Political Theory

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:32:44 GMT

kelvin_silva:
my goodness, think about how big the government will expand due to war.....

When I was a conservative (I wouldn't say neo-con, I always did have some libertarian tendencies) and read this in Rothbard's Anatomy of the State, it was one of those "Oh my God- he's right!" moments.

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:27:50 GMT

I think im starting to understand this now. the government would bankrupt the citizens with such high amount of taxes that is needed for so many wars (building things which will get destroyed anyway). and after the wars then what? all those guns are pretty much useless.

my goodness, think about how big the government will expand due to war.....

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:18:04 GMT

kelvin_silva:
I think i understand it now. How could the people be cheering for the wealth that building the ships were created if they were just destroyed? It makes no sense right?

Right.

kelvin_silva:
Sound kind of like 1984 with the perpetual war (kind of like what we are seeing today with the US, always going to war).

A very astute observation, by you, and forecast, by Orwell. "We're at war with global terrorism; we've always been at war with global terrorism."

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

John James — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:07:55 GMT

This might help cement things for you:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

This is the video he mentioned in the clip above:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:02:37 GMT

I think i understand it now. How could the people be cheering for the wealth that building the ships were created if they were just destroyed? It makes no sense right? If the firm had used materials to build houses or make foods etc. it would do more good than just building ptless ships to destroy them. Sound kind of like 1984 with the perpetual war (kind of like what we are seeing today with the US, always going to war).

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

hashem — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:54:39 GMT

what kinds of arguments should i expect against free markets/liberty/small governments?
Despite his reputation, I kinda like Molyneux's answer here. Expect moral arguments in the form of ex post facto rationalizations. These moral arguments will be disguised as utilitarian arguments, or as allegedly objective in one way or another. But know that they are based on a moral position and are always necessarily fallacious, so the hardest part (or the fun part) is simply spotting the fallacy.

People will use mainly a few fallacies to avoid challenging the status quo:
• Ad Hominem and other Red Herring fallacies: They will focus on an eronious or irrelevent point, despite the substance of the argument.
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and other ex post facto fallacies: An example: "Things are great, or at least not terrible, thanks to government."
• Questionable Cause and other Slippery Slope fallacies: "There's always been government and there always will be."
• False dichotomy and other Begging the Question fallacies: "Without government there would be chaos."

From arguing for a few years now, my experience is that the moral fallacy is always "government is justified". It's a fallacy because they never attempt to justify government. Slavery, or government—but I repeat myself—is unjustifiable morally, so they never even attempt it. They just assume government and start from there.

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

John James — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:32 GMT

kelvin_silva:

in regards to the broken window fallacy, I understand it since if the government wants to make jobs it will have to tax its people. and the taxes decrease the people'es wealth (and doesn't the government have to tax the workers that are working at the government jobs?).

However what about in war? After ww2 the economy prospered. Was this merely because of the nationalism/patriotism which was driving people to build factories and join the war?

How would the broken window be fallacious when one talks about ww2?

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:53:15 GMT

kelvin_silva:
However what about in war? After ww2 the economy prospered. Was this merely because of the nationalism/patriotism which was driving people to build factories and join the war?

The reason the economy prospered after -emphatically, not during nor because of- the war is that federal government outlays and taxes declined dramatically. In spite of millions of soldiers returning to the nation without jobs, the economy thrived.

kelvin_silva:
How would the broken window be fallacious when one talks about ww2?

War probably would benefit a few individuals/firms such as weapons dealers, air craft manufacturers et cetera.

Is war good for the economy? Thought experiment:

The United States is in a recession. Economic growth is declining and it needs to grow. So the government subsidizes a firm to build an entire fleet of aircraft carriers, rifles, ammo, explosives, uniforms, and aircraft. The carriers are sent into the middle of the Atlantic whereby all personnel are safely evacuated and the carriers are sunk. WIth all the economic calculation, labor input, engineering, production, savings, investment, planning, and so forth at the ocean floor, the Americans dance and cheer at the wealth and prosperity "created."

All these inputs went into "goods" that were destroyed- what could have been produced if production structures weren't diverted to war materials? Who knows. But market actors are poorer because of this diversion. It's just a broken window.

Of course, this is what happens in war. War is a vice on economic growth. It may produce some transitory benefits for some individuals including jobs and higher incomes for certain firms and politicians involved, but it is at the expense of factors of production that are ultimately wasted as the products of these inputs are, literally, destroyed. Countless resources that could have been used to produce goods that consumers actually demand are instead directed to production processes that produce materials meant to be destroyed. Economic goods are misallocated and, as a user mentioned above, the Production Possibilities Frontier shifts left (declines; becomes poorer) as wealth is destroyed.

Pssst- Both Hazlitt and Woods talk about the effects that war has on an economy in those books!

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:46:07 GMT

kelvin_silva:
I guess i have alot of reading to do before going into a debate...

Trust me (your friendly stranger on the internet!), Meltdown and Economics in One Lesson are brief, informative and, above all, intellectually exciting reads. Reading them isn't a burden.

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:36:27 GMT

in regards to the broken window fallacy, I understand it since if the government wants to make jobs it will have to tax its people. and the taxes decrease the people'es wealth (and doesn't the government have to tax the workers that are working at the government jobs?).

However what about in war? After ww2 the economy prospered. Was this merely because of the nationalism/patriotism which was driving people to build factories and join the war?

How would the broken window be fallacious when one talks about ww2?

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:24:13 GMT

k thanks, I'll read that one once im finished with meltdown. I guess i have alot of reading to do before going into a debate...

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:13:16 GMT

I would also encourage you to consider reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It is a very good book and elaborates on Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy- one of the main economic fallacies that modern-liberals and socialists have.

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Kelvin Silva — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:02:10 GMT

thanks for the support.

I guess i'll start with Meltdown first, then ill follow the reading list and once im smarter i'll read human action and road to serfdom.

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

John James — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:50:22 GMT

Welcome to the Mises Forum! Be sure to check the newbie thread for forum tips and how-tos.

As Clayton said, I probably have you covered, but I'm not sure why he picked that particular post (that one contains resources on difference between Austrian School and Chicago School). For your purposes, you might start with these:

One Book for Capitalism

Getting started in the Austrian School

Guides and Knowledge for your Intellectual Journey

Reading lists

Re: I'm a beginner is about to argue a welfare statist/liberal/socialist/obama lover

Clayton — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:23:08 GMT

Our resident thread-ninja John James has you covered:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28895/465540.aspx#465540