Dealing with Libertarians?

[Uppercut]

Ok, I'm sure there have been a hundred or so threads like this in the past, but I seriously need some advice on how you more experienced debaters handle libertarian arguements. Usually, I can point out the flaws in their system, and how competition is redundent, seeing as how the whole point of capitalism is to beat the competition, thus making perfect competition impossible. I'll inform them on the achievements of socialism in the past, but they always seem to ignore what I say or change the topic. Occassionally, I'll catch one of them in a lie, even.

The main reason I posted this is that as I was walking past one of the History teacher's rooms, she was promoting the book "The road to Serfdom", and yes, she is extremely right wing and libertarian, as most teachers and students at my school are (I'm the only Communist). She basically tells her kids innacurate and false statements comparing Mao to Hitler and the like and that socialism=fascism. Do you think there are any conventional means to reverse this kind of brainwashing?

[BAM]

There are a number of ways to attack libertarians.

Firstly, there is the "fallacy of composition." They like to assume that what applies to one, applies to all, that what is possible for one individual considered in the abstract is possible for all people all the time. Thus, if everyone acts in his/her own self-interest, we will as a whole get the best social outcome. But is this true? We can all gain a competitive edge as individuals, by for instance standing on a box at a rock concert. This enables me to gain a better view, but if everyone does the same, the effect is cancelled out.

Economically speaking the fallacy of composition is revealed in significant ways. Take two examples: if one business cuts wages it gains a competitive advantage, but all companies cannot do so, for it is with wages that workers buy products. Therefore businesses as whole collectively lose out because workers as a whole have less to spend. There is also the "paradox of thrift." All libertarians like to emphasize how much we should save, but if everyone in the world saves all their spare income, thereby maximizing their self-interest, the result is lower aggregate demand and therefore unemployment. So, people acting in their own self interest does not necessarily lead to an optimal collective outcome.

This leads to, secondly, externalities. In this sense, actions of X have an impact on Y and often in ways that cannot be revealed by prices. There is no difference of interest, for libertarians, between the economic agent and a third party who is affected by the outcome. They just assume that in a laissez-faire economy, harmony will automatically arise. Where this spontaneous order is meant to spring from I do not know. You get a lot of hand-waving at this point. Even in a pure market, businesses - and therefore society as a whole - will not be able to escape "opportunity cost": investment in this will be at the expense of that.

Certainly, libertarians will use this problem of externalities to attack socialism. People, they say, will not be prepared to work for the public good because it would conflict with their own private interest. The social interest and the individual interest are said not to be aligned. But does this also not apply to laissez-faire too? If my own self-seeking individualist behaviour in a pure market does not lead to the maximum social welfare outcome, why would I want to change it?

Having said all that, a libertarian will then reply, "We never claimed it would be an optimal outcome, only the best under the circumstances." But this is a cop-out. Optimality is relative to constraint, but in a pure free market the question of optimality would not enter into it becuase there would be no constraints.

And then you get, "Well it's better that individuals make decisions than the state/collective entities." But what libertarians should be thinking about is not what's achievable in some abstract world, but whether or not acting collectively in this world ensures a better outcome for us all than acting as isolated individuals.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Don't try to beat her in an argument. Either put her in a position where she beats herself, or make her amplify points where you're in a agreement. Find out whether she's a real hardcore libertarian who believes in free banking, abolishing the standing army, ending the drug war, etc. or just some bullshit teabagger. If she's the first, steer the conversation toward "isn't the Federal Reserve just a big subsidy for banks?" and "tell us more about how the war on drugs is a big statist monstrosity." If she's the second...well, your job is easy. Make her defend how a multi-trillion dollar defense budget isn't a distortion of the free market, etc. and she'll look like an idiot.

Capitalism is full of state intervention; it's just intervention for capital. If she's an honest libertarian (i.e. a loon) she can help you expose that. If she's a teabagger (i.e. a hypocrite) she's got no leg to stand on.

BTW: Median household income in Washington, PA is about half what it is nationally. Capitalism isn't doing too great for your right-wing compadres, is it?

[Uppercut]

Capitalism is full of state intervention; it's just intervention for capital. If she's an honest libertarian (i.e. a loon) she can help you expose that. If she's a teabagger (i.e. a hypocrite) she's got no leg to stand on.

BTW: Median household income in Washington, PA is about half what it is nationally. Capitalism isn't doing too great for your right-wing compadres, is it?

I did have a discussion with her earlier last year. We debated a little bit at a student seminar last year. I thought I did ok, asking her "if Obama is such a socialist, why is he including lobbyists and bankers into his administration?" She saw my point, but just couldn't admit she was wrong, and she started to pull the usual shit (comparing fascism and corporatism with socialism, government can never do anything correct, no matter the structureetc.). We didn't get to finish though, as the speakers began their lectures.

And yes, Washington, PA is very class divided, with more low-income households than we have middle class ones. There are scattered small businesses (open and closed down) all over that don't amount to anything, and the earth they sit on could be used for things much more useful and productive.
I live in a middle-class neighborhood since my Dad used to be the Superintendent at our school...yay -_-

[cb9's_unity]

Libertarians are those who, in effect, call for the suicide of capitalism. Before Keynesianism took popularity in first world country's, capitalism had to fear its death with each and every economic downturn. Keynesian economy's can't avoid frequent severe recessions (i'm not saying that eventually they won't collapse), but libertarian economy's can't avoid frequent all out depressions. These depressions inevitably lead to more class consciousness that, in turn, threatens to produce a working class conscious and mobile enough to revolt against capitalism and take power.

Libertarians mask this call for suicide by claiming that every system to the left of them is either already socialist, or will inevitably lead to socialism. They mix terms, and distort facts in order to promote their form of capitalism as the only form of capitalism.

[Invincible Summer]

They claim to be against monopolies and corporate corruption, but having a completely free market would only increase monopolies and corporatism

[vyborg]

I think the contribution in this topic are all very good. I add 2 points.

First of all. During crisis, the big capitalist are all in favour of state intervention. As big firms rule the markets and the countries, they get things done. Libertarians should be against big firms. As big firms are more and more powerful they must come out against market economy that feed them as well as capitalist state that is ruled by them. are they reade to stand up against big firms?

Secondly. even if we accept that competition indeed selects the best people, after a while, capital is accumulated and passed as wealth to the next generation. so the role of the competition to select the best outcomes fades away because of the accumulation of wealth among capitalist families. therefore a true libertarian is in favour of a 100% tax on heir wealth. ie every time a capitalist dies, the state must expropriate what he leaves, otherwise the competition cannot work. is a libertarian ready to do it or will he/she defend capitalist ownership hence renouncing to the real competition?

[BAM]

First of all. During crisis, the big capitalist are all in favour of state intervention. As big firms rule the markets and the countries, they get things done. Libertarians should be against big firms. As big firms are more and more powerful they must come out against market economy that feed them as well as capitalist state that is ruled by them. are they reade to stand up against big firms?

It's not just the big firms, but the capitalist class's interests as a whole that are at stake. From the standpoint of the individual capitalist, the actions of the government may be a hindrance (increased taxes, regulations, etc.) but from a marco-economic perspective they are not - and this is exactly what libertarians cannot or do not see.

Put it this way: within the context of a capitalist economy, there are social benefits to trade and investment. I build a factory, it creates jobs, people spend their wages, new businesses open as a result, and so on. The benefits to society accrue over and above the benefits to the individual who initially invested. However, if times are bad and I decide not to invest, that decision also not only affects me, but it also affects the working class in terms of unemployment and has an impact on other capitalists too. This is, in essence, the Keynesian justification for government stimulus.

Now, I would take that even further and argue that it entails that the whole means of production should be controlled by society itself for its own benefit. (There are of course other arguments for socialism/communism too!)

[Raúl Duke]

Usually, when I debate with people, I tend not to focus on changing the opinions of the person I'm debating with but more to show an audience the fallacy/truth/etc of that person's ideas.

