Ok, so a friend of mine is a pretty radical leftist (as you'll see from the posts I'm going to provide). She had some criticisms of Libertarianism and while I believe I could sit down and go through everything and at least provide a cohesive argument, my day is pretty busy. I also know you good folk at the mises forum are much more well versed in these topics than I (as I consider myself a libertarian n00b and am still learning much) so I thought I'd ask the help of anyone who wishes to offer it. I'm going to post the conversation we've had so far and if anyone would like to respond to any and/or all of the points presented or correct me in any mistakes I've made in my response, I would welcome and appreciate it.
I'm going to make each response a separate post, so there's no confusion as to who posted what.
Thanks in advance to anybody who helps.
This is Sharee's initial comment and criticism of Libertarianism. I will highlight any of her posts in yellow:
The main problem with libertarianism is that it is fueled by the same motivations under which society today operates -- egotism. From an ethical standpoint this is unjustifiable. Without the government acting as a middleman between corporations and the labor/consumers, people are foredoomed to suffering great travesties -- isn't that why we have labor laws and unions now? Additionally, it would be an inefficient if practicality is what you're after. If you grant corporations (or whatever you'd like to call them in your ideal libertarian society) complete freedom, what do you think they are going to do with it? The people with the most resources will dominate the rest and there is no room for civil liberties in a society that needs to be kept under control. At the end of the day the libertarian ideology lacks a clear focus and purpose. The alienation of labor will continue as it is, or the situation will worsen exponentially. Yeah, yeah, your liberty ends where my Nozick begins and all, but there is really no foundation libertarianism can stand on. People can either operate freely in mutual aid societies or be doomed to living like parasites and donkeys, protecting only what's theirs and living for nothing more than to amass resources indiscriminately.
My response to her follows. I will highlight my post in blue:
All actions are egotistical. This is not a fuel of libertarianism, only an admission of fact. Action is the use of means to a preferred end. Whether that end is considered colloquially "selfish" or not doesn't negate the fact that the actor prefers the attainment of that end over the end that would result through inaction and is therefore inherently selfish. I don't know why you brought ethics into it as ethical standards are entirely made up and have no objective truth value. You can fight for your values all you want (and you should as a free market responds to consumer values), but saying that you value X therefore it is only right that you impose X on everyone is... well authoritarian. Government is the very reason corporations exist. They are state sanctions that allow limited liability and foster abuse. This is not libertarianism nor the free market in any stretch of the imagination and it is this state sanction that is a HUGE factor in their power to abuse not only their workers, but endanger their consumers. After all, if they put out a dangerous product that later needs to be recalled, at most their company can be sued and even then their liability is limited (BP had a liability cap of 75 Million). Think about it, if you could profit off of an action that could potentially cause billions of damage, yet you'd only be accountable for 75 million and even then couldn't personally be accountable, just the legal person you and your buddies created, wouldn't you be much more likely to take that risk (maybe not you personally, but think about it from a business standpoint) than if you were personally liable for each and every cent of damage. A great deal of abuse in the market would be eliminated by just making companies and their shareholders directly and completely accountable for their actions. Either satisfy your consumer's wants or go out of business. Labor Unions and laws claim to have lofty intentions, like raising the minimum wage, but as Frédéric Bastiat would point out, they are looking at the seen and not the unseen. In free markets, wages tend to the discounted marginal revenue product. That is to say, their wages tend to the amount of added revenue that would be received by their employment. It never is actually this amount, but competition raises wages to as close to this amount as possible. If one company's wage is low, another can and will take their workforce by offering a higher wage. What the minimum wage does do is cause unemployment. This can be shown a priori and empirically. The unemployment also affects the minorities and low skilled workers the most (in a negative way). We've also seen the elimination of many trades over the years because of the raising minimum wage. One example is the elevator attendant in the late 1800's and turn of the century. In 1904, the minimum wage was raised from $0.40 an hour to $0.70 an hour (I may be SLIGHTLY wrong with these figures as I'm operating from memory, but I believe this is right, but my point still stands regardless). What happened was the slow disappearance of this job and a redistribution of investment towards automatic elevators. Same thing with gas station attendants, theater ushers, receptionists to an extent, and more. We can even look at countries without minimum wage. Switzerland: 2.8% unemployment. Singapore: 2.1% United Arab Emirates: 2.4% When wages of low/unskilled labor are raised above the discounted marginal revenue product, companies decide to invest in skilled labor or capital. This is why unions love the minimum wage as they usually represent skilled laborers. Labor unions have been violent towards strikebreakers for the past 200 years. Why should these people be coerced into obeying union rules when they want to work for the wage given? United Farm Workers were also known to be violent towards