So after his reply I offered my explanations for how I saw the situation at hand. I wished to reply to all 6 of the full arguments and offer more of an explanation to the shorter replies he gave. The general arguments I gave in chronological order I had received from his reply were: 1) The True Definition of a Real Capitalist. 2) Concerning the corruption that Government and Business bring by Merging and then answering the question of what the Liberty Movement should demand. 3) Where the Free-Market Had Existed, in order to counter his argument that it never existed. 4) That I haven’t forgotten about the Slavery Issue, in American History. 5) Giving a New Example of to put the perversion of capitalism in the terms that a socialist would understand it. 6) Re-Affirming why the Free-Market is meant to be free and not planned.
So to begin I made my point clear and to the point that the definition of real capitalism is such that “A Capitalist seeks out the voluntary agreement and exchange between two people. The true capitalist does not seek to have an array of government programs, [this way of thinking is] mercantilist, a perversion in capitalism.” Afterwards I wished to explain that the corruption of the state is due to government intervention in the economy while also simultaneously affirming what the object of the mass movement would be in an attempt to end the corruption in government. I first said that government corruption is due to “mercantilists who desire to aggrandize the state for their own selfish reasons.” After this I made the point clear that the objective of the mass movement would “need to demand that the state return back to the Federal Republic that was established back in 1787 as well as dissolving Corporate Personhood. (Maintaining very few laws of our day, only the socialamendments, that outlaws discrimination and slavery and what not.)”
Now Iam sorry, but it annoys me when people do not realize the Americas founding was based off of a capitalist revolt against mercantilism and the whole point to America was to have a free-market to compliment a free and open society. I made my case that “Such a system did exist, and has always existed. It simply has become perverted, thanks to an academia that is reliant upon and continuing the political status-quo, whether it is the mercantilists on the right or the anti-capitalists on the left. America however did start out as an entirely free market society with little intervention and the nation prospered because of it.”
Now I had to continue to show that I was aware of the real American history and not the history that we were conditioned to believe in high school. I said to him, feeling a bit surprised “I leave out the slaves? The slaves were a pawn/front to justifying a needless war. No, there were political/economic reasons for that war. The agrarian (free-market capitalist) south was fighting the industrial (largely mercantilist) North, on top that most of the northern states were jam-packed full of racists, Lincoln of who was one of them. But you probably didn’t know that. I do believe he made it also pretty clear that the civil war was being fought “to save the union” and he would be willing to do that even if he ‘didn’t have to free a single slave.” Citing my claim of course from a letter written by Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley (22 August 1862). Of course, knowing full well that he may doing something to twist my position I warned him ahead of time by saying “don’t label me as a white supremacists or some guy who would have lived in the south and supported slavery in some convoluted attempt to associate capitalism with slave owners.”
After this I made my point that since the time of the civil war ending, “Lincoln destroyed the Old Republic and in its stead he installs a powerful central government, which had owed much to the mercantilist north. So when you wonder why all the exploitation and wars we fought after the civil war had occurred you need only look to the mercantilists-central government. America has been perverted from its original form for quite some time. So all that stuff you learned about the exploitation of big business and the triggering of the creation of the communist manifesto was not about capitalism, but mercantilist economic policy.”
As I got closer to the end of my counter-argument, I wished to re-clarify myself over the association I built up between Nazism and Socialism by offering a more specific, well-understood to the socialist thinking, perversion in ideology. I said to him “Socialism is still socialism, regardless of the name you put in front of it or behind it. It is still a form of collectivist thinking, which only ends up destroying individual liberty. So inevitably, I know what I am talking about. Perhaps a better fitting way to explain what I am trying to say is: ‘Mercantilism is a perversion of capitalism, the same way a Marxist finds communism being perverted by Maoists.’ Being that the historical disagreements between the USSR and China is a good example of what I am trying to show.”
Finally at the conclusion of this counter-argument I re-affirmed the point and the function of the free-market economy as being one that the free-market is “meant to be free, determined by market forces, not political ones. That is what keeps us free from oppression and exploitation. Market forces are impersonal and objective; political forces are personal and subjective. Where do you think exploitation is going to come from, something that is natural or something that living and thinking and has its own agenda? Even if it is the case that government is the creation of the ‘capitalist’ it still is not because, I just got saying that government would be manipulated by the mercantilists, whom are the perversion of capitalists.”
He then replied with 3 points of his own and a few short phrased responses to a few other statements I made. 1) He was not satisfied with what I told him about the objectives of the Liberty Movement. 2) He commented on his view that collectivization would enhance individual liberty. 3) He was curious if I had known anything about history at all. 4) In general the tone of his short phrased responses was such that it seemed condescending, he felt that “anti-socialist have a hefty serving of unfounded confidence”, he felt that he knew everything I knew about history already and that it was wrong, he disagreed that the Pre-Civil War South was a Free-Market Economy, and last but not least he didn’t care what I defined the problem as because the focus was upon solving the problem.
So let me first begin with the fuller arguments, the first of which was his dissatisfaction with what I told him about the objectives of the Liberty Movement, he stated that my response “doesn’t mean anything…” He then proceeded to ask “What are you advocating? That is a totally abstract proposition which means nothing. Are you for the Employee Free Choice Act? Are you for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? What should be done about global warming? Should we abolish the death penalty? How should the economic crisis be handled (the failing of the banks, the failing of the auto companies, the drop in the housing market, etc.)?”
After this he explained that, a collective is the basis to a free society, he made this point by arguing that “Without acting collectively humans would have gone extinct long ago. Collaboration between individuals can increase the individual liberty of those individuals because, by uniting, they can fight those external constraints on individual liberty they face.” His final fuller argument was in the form of a question, if I had “read about the history of European society (capitalism, whatever you want to call it)? Have you read anything about this history?” The shorter phrases he made and that I later would reply to was only one and that concerning The Pre-Civil War South in relation to a free-market economy as well as how he defined who the problem was and where the solution lies.