Posted on 04/19/2010 8:58:08 AM PDT by AngryCapitalist
I have been afforded the rare opportunity tomorrow of debating my Political Discourse professor on the merits of socialism vs. capitalism. Of course I will be defending capitalism. I plan on using individual freedom as the crux of my argument, by citing some of the philosophies and arguments in favor of capitalism as expressed by Ayn Rand, F. E. Hayek, Von Mises, and the Founders. I figure that by citing the advances promoted through the competition inherent in capitalism, the freedom afforded by the absence of a system that subverts the natural order, and the fact that socialism is nothing more than state sponsored theft as the core of my argument. If anyone has any additional material that might be beneficial in trouncing this collectivist dunce I would appreciate it! I’ve waited along time to get in the ring with one of my professors so I want to give it to him no holds barred. He is an avowed socialist who constantly attempts to influence others in the class with his bilge, so I need to make the most of this opportunity, if not for my own personal aggrandizement, then at least to promote capitalism amongst my classmates.
Thanks in advance for all of your help.
my approach would be attack socialism - failed everywhere it’s been tried, always becomes totalitarianism.
more..
Watch some Milton Friedman clips on youtube. There are some great debates on there.
FYI, only use your anger to stress a point with passion.
Remember, if he believed in communism, he’d give all that he owns to others. As it’s socialism, he’d give all of what he owns to the State to manage.
Capitalism is sometimes harsh, but it, in the words of Churchill, “is better than all the rest.”
Hang in there. Try to appear taller than your teacher. Dress better. Have a smile and laugh through this. These things matter to the audience.
Great point!
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People’s Money,” — Margaret Thatcher.
Pick up a copy of “Free to Choose.”
It’s a good read and contains all the points you will need.
Capitalism = Texas = wealth creation & higher standard of living.
Socialism = Detroit = wealth destruction & lower standard of living aka spreading the misery.
Texas has a big oil find in the south part of the stay due to horizontal drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale area. This is capitalism that creates jobs and wealth.
What happens when the socialists run out of other people’s money? Where do they get money if they kill the golden goose? Greece is a good example.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is the speed of the economic train wreck, not whether it will happen.
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s inherint virture is the sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
What happens when the socialists run out of other people’s money? Where do they get money if they kill the golden goose? Greece is a good example.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is the speed of the economic train wreck, not whether it will happen.
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s inherint virture is the sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
Ask him simple questions like: “Where do you think revenue comes from?” And: “What, exactly, does the ‘government’ produce?”
Everything the government touches turns to crap. It’s incentive-less and thrives on mediocrity.
I would even say that setting out “capitalism” as a form of “economic theory” is a “pick the target, polarise it, freeze it” method.
What Marx called “capitalism” as a “better economic system” than feudalism (you are someone because of who you were born, as opposed to capitalism, you can improve yourself, gain wealth through your endeavour & ideas) is not some new thing, some “replacement” to “feudalism” but merely the expression of man living free and having the ability to do his own thing without intervention of an oppressive ruling class. In that, feudalism has much more in common with socialism.
more..
Socialism makes decisions for all people. Central decision making cannot fit all people’s needs. Under capitalism, people are free to manage their own money as they see fit to meet their specific need.
Socialism crushes what makes a society best, individual struggle, hard work and the reward that comes from this action Robbing people of the hope for a change in their personal economy by forcing the sameness on everyone destroys satisfaction and creates a certain sadness. The spirit of a nation is everything. It is that which cannot be measured but which can be felt and witnessed, for sure.
My initial prep for debate involves taking the opposing side. Watch some of the Glenn Beck stuff about dictators. Get a body count, food availability and simply the basic standards of living. Finally, ask him what he would be willing to give up for socialism item by item including make/ model of vehicles, and sqr feet of his living space.
YOUTUBE: MILTON FRIEDMAN...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
There are others here for you to watch. This man was a MENSCH!!!
Ask him for the name of a sucsessful socialist country?
He will blame the failure of the country on it not being socialist enough. He is suffering from a mental disease. He will spend the rest of his life chasing utopia.
To a socialist the only cure for the problems caused by socialism ...more socialism.
Tell him you are fine with voluntary socialism and nothing is stopping him and his brethren from setting up a commune. Ask him why he does not do it.
It is perfectly legal to set up a commune anywhere you want.
The answer is this. Socialism sounds good but does not work.
The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A."
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied very little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.
No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.
The above story is a legend, but you could ask him how he thinks it would work out if he really graded that way for an entire semester, and why the outcome would be any different in the economy when the reward is money instead of a grade.
I support capitalism because I support freedom. ALL economic exchanges are voluntary in capitalism, and both sides win in each such exchange or they wouldn't bother with the bargain. When I provide my services, the customer feels like they got a great deal (I get far more referrals than I am willing to accept in today's economy). When I receive pay for my services, I feel like I got a great deal. Both sides won, thanks to personal freedom, and no force is involved on either side. It's only when government steps in that freedom is lost.
That should be the end of the conversation.
ML/NJ
Socialists will always use statistics of “distribution of wealth”, showing that some big % of wealth is in the hands of some small % of people, and claiming that it is unfair.
Ask how they determine that it is ‘unfair’. How ‘fair’ would it have to be before they are content? What wise and benevolent ruler will decide how to distribute the wealth?
Capitalism OTOH allows that there will always be the inordinately rich and the poor. This is a realistic view of human nature as it is, in contrast to the utopian view of how it should be. The question for a capitalist is how to move the $ value maximum of the bell-shaped curve of wealth and/or income to a higher value by increasing the market value of the work of as many people as possible.
Without freedom to choose, entrepreneurs will not generate new ideas which allow people to increase their own value. Without freedom to choose, people will never increase their value, and hence wealth. Socialism and central control always reduces choices.
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.