Help! Arguments against laissez-faire capitalism

[JudasMaiden]

I'm debating against this guy who supports free enterprise and hear is his arguments:
1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.
2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A
4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.
5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.
6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

Have any counter-arguments I could make against him?
I'll update this as I acquire more arguments from him. I had to get into a debate because of peer pressure from my parents and my parents' friends.

[socialismwins]

Why do you get involved in arguments when you lack the knowledge to meaningfully engage?

[#FF0000]

1) "Government intervention" has been a part of capitalist society and American capitalism for as long as they existed. Also, socialism isn't "government intervention". By that logic, people like John Maynard Keynes (and a host of American founding fathers) are socialists -- and that's absurd.
2) Obamacare is more or less the plan put forward by the Republicans back in the 90's. It is not the same as the healthcare systems they have in Europe.
3) Most of the world has a more comprehensive and efficient social safety net, healthcare system, etc. That isn't socialism, though.
4) They are naked in their political bias.
5) Universal healthcare systems in the UK and France cover more people, deliver treatment more efficiently, and do so at less cost to people. We actually pay more per capita on healthcare with far worse results in the US.

Also you shouldn't go out looking to get into arguments if you can't back yourself up.

[Rosa Partizan]

I'm kinda appalled how "socialist" is used as kind of a dirty word in the US.

[bropasaran]

Basically this FAQ:

http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html

[radiocaroline]

Obama a socialist? Haha please

[PhoenixAsh]

Obama a socialist? Haha please

O please...everybody knows Obama is a socialist neo-nazi muslim fundamentalist.
I mean, it was on Fox and all so it must be true.

I'm debating against this guy who supports free enterprise and hear is his arguments:
1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.
2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A
4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.
5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.
6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

Have any counter-arguments I could make against him?
I'll update this as I acquire more arguments from him. I had to get into a debate because of peer pressure from my parents and my parents' friends.

None of these arguments are necessarily laissez faire capitalist nor do they make a case in favor of it. I suggest you attack his position through other means than going on the defensive on useless points and positions.

Laissez Faire capitalism has certain fundamentals. one of these fundamentals is that all humans have a natural right to freedom. If this is the case then no human should be required to sell their labour to capitalists in order to survive which grants the capitalists the right to restrict the freedom of others.

Second it holds that corporations should be abolished because they tend to disrupt natural order (which is a prerequisite for laissez fair capitalism) and free and open trade through monopolization and oligarchy...which would incidentally have repercussions for Fox News which is part of an international corporation....and therefore is per definition untrustworthy by its very nature (according to his own theory)

[Leopardo]

Obamacare is actually nationalized, because the government owns it, not the workers. Also Fox news is a one sided supposedly conservative network. IDK about theblaze.

[Left Voice]

For one thing, no true socialist would support intervention by a capitalist government. Much of this misunderstanding stems from the fact that in America, the left are seen as supporters of large government. The reality is quite different - socialists are opposed to a capitalist government, even a reformist one. Much of this comes from the rather unique development of politics in the US, and the growth of liberalism. Modern liberals (social liberals) tend to support policies that are seen as a support for large government, and unfortunately many in America see liberals and socialists are much the same. This is not the case in much of Europe, where the European brand of liberalism is still firmly rooted in economic liberalism (and thus much closer to conservatism - that's why conservatives even in the United States have classical liberal beliefs).

Government intervention in the economy has always been a staple feature of capitalism. The United States were one of the biggest proponents of protectionist policies. The strengthening of these policies after the crash of 1929 contributed massively to economic problems in Europe, and eventually the war. America eventually reversed its position after the war with the establishment of the GATT (the forerunner to the WTO) and ironically became the biggest critique of protectionism and government intervention. Despite this, support for protectionism by the capitalist class in the United States remains strong - you ask any so-called 'laissez-faire capitalist' in the United States how the government should help American businesses against the cheap labour costs in China, and their response will be a support by the government for American businesses. In other words, 'laissez-faire capitalist' are only opposed to government intervention as long it hinders their own businesses (regulation, worker's rights etc.), but they're all too quick to call for government intervention to protect themselves from the outside threat posed to them by the free market that they love so much.

