Arguing About Libertarianism

[StartToday]

Okay, I've been arguing off and on with some guy on a couple different forums for quite a while now (a few months). He's really confused. Seems to me like he only recently bothered to wiki socialism and actually get a definition from it. He's always going on about how "socialist" countries like Sweden and Holland have great ideas, but then he says he doesn't support socialism because it doesn't work. (Also, I am well aware that Holland isn't a country, and that Sweden is a parliamentary democracy :rolleyes: ). Anyways, I don't know what else to say to this guy.

He thinks Libertarianism is the answer to all of his problems. I've tried time and again to explain to him that capitalism is just about the biggest problem in the world today, and that Libertarians would take away all restrictions on it, and also take away benefits from the state (like food stamps). Making the rich fewer and more powerful. His reply is always something along the lines of "But Libertarians would let me start my own taxi business! So I could work for myself!" Completely ignoring the fact that impoverished, overworked people won't want to pay some asshat to drive them around town.

Anyways, I don't know if I'm really bad at explaining things to people, or if he's just really resistant to admitting that he might not know as much as he thinks.

Let me know what you all think about how I should go about explaining socialism to him in a way that he can understand. Oh, and I'd also like to know your thoughts on Libertarianism. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know. Nobody likes being ignorant ;)

By the way, this is what he said in reply to my thoughts about Libertarianism vs Socialism:

If you're right, let me know how Socialism CAN work? Everything I read is pessimistic on Socialism, and th only optimism I see are by a bunch of Stalinists & Anarchists that don't explain how it can work. I've read an article that details how no economy can be planned, want to read it? http://www.mises.org/story/716 I like the idea of Socialism, but I have seen it time and time again fail. Why does it keep failing? The apologists will say that it is because of the lack of trade, but shouldn't they be able to rely on themselves? That's how the Juche philosophy is supposed to work, yet they are not faring too well in North Korea. I believe that there's alot of propaganda about NK that makes it seems worse, but I doubt it is any utopia in there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The best rebuttal to PROPERTARIANISM is that today's society isn't "free-market capitalist" anymore. Propertarians share one thing in common with fascists: nostalgia for "better times." In the latter, it has to do with a bunch of pagan BS and feudalist cultural BS (although they themselves don't seek to re-implement feudalism as an economic system).

The former obviously have NOT read either the early 20th-century Marxist works on monopoly capitalism or modern commentary (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54786&view=findpost&p=1292295039) (the five links, not my post per se). Hell, they haven't even heard of my signature!

Basically, they're nostalgic for the long-gone era of "free markets," but that and the reduction of multinational-corp power create diseconomies of scale.

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly, please establish that the countries he notes are not socialist - the means of production are subject to private ownership and control and thus these countries are Capitalist, even if there exists high levels of state intervention in the economy and the state provision of services.

In addition, question him on the idea that no economy can be planned, and go on to critique the idea that markets clear and that free markets rapidly adjust to supply the goods demanded by consumers.

Then go on to simply put forward various forms of Market failure and ask how these would be dealt with in the absence of state intervention. These are, by the way, objective arguments.

The most obvious that you can discuss is the case of negative externalities - costs that arise from the production or consumption of a commodity that fall on a third party not directly involved in the economic transaction - for example, environmental destruction - how would these be dealt with?

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:15 pm


He thinks Libertarianism is the answer to all of his problems. I've tried time and again to explain to him that capitalism is just about the biggest problem in the world today, and that Libertarians would take away all restrictions on it, and also take away benefits from the state (like food stamps). Making the rich fewer and more powerful.
carefull on which "libertarians" you're referring too. I hope you know those are only right-wing libertarians (if you could call them libertarians at all)

[StartToday]

Originally posted by redcannon+April 15, 2007 07:36 am--> (redcannon @ April 15, 2007 07:36 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 08:15 pm


He thinks Libertarianism is the answer to all of his problems. I've tried time and again to explain to him that capitalism is just about the biggest problem in the world today, and that Libertarians would take away all restrictions on it, and also take away benefits from the state (like food stamps). Making the rich fewer and more powerful.
carefull on which "libertarians" you're referring too. I hope you know those are only right-wing libertarians (if you could call them libertarians at all) [/b]
Stupid question here, but - what's the difference? He and I were both referring to the Libertarian Party in the US (I guess they're the right wing ones). What's different about left wing libertarians, and why are they called the same thing?

[BobKKKindle$]

Left-Wing Libertarians would argue for an economic organisation that is not based on market transactions and commodity production but a system similar to that of Socialism or Communism - A gift economy based on social ownership. Whereas Right-Wing Libertarians, as you can probably percieve, support private ownership and a market devoid of government regulation - in fact, they feel that the only purpose of the state is to provide a degree of security and ensure property rights.

As to why they are called the same thing, I think - referral to others might be a good idea on this - libertarianism originally described a left-wing ideology - but uit was thereafter 'twisted' to denote an ideology based on free markets.

[redcannon]

yes indeed. once again the right has twisted and perverted a left ideology

[Janus]

Here are some past threads on libertarianism:

anarcho-capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63540&hl=libertarianism)
libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60886&hl=libertarianism)
libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59842&hl=libertarianism)
anarcho-capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58398&hl=libertarianism)
free market (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54627&hl=libertarianism)
free market (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64399&hl=+free++market)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Right off the bat, you must determine whether this guy is interested in an economic system that will benefit humanity as a whole or one that will benefit him personally. Either way, there are good reasons why he should support socialism, but the arguments for personal benefit are different from the arguments for general benefit.

If he is interested in the general benefit of humanity but does not believe socialism can work, advise him to read this book: http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ "Towards a New Socialism". It explains exactly how a socialist economy can work. You should also introduce him to the concept of labour accounting, which is the main socialist counter-argument to the belief that you need prices and markets to make coherent economic decisions. The basic principle of labour accounting is that the cost of all goods and services can be measured as the amount of labour necessary to produce them. Economic calculations can and should be based on the amount of labour that is necessary to produce stuff, and that can be measured very accurately without prices and markets.

It is also important to hammer home the fact that planned economies DID work in the past, for many decades. The Soviet Union may not have had great living standards compared to the West, but it still had better living standards than the capitalist Russia which exists today. Thus, within the same country, socialism has proven superior to capitalism (don't bother to explain the controversy over whether the USSR was truly socialist or not - he's not at that level yet). Yes, the Soviet Union did eventually experience an economic downturn and collapsed, but this is no more a "failure" of socialism than the Great Depression was a "failure" of capitalism. If the Great Depression had happened during the Cold War, the USA would have probably collapsed just like the USSR did.

Now, on the other hand, if this guy is interested in the personal benefits he can derive from socialism, explain to him how he is currently exploited by capitalism and how socialism will let him enjoy the full product of his labor. Mention the fact that there are no taxes in a planned economy, since the government doesn't need any money (libertarians hate taxes - this gets them every time). Ask him also whether he has any reason to care about the abstract concept of owning a business. Driving a taxi is driving a taxi, regardless of whether you own that taxi or not. Socialism does not prevent you from pursuing your dreams - on the contrary, it enables you to do what you want for a living.

Oh, and one last point:


I like the idea of Socialism, but I have seen it time and time again fail.

Even granting that all eastern bloc countries were socialist, socialism did not fail "time and again". The eastern bloc collapsed ONCE, after decades of working just fine. If no economy can be planned, how exactly did the Soviet Union manage to become the world's second largest economy during the Cold War?