immigrants who undermined their efforts. A priori, it can be shown to cause unemployment simply because in a free market wage is again determined like I described above, reaching an equilibrium centered around the discounted marginal revenue product and if the minimum wage is set above this price, there will be a shortage. Simply supply and demand. If employing a low skilled worker becomes unprofitable above 5 dollars an hour and the minimum wage is 6 dollars an hour, I can simply start investing in capital or skilled labor (say one skilled worker for 16 dollars an hour to replace the three unskilled workers that would now cost 18 dollars an hour). Voila, unemployment of low skilled workers. Hell, I know plenty of people who are unemployed right now who are completely willing to work for 6 dollars an hour, but the government has made this illegal. The proponents of minimum wage complain that the wages paid without minimum wage do not offer enough to live off of. The only problem is that minimum wage jobs SHOULDN'T offer a living wage. They are for those with little to no skill and allow these people to gain training and experience allowing them to move up in the ranks of the labor force. Teen laborers are a prime demographic this applies to. Unionization itself is still completely possible in a free market (it is free after all) and if workers want to negotiate better terms with their employers, more power to them and as I explain in the next paragraph, the lack of barriers to entry mean that new companies will rise to offer the laborers the conditions they want because then that company will flourish (to the extent that they don't run at a loss, of course). They of course are only allowed to unionize, boycott, and protest so long as they respect the rights of those who wish to work for the company anyway and do not violate the company's private property rights by preventing their access to supply trucks and whatnot. Claiming that corporations exploit workers now and therefore the free market sucks is just a huge non-sequitor as it's government intervention that allows for the limit to competition as it is now. You mention injustices and abuses and while you didn't outright say it, a common example of this "corporate abuse" is child labor in the 1800's. If you don't think of this as one example of abuse, then ignore this paragraph. When laborers started moving from the farmlands to the cities to work in factories, they did so because the factories offered better opportunities than farming would have. If this were not the case they would have just stayed where they were. Children worked in these farms as well and at the onset of the industrial revolution and throughout it, they worked there too. Was this because capitalists are evil pigs? No. The typical family would often have as many as eight children (and more). Feeding all these kids cost a lot and they needed to work in order to live. We started to see kids leave the workplace not because of laws, but because capitalists invested in technology that allowed workers to be more productive and thus earn more coupled with the development of contraceptives (distributed by.. you guessed it, fuckin capitalists) lowering the average family size. If child labor laws had been implemented before the onset of the industrial revolution, these kids who were working would have simply died. It is through innovation (spurred by free competition) that we increase the productivity of workers and redistribute the former low skilled laborers to other areas of production.
Monopolies are also a huge myth that only exist because of state intervention (hell, the state is by its very nature a monopoly but I digress). When large businesses start to make profits, it is a sign to others to take upon that business,increasing supply and lowering cost. The state currently holds an obscene plethora of barriers to entry in the majority of industrial fields, allowing large corporations to stifle competition. Things like licensing laws, ip laws, etc. The abuses that happen today would never occur on a market without these state interventions that prevent competition. Monopoly horror stories by anti-capitalists also involve buying out of all competition and ruling the market (insert maniacal movie villain laughter here). You have to keep in mind, however, that as a firm begins buying out competition, the remaining companies in the industry become more and more incentivized to raise the price of selling their company and/or not selling out altogether as they will be left with a great portion of the market share and can easily undercut their bigger competitor (and if that competitor wants to undercut back, I'm at a loss as to how this is bad for the consumer as we get a cheaper price). If they undercut the smaller guy to the point of him losing his business, it is again a sign to others to enter the business and offer a competitive price to the consumer. The biggest problem with the majority of what you wrote is that you're thinking only in one set of terms. "Companies get to do whatever they want (i.e. pillage and plunder us all)." We also get to do what we want as workers and consumers. All our contracts are voluntary and nobody is forcing anything upon us. Not only that, but if a company is going to get what it wants (business, labor, prosperity, and prolonged profit) they have to give US what WE want. They can't very well force the money out of our pockets, can they? If I didn't properly address your concerns, perhaps you could elaborate a little bit. I kinda went on a long ramble and maybe brought up things that were completely irrelevant to your objections to libertarianism/capitalism. I just tried to address the most common allegations of abuse by companies and explain how they wouldn't exist on a free market. I could go on to explain how pillaging of our natural resources wouldn't exist in a market where private property rights are enforced (hell the entire BP disaster could have been prevented in a free marke), but my fingers are very tired from typing and my girlfriend needs some of my attention tonight as well.
Don't argue directly: teach him some economics. Advise him to read one book (I would suggest 'Economics For Real People'.)
You can't debate directly with someone like this: there are just too few common grounds to start debating on.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Her response:
The government exists because of corporations, the corporations don't exist because of government. In order for corporations to exist, leaders must exist -- meaning power will continue to be concentrated in the hands of the few. I don't believe that the government should exist either way,but that's another conversation. The arguments you've proposed seem to be of theoretical nature and originate from books -- what about experience and history? The free market in practice has resulted in mostly terrible things. Adam Smith's idea originally was to create more equality among people, not to incept the alienation of labor and this highly oppressive system that exists today. Capitalism is better than feudalism -- but that isn't saying much. Even Marx agreed with that. Do you think it's someone's dream to clean toilets in order to provide for their families? I find that many people I speak to (again, this is from experience, not theoretical) would prefer to live on a farm with other people, working together towards a common goal. Many people would like to work alongside others to invent, create -- music, technology, medicine, etc. People are passionate about their hobbies, not about earning wages. And what are hobbies but work we do for free, out of pleasure and wonderment? Haven't you met anyone who practices carpentry out of enjoyment? My grandfather kept plants and built things because he obtained pleasure from doing it. The possibilities are exponential and exist already. The real obstruction to liberty IS the system of wages. The system of wages exists as a system to control the poor. People don't "want" to work for the wage given -- they are forced to work by proprietors. In a cooperative society people wouldn't work for wages, they would work according to need -- and often work because they enjoy it. It surprises me that you are confused about this seeing as though your ethnic background is that of a nation of people that suffer earning pitiful wages. People are doomed in a capitalist society to work for wages, instead of living according to what they need and what they can make and utilize for themselves. We feel as though we are of little value because we produce things like parts to an alarm clock that we will never see utilized. To assume that technology and standard of living improve solely (or even mostly) because of competition is false. As Salk put it -- "Who could patent the sun?" Out of good intentions he produced a lifesaving vaccine that eradicated a debilitating disease for free. Nikolai Tesla, the father of electricity (alternating current) didn't exploit his inventions for monetary gain. His belief was that electrical power was a right, something that should be free for the people. Tesla died in significant debt. These were not people motivated by greed. Econ 101 teaches us that bartering is inefficient because the process of getting what you want/need is too slow -- however, if we utilized technology (telecommunications, internet) that we have today we could easily operate on a system that is more cooperative. We can observe that living things work cooperatively on a fundamental level. Humans are social animals and are so because it is the most efficient way to live for us. Cooperation is the most effective way for us to ensure our own survival -- cooperation doesn't imply that people are not free to practice individual freedoms or even that they are FORCED to operate in such a way -- cooperation implies that people work together because they want to. And they want to work together because they enjoy it -- it's efficient. Cooperative, communistic anarchism as it was practiced in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war, INCREASED productivity and people found it to be an incredibly practical way to live. But of course, our culture encourages selfishness because if we "practice our individualism" to the greatest extent, the proprietors will make the most profit out of it. Libertarianism doesn't really have an answer to these problems -- perhaps theoretically, but again, that's essentially the only purpose libertarian philosophy serves. It's a hobby for educated elitist intellectuals.
A pretty short conversation (it only began last night). So again, a response to the last post (or to points I missed from the first post) would be appreciated. I simply don't have the time for these long internet debates sometimes (and I'm already late for work).
Let her listen to the first few podcasts in the 'Greatest Hits' in FreedomainRadio. Let her watch the 'Statism is Dead' series. Let her see Milton Friedman videos on LibertyPen youtube channel. Let her read Isabel Paterson's 'Humanitarian with the Guillotine' essay.
If that doesn't work then you really have to resort to letting her read a book.
You're familiar with the beginner's reading list right? Econ in One lesson, Road to Serfdom, The Law, etc.
And remember to always be cool and polite about it. Don't sound like a religious zealot.
I'm not sure it's worth your time, your friend is building arguments upon faulty premises that are built on misunderstandings which are all underpinned with errors. You have to get down to the most basic concepts.
You need to keep your responses to her shorter.
Danny:The government exists because of corporations, the corporations don't exist because of government. In order for corporations to exist, leaders must exist -- meaning power will continue to be concentrated in the hands of the few. I don't believe that the government should exist either way,but that's another conversation.
Danny: The arguments you've proposed seem to be of theoretical nature and originate from books -- what about experience and history? The free market in practice has resulted in mostly terrible things. Adam Smith's idea originally was to create more equality among people, not to incept the alienation of labor and this highly oppressive system that exists today. Capitalism is better than feudalism -- but that isn't saying much. Even Marx agreed with that.
Danny:Do you think it's someone's dream to clean toilets in order to provide for their families? I find that many people I speak to (again, this is from experience, not theoretical) would prefer to live on a farm with other people, working together towards a common goal. Many people would like to work alongside others to invent, create -- music, technology, medicine, etc. People are passionate about their hobbies, not about earning wages. And what are hobbies but work we do for free, out of pleasure and wonderment? Haven't you met anyone who practices carpentry out of enjoyment? My grandfather kept plants and built things because he obtained pleasure from doing it. The possibilities are exponential and exist already. The real obstruction to liberty IS the system of wages.
Danny:The system of wages exists as a system to control the poor. People don't "want" to work for the wage given -- they are forced to work by proprietors.In a cooperative society people wouldn't work for wages, they would work according to need -- and often work because they enjoy it. It surprises me that you are confused about this seeing as though your ethnic background is that of a nation of people that suffer earning pitiful wages. People are doomed in a capitalist society to work for wages, instead of living according to what they need and what they can make and utilize for themselves. We feel as though we are of little value because we produce things like parts to an alarm clock that we will never see utilized.
Danny:To assume that technology and standard of living improve solely (or even mostly) because of competition is false. As Salk put it -- "Who could patent the sun?" Out of good intentions he produced a lifesaving vaccine that eradicated a debilitating disease for free. Nikolai Tesla, the father of electricity (alternating current) didn't exploit his inventions for monetary gain. His belief was that electrical power was a right, something that should be free for the people. Tesla died in significant debt. These were not people motivated by greed.
Danny:Econ 101 teaches us that bartering is inefficient because the process of getting what you want/need is too slow -- however, if we utilized technology (telecommunications, internet) that we have today we could easily operate on a system that is more cooperative. We can observe that living things work cooperatively on a fundamental level. Humans are social animals and are so because it is the most efficient way to live for us. Cooperation is the most effective way for us to ensure our own survival -- cooperation doesn't imply that people are not free to practice individual freedoms or even that they are FORCED to operate in such a way -- cooperation implies that people work together because they want to. And they want to work together because they enjoy it -- it's efficient. Cooperative, communistic anarchism as it was practiced in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war, INCREASED productivity and people found it to be an incredibly practical way to live. But of course, our culture encourages selfishness because if we "practice our individualism" to the greatest extent, the proprietors will make the most profit out of it.
Danny:Libertarianism doesn't really have an answer to these problems -- perhaps theoretically, but again, that's essentially the only purpose libertarian philosophy serves. It's a hobby for educated elitist intellectuals.
The first thought that comes to mind is put on your best Brooklyn impression and swear as much as possible at her.
My second thought now turns to her actual arguments.
The system of wages exists as a system to control the poor. People don't "want" to work for the wage given -- they are forced to work by proprietors.
Who is she to make that value judgement? Wages exist so that, yes, people will work for the employer. Nothing's stopping those poor from leaving.
To assume that technology and standard of living improve solely (or even mostly) because of competition is false. As Salk put it -- "Who could patent the sun?" Out of good intentions he produced a lifesaving vaccine that eradicated a debilitating disease for free. Nikolai Tesla, the father of electricity (alternating current) didn't exploit his inventions for monetary gain. His belief was that electrical power was a right, something that should be free for the people. Tesla died in significant debt. These were not people motivated by greed.