Any opposition to government intervention by laissez-faire capitalists is quite hollow - they want to protect their own interests as capitalists, nothing more - and will call for more government intervention in context where their own businesses are threatened by the free market. The most basic understanding of the development of capitalism and the global political economy makes this all too evident.

As for universal health care - I challenge your friend to find a SINGLE British person who would like to ditch the NHS. You won't, because for all its faults (faults stemming from the fact that public ownership of the service is being eroded and the NHS is being forced to operate as a business rather than a service), it is ultimately a service that benefits society. Of course, the amount of control the workers actually have in the running of the NHS is non-existent, but that's another story. The bottom line is, universal health care has been a resounding success in every country that operates such a system.

[Loony Le Fist]

1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.

Correct response: . Government intervention is not socialism. Socialism is people's intervention. Government intervention is corporatism. Otherwise known as 3P (to use the buzzword going around corporate board rooms meaning Private Public Partnership). Businesses love government intervention. That's why the company URS (a megascale construction company) loves all the new nuclear plant regulations, since they won a contract to upgrade them. Same thing with the company LPS and mortgage regulation--it gives all kinds of new upgrades to the mortgage processing application they can now charge extra for.

2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.

Sorry I can't help myself--this guy needs some serious education. Obamacare (or ACA) is again 3P medicine. It is a handout to insurance companies. After all, the US Supreme court struck down the state mandate while keeping the individual mandate. This means makes it a legal requirement for people to get health insurance. This literally forces people to pay unaccountable private companies for a service. Once again government intervention is not socialism, socialism is about people's intervention.

3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A

Africa and Latin America consists of a number of individual countries. He's going to have to be more specific. It depends on which country you are talking about.

4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.

I can't speak for Theblaze, but Fox News is simply a corporate mouthpiece. Does he not believe they are not beholden to their corporate advertisers? Why would companies put ads on their network, if they weren't going to tow the line?

5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.

Prior to the complete corporate takeover of healthcare, it was a little better for people. Same thing with the technology business. Interestingly enough people leaned more to the left in the 1960's. The irony of this argument is therefore not lost on me.

6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

There's no such thing as socialised medicine. But there are countries that provide "publicly funded" healthcare to their citizens. Interestingly the countries that do have half the per-capita costs per citizen than the US does. That's not failure.

[Marshal of the People]

Why do you get involved in arguments when you lack the knowledge to meaningfully engage?

No, do you know how harmful and mean that is? Do you want him/her/other to never want to get into another debate again because of you? Not everyone is such an omnipotent genius like you so don't be mean to people of only superior intelligence okay?

[Red Economist]

I'll update this as I acquire more arguments from him. I had to get into a debate because of peer pressure from my parents and my parents' friends.

Saying no is an important part of being free and learning to overcome peer pressure is an uphill battle. But generally, your views should be accountable to the truth and that is not always the same as getting in to a debate with other people.

3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A

This will probably help...

"The IMF and the World Bank cliam that the removal of trade restrictions is absolutely necessary if developing countries are to prosper economically, and reduce poverty and external debt. Therefore, since the late 1970's, poor nations have adopted one or more of these policy packages. The IMF and the World Bank insisted that these reforms would ensure sustainable debt repayment, economic growth and poverty reduction. But has this really been the case? Unsurprisingly, according to the "self-evaluations" of the World Bank, the policies were largely successful. Various independent analyses, however, showed quite a different picture. Overall, while the rate of GNP [Gross National Product] growth per capita in the world economy was 2.6 percent during the 'Keynesian era' (between 1960 and 1979), in the first two decades of the 'neoliberal period' (between 1980 and 1998), the global GNP growth per capita was only 1.0 percent. A panel data analysis of 98 countries between 1970 and 2000 showed that IMF porgrams and structural adjustment reforms have actually depressed, not promoted economic growth. Neoliberal policies have also increased financial vulnerability and have left economies more exposed to banking and currency crises, ... . The marco-economic failures of the Washington Consensus [international neo-liberal institutions such as the IMF, World bank] policies have been particularly severe in sub-Saharan Africa. Since the early 1980's, most African economies have suffered to the point that their GNP per capita in 2000 was lower than two decades before. But there is more. Since the application of these policies, the developing world debt has skyrocketed. It has become nearly impossible to repay. In 1980, Africa's external debt was about $55 Billion. By 1997, it had increased to $210 Billion. In recent years, many poor countries have begged for debt forgiveness. Some have obtained it under the World Bank's Heavily indebted poor countries iniaitive, but in exchange fir the ususal free market austerity measures." (p.104, Progress or Collapse: The Crises of Market Greed, by Roberto De Vogli).

[Marshal of the People]

O please...everybody knows Obama is a socialist neo-nazi muslim fundamentalist.
I mean, it was on Fox and all so it must be true.

Actually Obama is also an Islamo-atheist and a communist not to mention both a Chinese and North Korean terrorist-sleeper agent.

[Left Voice]

"The IMF and the World Bank cliam that the removal of trade restrictions is absolutely necessary if developing countries are to prosper economically, and reduce poverty and external debt. Therefore, since the late 1970's, poor nations have adopted one or more of these policy packages. The IMF and the World Bank insisted that these reforms would ensure sustainable debt repayment, economic growth and poverty reduction. But has this really been the case? Unsurprisingly, according to the "self-evaluations" of the World Bank, the policies were largely successful. Various independent analyses, however, showed quite a different picture. Overall, while the rate of GNP [Gross National Product] growth per capita in the world economy was 2.6 percent during the 'Keynesian era' (between 1960 and 1979), in the first two decades of the 'neoliberal period' (between 1980 and 1998), the global GNP growth per capita was only 1.0 percent. A panel data analysis of 98 countries between 1970 and 2000 showed that IMF porgrams and structural adjustment reforms have actually depressed, not promoted economic growth. Neoliberal policies have also increased financial vulnerability and have left economies more exposed to banking and currency crises, ... . The marco-economic failures of the Washington Consensus [international neo-liberal institutions such as the IMF, World bank] policies have been particularly severe in sub-Saharan Africa. Since the early 1980's, most African economies have suffered to the point that their GNP per capita in 2000 was lower than two decades before. But there is more. Since the application of these policies, the developing world debt has skyrocketed. It has become nearly impossible to repay. In 1980, Africa's external debt was about $55 Billion. By 1997, it had increased to $210 Billion. In recent years, many poor countries have begged for debt forgiveness. Some have obtained it under the World Bank's Heavily indebted poor countries iniaitive, but in exchange fir the ususal free market austerity measures." (p.104, Progress or Collapse: The Crises of Market Greed, by Roberto De Vogli). "

And funnily enough, anybody with the slightest understanding of International Political Economy would know this. It speaks wonders that the people who wave the flag for free market laissez-faire capitalism, people who believe the free market is the wonder cure for all the problems suffered by the developing countries, don't understand this very basic failing of free market capitalism that even the IMF recognises.

It is often conveniently forgotten that today's strongest capitalist economies, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany etc. all initially grew their economies by first embracing mercantilism, and then moving on to protectionist policies. That's essentially what empire was - closed markets within which the dominant country could grow their economy. Something often forgotten when the American and European capitalist wax lyrical about the free market.

Quite frankly, the free market, protectionism and mercantilism are reactionary hogwash. But it's both amusing and irksome when capitalists don't understand capitalism.

[robbo203]

Why do you get involved in arguments when you lack the knowledge to meaningfully engage?

Well, argument or debate is, amongst other things, quite an effective way of gaining knowlege. There is no shame in admitting that sometimes we dont know the answers.

And how much knowlege do you need anyway to participate in a "meaningful" debate? Its like asking how long is a peice of string. What you are seemingly prescribing is that debate should confined to the experts, the knowlegeable elite. But how often have the so called "experts" shown themselves to be ignorant of the facts, sometimes pathetically so.

No , debate should be open to all without let or hindrance. As old Charlie Marx once said, the educators themselves need educating

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm debating against this guy who supports free enterprise and hear is his arguments:
1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.
2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A
4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.
5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.
6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

1. By that logic so is S.Korea
2. Not really
3. If we are going to have a scale I would say that yes the latin american models resemble socialism more than the USA. (Cuba is 'more socialist' than Columbia mate).
4. I don't know how to respond to such a claim other than 'BULLSHIT'.
5. I'd rather have 'shitty' healthcare and have everyone get it than has great healthcare while brothers and sisters die. The US has always had decent healthcare for those who can afford it.
6. Socialism hasn't failed, revisionism failed. Socialized medicine has been proven to increase life-expectancy to past the US.

[Axiomasher]

I'm debating against this guy who supports free enterprise and hear is his arguments:
1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.
2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
3. Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A
4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.
5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.
6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

Have any counter-arguments I could make against him?
I'll update this as I acquire more arguments from him. I had to get into a debate because of peer pressure from my parents and my parents' friends.

1. Obama is not a socialist, at best he has some left-liberal policies, but that's not socialism, socialism is anti-capitalist and he's a capitalist.
2. So-called 'Obamacare' is, again, more of a left-liberal concept (at best), if he was a true socialist he would implement a universal free-at-the point-of use health care which was funded out of general taxation.
3. Again, you have to challenge him on what exactly he means by 'socialism'.
4. All major news corps are, well, corps, who serve the interests of their capitalist masters.
5. Universal healthcare is great for the vast majority of people who otherwise would get little or no medical help in a truly market-driven system.
6. To take a specific example, the UK has a National Health Service which was specifically established as a post-War socialist aim to ensure that everybody had equitable access to health care regardless of their economic condition or social status. It is an institution so loved by society that liberals and conservatives choose their words very carefully when proposing changes in the direction of market forces.

[Invader Zim]

1. Obama is a socialist because he's putting government intervention into things.

All governments intervene in both politics and the individual lives of people within any given state. The idea that a society, built around a state and at least party managed via centralized government can operate in a truly 'laissez faire' fashion is a libertarian fantasy. It can't happen. Does this individual propose that society exist without regulation of, or even a means of regulation against and enforcement, child labour? How about water treatment and purification? The penal system? Road and traffic law? Ad infinitum?

The way society is currently arranged requires a centralized governmental presence. And Obama's policies in this respect are hardly divergent, in the grand scheme of political and economic ideology, from any of his recent predecessors or major political opponents. They discuss the minutia of detail regarding the role of government - neither reject that it should exist. The assertion that accepting that government intervention must exist to ensure relative stability within the capitalist system, through the creation and enforcement of regulation, is "socialism" is an intellectual dishonest and lazy cop-out. Not only does it complete misrepresent what socialism actually is, but it is utilized as nothing other than an ad hominem strawman that can be torn down rather than address the actual point.

2. Obamacare is socialized medicine.

No, it is not. Even within the woolly definition of 'socialism' as used by conservatives, it is not. Obamacare, ultimately, ensures that people have health insurance. Hospital services remain privatized as do the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical practices, etc. Evidently the person you are debating with fails to understand the difference between the new US system and say, the NHS in Britain - which is a national service, operated and paid for by the State.

Africa and most of Latin America(excluding Cuba) is more socialist than the U.S.A

A meaningless point founded on a lazy generalization of dozens of individual nations from a point of obvious ignorance.

4. Theblaze is an accurate news and so is fox news.

Not according to actual content analysis of Fox's reporting.

http://stateofthemedia.org/2005/cabl...tent-analysis/

5. Universal healthcare is bad and the U.S use to have good healthcare before 1960.

6. Socialism and socialized medicine are failures.

The US does not have universal healthcare, and certainly not universal healthcare free at the point of service - and never has. However, as other have noted, the US would probably spend far less per capita than it currently does, for a service of comparable quality if it did have universal healthcare free at the point of service. While the UK's NHS, for instance, may have its problems, and could be more efficient, it competes at the highest levels in the world in terms of the service it provides and is far less expensive that the former US system or Obamacare: