My Debate With A Socialist (Argument #6)

At this time I was going to begin to reply to his arguments but on this day, a new side argument also was beginning to take place. This side argument is also going to be posted and shared for all who wish to see further debunking and debating that would take place between us. But in this main debate I came back at him with 6 counter-arguments of my own: 1) I answered his question in an attempt to fulfill his dissatisfaction concerning the goals of my idea for a mass movement. 2) I gave a general overview to the history of humanity. 3) My reply to Southern Style Free Market Economics. 4) My concern that it was he and not I who had been brainwashed by our particular train of thinking. 5) How real collective collaboration worked in America. 6) Correction upon who is to blame.

The first question he had asked me was whether or not I would advocate the employee free choice act, to this I told that I would “be against this Employees Free Choice Act, because it threatens the employee’s job by jeopardizing their job because it would get rid of the private ballot. If there is a private ballot, than the employee is anonymous and is therefore able to avoid putting his job in jeopardy since management would obviously be watching him. [If] they know the employees name they can make his life hell.”

I then proceeded to answer his question if I was for or against the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and I told him that I was “against the war on terror” and told him that “IF we went back to a Federal Republic, than there would be no (offensive) wars because there would be only direct taxation upon the people instead of a large welfare/warfare state with a central bank to go to war with, this would mean people would be directly responsible for financing the war effort and if it is not quick and peacefully dealt with than there would be war weariness. After all, it was only with nationalization of the banks that we see America able to become the imperialist [expletive] it has become.”

After this he asked me what I would do about global warming, to this I began re-affirming my original objective of our Liberty Movement to restore the Federal Republic and then told him that, “nothing should be done about global warming because it does not exist” and I re-affirmed my position that “IF we went back to a Federal Republic, than we would have had an innovative market to provide us for with more eco-friendly tools and sought out cleaner resources to help us produce. Likewise, capitalists seek to minimize costs so that would mean we do not spend more money than what we need to get the job done. Unlike the mercantilists idea of aggrandizing the state, so that the state dishes out billions of dollars on “public work projects” that will only encourage state subsidies to waste money (taxpayer money) and resources, to end up with a slop job in the end.” He then asked me if we should get rid of the death penalty, and I did not answer that because, I missed it, however, I shall offer commentary to this at the end.

Finally he then asked me what I would do about the economic crises that we face today, to this I told him that, “the economic crisis should be handled by allowing the debt to liquidate” I than once again re-affirmed that in a “Federal Republic, than government couldn’t do much except lower taxes to help stimulate the economy that was caused by Federal Reserve interests rates and propping up (subsidizing) the housing market. These are all government incentives and mercantilism, not the failing of business and capitalism.” I than went even more to compare government spending to an addictive credit card user by saying that “If you lost your job you don’t use your credit card to buy a fancy suit, go to a tanning salon, and do anything to make your physical appearance look good in hopes of looking good on the day of your job interview, rather you cut all un-necessary expenses to save your money as you pay off your debts and search for a job. But leave it to government to do the former instead of the later.” After all of this I concluded simply by saying that “All of this [the solutions] of course would occur if we went back to The Federal Constitutional Republic upon which this country was founded upon.”

I then proceeded to the second counter point concerning a very brief and simplistic overview of human history: “In the beginning we were hunter/foragers, we had everything for free but our survival depended on a day to day basis. Then, we settled down, first as tribes as we began to do some form of tribal communism and perhaps barter, because we were small and close enough to do so. Then, after that we turned into cities and countries and somewhere along the line we established a strong central state (a king) with well to do associated with or tied to the state (the nobility, the lords and aristocracy), this was the basis of mercantilism, to aggrandize the state and exploit the peasants. Then (at least in America at first) we broke free from our kings and lords, who established a mercantilist hierarchy only for us (who had rebelled) to establish a capitalist Federal Republic, so that all could (at least in visionary sense) establish equal opportunity/freedom to all. Money maybe a necessary evil but the goal of capitalism is to create capital, through capitalism the things that the very rich once owned during the times of kings and queens and nobility had been available to the general public, because the other goal of capitalism is production the highest quality at the lowest price to help in the creation of more capital.”