Sounds like you need to hook her up with the truth dosage of Anti-IP Libertarianism. The truth is, patents and other copyrights are a State-sponsored institution. This is really a nonissue.
But really, the largest obstacle you need to get out of the way is her view that people don't "want" to make money.
Ask her this: What does she view Capitalism as?
My response to her first critique (and could someone tell me how the hell I can undo the highlighting?):
1. The main problem with libertarianism is that it is fueled by the same motivations under which society today operates -- egotism. From an ethical standpoint this is unjustifiable.
1. Your language here is imprecise. What do you mean by fueled? What do you mean by egotism? How is this unjustifiable? It is impossible to give a precise rebuttal against language this vague. One might suppose you mean that libertarians adopt their beliefs out of self interest, but that is merely a guess and I’ll not waste time rebutting it.
2. Without the government acting as a middleman between corporations and the labor/consumers, people are foredoomed to suffering great travesties -- isn't that why we have labor laws and unions now?
2. The reason why we have anything is going to be very complex, not given to a pat explanation… and entirely irrelevant to how it operates in reality. This is a common theme among those who support the state: they speak about noble goals with little thought to operational reality, as if the program, if founded for the right reasons, will behave decently.
At any rate, you speak about needing a “middle man” between corporations and the people. In other words, you are looking for security. You don’t want to be the victim of fraud or theft or shoddy craftsmanship or whatever it is that corporations might commit against the people. But the statist, in invoking the state for security, has simply created a fiction to believe in. Who will be your middle man between you and the state? This is often expressed as “Who watches the watchers?” Will founding a state with noble intentions guarantee that it act as you want it to? Since your conception of the state is as a guarantee against the corporations, this question is at the heart of the matter. If the state is not a guarantee, can you demonstrate that it at least betters our odds? It seems to me that a corporation is something I can walk away from, a government is not. This ability to “exit” when dealing with corporations makes my relationship with them fundamentally different than my relationship with a state. Allow me to restate the previous question: Why would a compulsive institution like the state be a good middle man against entities from whom I have the ability to exit? If these corporations are truly a danger, can you give me a good reason to believe that government will not come to be dominated by them, but will instead obey the will of the people?
3. Additionally, it would be an inefficient if practicality is what you're after. If you grant corporations (or whatever you'd like to call them in your ideal libertarian society) complete freedom, what do you think they are going to do with it?
3. Let’s omit ‘complete’ and just say freedom, which is defined by libertarians as the right to dispose of your own property in any way you like without interference. This carries the unavoidable corollary that you may not dispose of another’s property without their permission, since they have the same right as you. I may throw my baseball, but I may not throw it through your window (without your permission). Given this, what the corporations do does not concern me. I have to wonder why you have not turned your questioning on the government. You worry about what corporations will do with what you call “complete freedom”, but any concern about what government will do with not just complete freedom but an actual enforced monopoly right to coerce people – whether in compulsion or prohibition – you leave unstated. I shall state it: If you grant government complete freedom and a monopoly right to coerce, what are they going to do with it?
It may occur to you to point out that corporations may not behave in a libertarian manner, that they may exceed their complete freedom and move into abuse and criminality. This is a fair question, but it is one, as I pointed out earlier, that you declined to ask of the state earlier. Maybe corporations will not behave as I wish. Maybe people are, at heart, greedy and evil, or whatever it is that causes them to earn your distrust. But creating a government does not change this fundamental problem; it merely takes the people you already don’t trust when they are in corporations and gives them more power. It’s the old libertarian saying: if men are angels we don’t need government; if men are devils, we don’t dare have one. At the end of the day, you still need to explain why giving an institution a monopoly right to coerce is going to protect us from the nefarious schemes of institutions with no such recognized monopoly right.
4. The people with the most resources will dominate the rest and there is no room for civil liberties in a society that needs to be kept under control.
4. And how many resources, and how much, were you prepared to give the government to do its job? Will they not also seek to dominate?
5. At the end of the day the libertarian ideology lacks a clear focus and purpose.
5. The libertarian ideology is the right to acquire property and dispose of it. If this is not clear and focused, then I’ve never seen clarity or focus and doubt that they exist.
6. The alienation of labor will continue as it is, or the situation will worsen exponentially.
6. It’s not clear to me what you mean by this.
7. Yeah, yeah, your liberty ends where my Nozick begins and all, but there is really no foundation libertarianism can stand on.
7. There is no time and space here to enter into the foundations of libertarianism. I suggest you read Rothbard and Hoppe on that count. But again, you practice a double standard: on what foundation does the state stand?
8. People can either operate freely in mutual aid societies or be doomed to living like parasites and donkeys, protecting only what's theirs and living for nothing more than to amass resources indiscriminately.
8. Again, your meaning is unclear to me. If you mean what I guess you might mean, people would be free to amass resources, or give them away, or whatever their hearts desired, in a libertarian society.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
I agree with the point made by others that your friend fundamentally misunderstands economics and history, and a conversation almost certainly won't persuade her. She needs a stronger understanding, and that means reading. On that note, you might find that the books by Russ Roberts, particularly The Price of Everything and The Invisible Heart are a better start than something like Economics in One Lesson or The Road to Serfdom. Not only are they much easier to read, they're less ideological and challenging to one's biases. You may find that they're a better way to soften her up and get her to approach the ideas with an open mind.
I agree with the point made by others that your friend fundamentally misunderstands economics and history, and a conversation almost certainly won't persuade her. She needs a stronger understanding, and that means reading. On that note, you might find that the books by Russ Roberts, particularly The Price of Everything and The Invisible Heart are a better start than something likeEconomics in One Lesson or The Road to Serfdom. Not only are they much easier to read, they're less ideological and challenging to one's biases. You may find that they're a better way to soften her up and get her to approach the ideas with an open mind.
What about Mises' Socialism?
There should be a libertarian reality show about trying to convert people like your friend. She is way out there. She would definitely qualify as a contestant. She would be matched with some libertarian for a week who thinks he's up to the challenge.
On a serious note.
She seems to be paranoid about individuals with "resources". Go after that first! Show here that the value of those resources is not derived from the intrinsic physical properties, but from the subjective valuations of the people, and this is the big one, that they must SERVE!
I normally hate using altruism to defend freedom, but in this desperate and severe case, use it just to get her attention. Then come back to it later when she is more forthcoming.
just a couple of comments.
I find that many people I speak to (again, this is from experience, not theoretical) would prefer to live on a farm with other people, working together towards a common goal.
I have to think that anybody who says this has never worked on a farm. Speaking from my experence(since she apparently has little love for theory), My grandfather owned a farm, and when I was a teen I spent every summer helping him out, chopping wood for winter(he used a wood burning stove), weeding the gardens, sheering sheep, and so on.....and it sucked. Im sure its easier now than it was in the pre-industral revolution, thanks to mechanical tools and such, but still... It was hard work, out in teh sun all day, its hot and every day you are sore and tired. And have you ever seen a bull get castrated? I have, and trust me, its not something you want to watch...ever.
My grandfather sold the farm a few years ago, because it was too much work for him, and he couldnt afford to hire anymore farm hands(thats right farm laborors work for wages too....), and I have a 'regular' job now in retail, and I can tell you I'd MUCH rather be doing that than out in my grandfathers farm.
Many people would like to work alongside others to invent, create -- music, technology, medicine, etc. People are passionate about their hobbies, not about earning wages. And what are hobbies but work we do for free, out of pleasure and wonderment? Haven't you met anyone who practices carpentry out of enjoyment? My grandfather kept plants and built things because he obtained pleasure from doing it. The possibilities are exponential and exist already.
So whats stopping them? Why cant they sell their art to make money? There's an old saying: 'Do what you love and you'll never have to work a day in your life.' Have you ever worked with indipendent films? I'v volunteered to help people on that(not as much as I'd like) and these are people who not only love all the aspects of filmmaking, but also hope to make money doing so. I know one guy who worked as a teacher and shot his films durring the summer(then hired professional editors to piece together the final cut durring hte shcool year), but his latest film has been successfull enough he hopes to be able to quit his teaching job and focus on making movies.
Or from my own personal experence, me and a friend of mine write our own comic series in our spare time, and have allowed the first few issues to be sold at a local comic shop. We've achieved some moderate success, and have been looking for greater distribution opportunities. We've also been saving the profits from our comics in hopes of hiring a professional colorist and/or letteror, in order to save us time and efffort, and hopefully make our work look better. We both hope to make enough money off our comics that we can quit our jobs and do that all the time.
In fact I would say that even the greatest artwork in existance does nobody any good if nobody sees it. But getting people to see it is the hard(and often overlooked) part.
Ask her what is wrong with this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
What she REALLY needs to read though is:
Ten Ethical Objections to the Market Economy - MNR
I completely agree that she needs a significant reading list. My strategy at this point is to provide a rebuttal to some of her points. At least just give her an idea that these points are well known and have refutations, then recommend some resources that explain these rebuttals in greater detail (Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hoppe in regards to the methodology).
I don't want to just say "All your objections don't apply, read these books to see why" and that's why I asked for help from the thread. Book recommendation are greatly appreciated, but rebuttals to the points given is still welcome.
I think she's more.... http://mises.org/store/Whatever-Happened-to-Penny-Candy-with-Study-Guide-P303.aspx
Or a Schiff book for sure. Something with comics and pictures... lol.
Need to cut through the bs.
Libertarianism: Self ownership -> NAP (non aggression principle).
Then ask her when she thinks the initiation of physical aggression or threats thereof is justified?
If never. That means she's a libertarian.
After her "lulwut"... explain that libertarians hold the same rules for everyone. We don't bend them for a group of people in brown shirts wearing costumes who call themselves "the government".
Putting on a uniform doesn't change the morality of the action, does it?
And point out that institution is broke.
Steve Austin: "That should mean technically they [the government] are broke." Chris Leithner: "That's precisely right. In any private sector sense, not only are they broke - but they are trading whilst insolvent. And therfore jails terms and so on... The critical point: the standards which apply to individuals simply don't apply to governments. If you and I do it, it's called theft. If the government does it, it's called taxation or fiscal policy. We have euphemisms. If you and I do it, it's called counterfeiting - we rightly go to goal - central banks call it monetary policy. If you and I do it, it's called genocide - when the US & Britain and other countries do it - it's called foriegn policy. In other words we have this bizarre notion whereby we attach very high standards (and quite properly so) to our own personal behavior, but governments are totally and utterly exempt from those sorts of standards." --
Oh, I forgot to mention this.
Since apparently she's an anarcho-communist(I seriously have a hard time wrapping my head around that notion ), ask her what's wrong with you having your little anarcho-capitalist "Hellhole", and she can have her own ancom "Paradise"?
"The government exists because of corporations, the corporations don't exist because of government."
All credibility goes out the window. Really? Cause corporations have existed for thousands of years?
If she's an anarchocommunist, I wouldn't give up so fast. Many free market anarchists were collectivist anarchists, or leftists first (for example, me). I don't why she'd be so harsh on libertarianism, anarchism is just an extension of libertarianism. There are collectivist minarchists. That alone should show that shes either arrogant or ignorant. It always pisses me off when anarchists forget that they are just libertarians.
^Also, to the above poster, most anarchists at the moment are either anarchocommunists or anarchosyndicalists, which is more or less the same thing.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I was really baffled by that statements as well. Even my girlfriend, who has no background in AE, thought that was odd.
Quite frankly your original post was absolutely fantastic, it practically defeated every single one of her arguments and forced her to move her position into totally different territory. I found it very odd that she claimed in her first post that the government should redistribute wealth, but in her second post she claimed that the state should not exist. I'm not sure you really need our help here, but none the less: Firstly Sieblen's post was excellent as usual, quite a thorough little critique he has there, and Conza's video's appear helpful.
Her entire objections rest upon two misconceptions. The first is wage slavery (perhaps that is too strong a word as I don't think she used it, but at any rate she misunderstands the process of monetary valuation, and secondly she does not understand the very nature of the market itself in terms of the type of social organization which the market brings about. Both of these could be considered part of the same fallacy, but let's deal with each one individually.
The process of monetary valuation which manifests itself in prices, profits, losses, and wages, is the process of each individual in society expressing his value for goods and services. That is all, it is a way of expressing value preferences. The way in which individuals know how to serve their fellow men suddenly appears through the price mechanism, this becomes true of ALL goods and ALL services. In this way the market works under all sets of value preferences, men need not be greedy in a market society, they need not work only for themselves, they can do whatever they wish with their money, they can spend it upon satisfying the wants of others, or they can spend it purely upon themselves. Furthermore there is nothing stopping people from performing the jobs which they want to do in and of themselves, if you are arguing that this would yield greater productivity then the market would reward this. If you are arguing that this is simply a better state of affairs then when people work for a wage by performing a job which they do not wish to perform then the market will punish them for the value which they fail to provide to society, but it will only do so through that which they DO NOT receive, it will simply retain that which the individual in question would have received, but if the person is happier for forgoing this monetary wealth then they are free to do so. If however, that which the individual performs leads to a charging of costs which he cannot repay then this means that his actions have had a net drain upon the wealth of society, and he must once more perform services which create wealth. If a society was organized in another way then it would soon find itself in utter squalor.
To summarize: Monetary pricing places values upon freely exchanged services, it does not say what these people must spend their money on and it does not force anyone to do anything. What it does do is makes economic calculation possible, and economic oblivion through missalocation and waist from occurring
Her second misconception relies upon the first. To put it simply the market does not necessarily depend upon hierarchical firms in order to provide goods and services. It in no way denies collectives, mutual aid organizations, or non monetary exchange. If collective, mutualistic firms are more profitable then they will be able to produce more valuable goods at lower prices and therefore more firms will begin to emulate this. If workers prefer to live in such an environment and the structure is at least sustainable then the organization will be able to expand and control more and more labor, land, and capital to the point where traditional firms must either pay workers high enough wages to the point where they return to this firm, AKA they provide a better service than the collective does for the worker.
To summarize: The market in no way, shape, or form excludes collectives or any other type of non-traditional firm. Indeed if I'm not mistaken theres a little something known as charities which exist in marketesque societies, even when the state gives the appearance of handling all problems at hand.
I hope this helped.
One point from the first post:
If you grant corporations (or whatever you'd like to call them in your ideal libertarian society) complete freedom, what do you think they are going to do with it?
If you grant the state complete freedom, what do you think they are going to do with it?
If you argue that the state is restrained by popular consent, why can't businesses be restrained by popular consent? If the state is restrained by its self-drafted rules, why can't businesses draft their own rules and abide by them? Simply put, if we need the state to "act as a middleman between corporations and... consumers," wouldn't we need some other institution to act as a middleman between the state and citizens?
This is something about anarcho leftists I don't understand. Many of them will say things like "we need to redistribute wealth" or "How can a free market protect us from pharmacies selling poison" and then say they don't believe a state. How else do you think you can do that without everyone agreeing to it, or without government?
Another one for inspiration: Milton Friedman's Greed. If the crude market is being compared to the noble government, this short video can force the debate to comparing the economic self-interest to the political self-interest... and that can be a good beginning as well. :)
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
"This is something about anarcho leftists I don't understand. Many of them will say things like "we need to redistribute wealth" or "How can a free market protect us from pharmacies selling poison" and then say they don't believe a state. How else do you think you can do that without everyone agreeing to it, or without government?"
BINGO
An-Coms are closet totalitarians
Yup, closet totalitarians who believe they can have a short period of "proletarian dictatorship" that will fundamentally change human nature to make anarcho-communism possible. When they realize that's not working, things get even uglier.
^Well not all socialist libertarians want to go that route, but I think it's clear that there are contradictions.
Yes sorry for overgeneralizing, if there are left anarchists who want to leave me alone I have no problem with them at all. I predict they will join ancapistan as soon as they see their ideas fail in practice (tragedy of the commons anyone?), but they probably say the reverse about me.
"if there are left anarchists who want to leave me alone I have no problem with them at all."
Tru dat!
Old time Proudhonian mutualism is surprisingly similar to voluntaryism.
"I predict they will join ancapistan as soon as they see their ideas fail in practice, but they probably say the reverse about me"
I'm not so sure, it depends on the attitude and the progress actually made. They might decide that the capitalist system might be forced to collapse in order for their ideologies to really have a shot, or some sort of sabatoge, something like that.... If the state is ever abolished the first generation to arise in the void will be... Interesting.
They will probably blame their failure on exploitation at the hands of Ancapistan.
They'll be too broke to sabotage ancapistan.
Terrorism is surprisingly inexpensive.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
So is a bullet.
Minus the extermination of jews, I guess.
My simple advice to the OP: Don't waste time arguing with her at this time. She obviously knows nothing about libertarianism despite speaking strongly of it. Point her to an introduction to libertarianism.