So usually, I don't debate with libertarians. Although in a public forum this is the format I go for (I've done this in class, in speech class and in an english class).

Now by the sound of people you are talking about, what you are facing is people having mischaracterizations of socialism.

What I would do is just point out the truth and point out the sources of my truth (i.e. "this is what an actual socialist said about socialism" or "This is what Marx really said/meant" or other variation), whether people want to or not accept my sources is up to them but to any reasonable person it's more believable a socialist explaining what socialism is (or for the author of an ideology, such as Marx, explain what Marxism is) than to hear a libertarian/etc say shit about socialism just to make his ideology sound better (i.e. point out that a libertarian/etc has a political agenda/gains advantage to falsify socialism's meaning).

Also use history. People continue to equate communism with nazism but point out that the Communists (KPD) and the Nazis (SA) fought each other in the streets (although, sadly, there's the "red referendum" against the SPD to account for which may not help your claim if you take the German example...although you can take Spain's example where the POUM and other socialist and communist parties fought against fascism). Point out that Mein Kampf and other Nazi rhetoric is extremely anti-communist that it's just ludicrous to believe that communism and nazism are related.

Finally, watch out for the whole Ribbentropp-Molotov pact. You would need to argue that this pact was made mostly out of pragmatic (and imperialist, but that won't help unless you also argue that the USSR was or at some point was no longer socialist) concerns of both parties at the time. Usually, the use this pact in an analogical way; just use counter examples. For example, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are allies...does that mean that islamic fundamentalism and liberal (bourgeois) republics are ideological allies/the same/etc? (In other words, point out the ridiculousness of their analogy by using equally dumb ones that are more easily understood by Americans).

In the end, you may not convince the person you are talking to...but at least you may convince some level-headed people in the audience (your classroom?) that socialism is not whatever lies they make it out to be. This way you are countering propaganda.

[Endomorphian]

efore Keynesianism took popularity in first world country's, capitalism had to fear its death with each and every economic downturnThat's a rather lame duck argument as even Keynesians admit that the Great Depression partially resulted from 1.) a failure in the Federal Reserve to keep up with the money supply and 2.) tariff wars between the US and Europe.

Don't argue semantics. Just recommend literature that dismisses her definitions. Arguing about semantics is utterly pointless.

[RedSonRising]

The libertarian will primarily ***** about government/state interfering in too much, so just remind them that the capitalist class is the main engineer that uses the mechanical components of the state and economy to get what they want, and that reducing the state in a capitalist world will not free the individual from the bondage of wage-labor whereby their produce and profit is practically stolen by the owner. Argue their basic assertion that people should be free to do what they want, but with the acknowledgment that they are ignoring the inherently authoritarian hierarchy of capitalism that is only made more evident by the state. Essentially agree with their intentions, and point out the negligence of their blame-placing analysis.

[BAM]

Finally, watch out for the whole Ribbentropp-Molotov pact. You would need to argue that this pact was made mostly out of pragmatic (and imperialist, but that won't help unless you also argue that the USSR was or at some point was no longer socialist) concerns of both parties at the time. Usually, the use this pact in an analogical way; just use counter examples. For example, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are allies...does that mean that islamic fundamentalism and liberal (bourgeois) republics are ideological allies/the same/etc? (In other words, point out the ridiculousness of their analogy by using equally dumb ones that are more easily understood by Americans).

The Nazi-Soviet pact was not an alliance, as libertarians like to portray it, it was a pact of non-aggression, broken by the Germans because they needed access to the oil reserves in Baku, the labour reserves of the USSR and the Ukraine's vast agricultural productivity.

[Spencer]

What about Mike Huben’s Critiques of Libertarianism site? I've always thought that was good.

With the Nazi’s being socialists thing I generally like to point out that a disproportionate number of postal votes were cast in favour of the Nazi’s whilst only 13% of unemployed people voted for them (in, I think, ’32). If the Nazi’s were socialists then why did a greater proportion of wealthy people vote for them, whilst barely 1 in every 8 did so amongst the unemployed? (Furthermore, people who were not in the country may not have been subjected to the intimidation of the SA).