After this question I replied back to him concerning the free market and the pre-civil war south by saying that “The south wanted to end slavery on their terms, the north wanted to control the agrarian southern market, Lincoln turned down peace talks both with Confederate diplomats and even with Napoleon, on neutral third party. What did Lincoln do..? Well it’s pretty obvious, history tells the rest. Lincoln endorsed an amendment to the constitution that would forbid the federal government from interfering in the slavery issues, in the southern states.”

After this question I found myself bickering between which one is truly brainwashed, after in his previous reply he called me brainwashed, I told him that “I think it is you who has been brainwashed, a classic observation of collectivism… group thinking. Stalin had his brainwashed youth and so did Hitler, all of whom established collectivist ideologies for ruling the their countries with an iron fist and what more, these people were so into the propaganda and rhetoric of the state, that they didn’t even know they were being conditioned and brainwashed (the greater majority that is).” To this I wish to allude to the dangers of a “democracy” in which the dangers lie in the fact that the majority may not even be aware that they are being propagandized and conditioned by whomever, only then to setup a so called “free and democratic society” that would “control” the society. It sounds like the majority is just sheep rather than an aware citizenry.

I agreed with him that we had “Collaboration between individuals…” during the American Revolution, In order to “increase the individual liberty of those individuals…” so that “they can fight those external constraints on individual liberty they face.” However I quickly point out after this agreement that “We act collectively to survive, yes. But in order to survive we need to arrive to certain agreements, which are called laws.” I than gave our debating as a perfect example by telling him to “Take a look at us two, we can’t arrive to how a nation should be structured economically, we can’t agree, so if we can’t even agree on a basic like this how can we even been to form a group for our continued survival?”

I finally sought to correct him in his stance as to how to define the problem or who the problem was by saying that he should “blame the correct people…” I than quickly asked him “How would you like it if I gave a scathing critique of mine own about the evils of communism through critiquing Maoism, than you say ‘but I am a Marxist and see things differently’ and I say ‘Whatever, Marxist… Maoist they are all the same thing’ when I know the two see differently on how to structure society, the other considering the other one as having ‘gotten it wrong’ well the same goes for Mercantilism and Capitalism.”

To all these things he asked me if I had read any books, since I had not given him links or mediums of mine own in this debate at the present moment. He attacked the slavery issue claiming that “There are no terms that are legitimate when demanded by slave-owners.” He then also commented upon a short paragraph I made discussing free market and liberty, I told him in the essay that “It [Government intervention in personal and economic affairs of the individual] denies the human as an individual and is an insult to the human individual as well, that the [some how the] state knows much better than I know how to run my life.”

Allow me also to take the time, to reply now to the issue of the death penalty, I am against the death penalty. I believe crimes should not be answered with “punishment” but rather with rehabilitation. I also feel that victimless crimes are absolutely unnecessary and discourage the individual to hold themselves accountable for their actions in relation to victimless crimes, to me most laws imposed upon the individual are destructive and do not help anyway in stopping crime, but rather glorifies “crime.”

There is also the need to clarify certain facts about the Civil War that I am sure was never offered to you in government sponsored education was the knowledge that The North had threatened secession back during Jefferson’s Presidency for interfering with Northern States Affairs with trade and The North certainly did not abolish slavery until just before the war or during the war (depending upon the state) and the northern states continued their mistreatment of African-Americans. What you may also find interesting all the more is that during the Reconstruction Era, the Jim Crow laws were founded which were part of government decrees that were part of the reconstruction program, these decrees were largely from the Republican Party which had been the Party of Lincoln, who has been so famed for free the very slaves, the Jim Crow Laws were similar to laws in the north that were part of the mistreatment of African-Americans as well. I must also make the concession that it is an obvious observation that, a market is not a free market if you can’t leave as a laborer, aka slavery. My point is that the southern portion of America was more capitalistic (whether with or without slavery) than the northern portion of America which was largely mercantilist.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply