less possible to control it from the center efficiently.
There is also what I call the “zero-sum theory of power.”
Most socialists believe the economy is a zero-sum game. More for me by definition means less for you. In fact, it was comprehensively proven during the 20th that the economy is not zero-sum. Wealth can be created and the creators can become rich while not only not exploiting others, but actually improving the lives of many others. You should concede that some do become rich by unscrupulous means, but in a free market economy most become rich by increasing the general wealth.
Power is different. Any person has only so many decisions and choices they can make in their life. When the government or another person takes over some of those choices, the power and independence of each individual goes down. More power for the government (and therefore those who run it) by definition means less power for everyone else. I consider this a bad thing. YMMV
It's incorrect to make a blanket assertion like that.
Socialism works just fine in my family and, I suspect, in yours as well. I do not force my kids or my wife to earn their own food and shelter, for example, and I regularly forego things I would like to have or do, in order to pay for things needed by my kids.
And although I cannot speak for your family's condition, mine is not characterized by abject despair or apathy -- except, of course, when certain of us attempt to avoid doing homework or chores.
The point here is that family dynamics are an example demonstrating that socialism on a small scale can be viable and even valuable. While there's no fixed number, I would imagine that the limit of "small scale" is somewhere on the order of 20 people.
The success of a family-type socialist system depends more on interpersonal dynamics than economic theory. It would be characterized by shared goals, emotional ties, and so on.
The problems with socialism begin when you try to apply it to larger groups, containing more individuals than can know all the other individuals in the group, much less forge emotional ties with them. Once you get enough folks, it's easy to begin forming groups that have different goals. And it's likely that groups will form based on ability levels and job types.... This leads to unpleasantness, and the community itself can ultimately only be maintained by force.
How does he feel about giving each of his students an A, no matter how much effort they put into his class?
Good one, I would also make it hit him in the wallet too. Ask everyone in the class how much they make then ask this libtard prof. Average it so that everyone in the class get the same amount and then ask the prof is he is ok with it.
Why work at all?
That was communist not socialism though.
Good points, but not for a debate against socialism.
So much for your family's financial planning....
bflr
I have had an ongoing conversation over the last few years with an older friend of mine (he used to work for a client) who is pretty much an avowed Marxist. We've both learned a lot from each other, and I'm impressed that he is smart enough to see the flaws in socialism. When we both agreed that the ideal scenario for taxation is to "have the people who use the services pay for them," then I knew I was making progress. LOL.
“Need Help - Debating My Professor tomorrow - Capitalism vs. Socialism... your input requested.”
Quote Maggie Thatcher at him.
“The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.”
Excellent analysis! China is in an unstable state economically and socially. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The positive side of the China situation is that its government has a full employment policy and is using the free market to attain it.
Workers have NO incentive to do well or try to succeed beyond expectation.
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.