Likewise, why was it that the growth of the Nazi Party failed to result in a significant decrease in strength for the KPD and the SPD? In 1933, after what was hardly a fair election, the two parties still held 200 seats between them. Conversely the two Liberal parties (the DDP and the DVP) had ceased to exist as a political force by this point (fewer than 10 seats) and the Nationalists had also declined since the 1920’s. Furthermore, why was it that the SPD was the only party to vote against the enabling act?

Many Nazi leaders fought in the Freikorps, who put down the various left wing revolts after the war with extraordinary brutality, as well as, IIRC, fighting the red army in the Baltic.

And, again if memory serves, the purpose of the German Worker’s Party, according to Anton Drexler, was to “bridge the gap between the masses and the nationalist-conservative right” Can’t find the quote online though…

Seems to me that comparisons between fascism and socialism don't so much damn the communists as rehabilitate the Nazi's.

[volkish]

The main thing to remember is to always have an audience when debating a Libertard, they are the best tool you have to convince people libertarianism (that is capitalist libs) is ridiculous. If this person is an objectivist on the other hand you may have just hit a philosophical gold mine!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Throw this Marx quote at libertarians:


The [Paris] Commune made the catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditure--the army and the officialdom.

And if you want you can go into how capitalism created the modern nation state and has increased the government as industry has developed.

As for the claims that communism=fascism: This is a newish right-wing American claim based on the re-definition of politics along the lines of more or less "government". This is just a stupid claim that re-writes history and makes no sense from a class perspective (or to people in Europe where the cooperation of the rich and ruling classes with the Nazis is more well known). So according to this system, feudal governments are more free since they had low levels of state administration compared to modern capitalist bureaucracy?

[BAM]

Throw this Marx quote at libertarians:


The [Paris] Commune made the catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditure--the army and the officialdom.

That reminds me of something Albert Meltzer wrote in his brilliant little book, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against:


The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie that covers an unpleasant reatity in its way - such as National Socialism does in another. Patently unbridled capitalism, not even hampered by a reformist State, which has to put some limits on exploitation to prevent violent clashes in society, needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private Armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State - that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose beyond its fulfIllment - a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it ...

[Proletarian Ultra]

I had this friend in college who was a libertarian. One night he kept going off on me about how we should have private toll roads instead of a public highway system. So I kept pushing him to see how far he would go and by the end of the night he was saying that adoption agencies should be allowed to sell children. I didn't really even have an argument to offer against it, but really, who won the debate? ;)

[Raúl Duke]

I had this friend in college who was a libertarian. One night he kept going off on me about how we should have private toll roads instead of a public highway system. So I kept pushing him to see how far he would go and by the end of the night he was saying that adoption agencies should be allowed to sell children. I didn't really even have an argument to offer against it, but really, who won the debate? ;)

Good job, this is what you should aim for.

I had libertarians tell me they're "against democracy."
In their warped mines they think that's awwwwwright
but to other people obviously they'll be like "what?"

In a sense, you can draw them to start spouting off the logical extremes of their ideology (i.e. "indentured servitude is OK!" Also, it becomes funny arguing with them the "voluntary nature" of one making a decision to become a indentured servant or to sell their organs, since it points out that the poverty of capitalism, which is what may make one consider these options, renders their "freedom" into a farce.)

[The Idler]

Ask them if they would allow their kids access to hard drugs.

[Robocommie]

Good job, this is what you should aim for.

I had libertarians tell me they're "against democracy."
In their warped mines they think that's awwwwwright
but to other people obviously they'll be like "what?"

In Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, he has footage of Stephen Moore, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, saying outright that he values capitalism over democracy, in fact, he doesn't really care that much about democracy, because there are democratic nations in the world that are still poor.

Booyah, in black and white. It's nice when they own up to their shit.