The debate started on a Sunday and ended officially on the following Saturday. One whole week of debating was exhausting but nonetheless engaging. Although at times the person I was debating against often employed the use of rhetoric and a slew of fallacies in their argument, and this includes sweeping generalizations that are very reminiscent of the anti-capitalist propaganda founded in public school education, but lacking in the truth of what capitalism REALLY is about. The socialist made a point to re-convert me back to the old school of thought I once took up as a teenager who celebrated it back in high school when I so naively accepted the government sponsored view of the world. When I debate my debating is to find out the truth not to defend a position so much as, this is what true debating is about but sometimes we as humans fail to maintain the truth and end up only defending our worldviews. This I am willing to admit I have done so as long the socialist admits the same, but at the same time I must point out that I had been around both worldviews AND the capitalist argument won me over while I was still in my socialist train of thought.
I have organized this essay in the manner of which it was presented to me, organized in day-by-day order, since it was the socialist who had initiated the debate, my hope is that I present the arguments in the most objective manner possible while yet celebrating the pro-free market argument and pointing out the behavior of the socialist as he was writing. I do believe there was about some 33 posts altogether some writing more than others at different times throughout the debate, I have also edited parts and excerpts in my reply, to give more appropriate wording as well as fixing grammatical errors that had occurred during the debate.
My greatest concern is the blind socialist support of the One World Order. After all international socialism is better known as communism. Which is known for planned economics and that very structure is what is incorporated into the new world order. I had founded out that he was a socialist who was in favor of the new world order, after commenting on a video I had posted on my Facebook profile. He commented first by saying “Oh my god! A global currency! You know the horror a universal currency brought to this country, right?!?! (Sarcasm)” and then afterwards saying “A New New Deal? That’s sure to be another horror. Cheaper health care, higher wages, more rights at work, programs to build public works–how bad can it get?!?! (Sarcasm)… Who made the New Deal? Lance Selfa recounts the history of an era that is still remembered for the important changes that benefited the working majority ( http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/14/who-made-the-new-deal ).”
Naturally I had to debate this, so because this was only a comment box for a link and knowing that I am allowed to write so many words in these boxes, I decided to be direct and to the point with each piece in his argument that he posed. The first was “Cheaper health care” and I quickly retorted the obvious capitalist objective for any product and that was “Market forces take care of cheaper production (health care), you must be referring to the mercantilist forces in government.” Afterwards I decided to argue “higher wages” when I argued “Higher wages will ironically hurt business and the economy because higher wages mean more expense which will hurt production, if production is hurt prices can’t be lowered to supply to the demand of more people, which means … Prices will go up even more and the only people who will get what everyone wants is the really rich. But whose fault will this be then, certainly not the rich man who worked hard for his money but the government who interfered in the economy.”
Then I decided it was time to attack the notion that government intervention in the economy will offer “more rights at work” by saying that “As for rights at work, exploitative mercantilists are to blame not capitalists. In order to allow for increased production one must be good to their employees, which is what a true capitalist would do.” The final segment to his whole “The New Deal Was Good… And We Need Another One” Argument was regarding “programs to build public works” so I said “As for Public works, if it takes $10 million to build a gov’t subsidized bridge, that is what a mercantilist would like. $10 million has just been lost that could have paid to employ several industries to employ their workers and hire more workers for the project. The idea of Public Works is the “Broken Window Fallacy” [so] stop playing rhetorical games…”
Than I had to pursue the issue the so-called “Benefits of a Global Currency” so I made the point that a global currency “would destroy competitiveness, as well as threaten the life blood of a country, in particular its sovereignty. By allowing a global currency, you surrender your economic well-being to international political forces that can sabotage and coerce a nation to get rid of anything or alter anything the international organization wants.”
I than offered the horrors of what a *planned* international organization such as the IMF and World Bank could offer when I said that these international organizations are “perfect examples of the evils of an international economic organization that has allowed the exploitation of nations to mercantilists forces, not capitalist forces. The IMF and World Bank promote serfdom, not competition.” Of course, he had nothing to day after this, because he knew it was true. These international entities work to exploit the third world not solve the issues of the third world dilemma, since these international forces are backed and financed by the special interests and your tax dollars.
Overall, I am concerned that socialism is in such support of the new world order which will only target and destroy the less powerful nations, and end up exploiting them. Although it shouldn’t come to much as a surprise to me because I knew that the Communist Party had been celebrating at the news of Obama’s election and I already know that Obama is a globalist who seeks to destroy the country in the socio-politico-economic sense with his administration and those who are in his administration. I have known that the new world order was based on a totalitarian style ideal of a one-word government of socialist impressions.
a. Overall Summary
The overall experience of debating a polar opposite is an enriching experience as it has allowed me to build and perfect my arguments for a future debate. I have also been quite promising since it the person I was arguing with settled down and did not reply, but I must watch my pride for I do not want to give myself a false sense of confidence that socialist think us capitalists carry. So I will concede to think that he either could not say anything else or no longer wished to argue, feeling that perhaps the debate was not going in his favor.
In my time arguing I realized that capitalism works largely, because it is based upon human tendencies, whereas socialism does not because it works against such tendencies. For example, the idea of wanting to live healthy and comfortably is one that a capitalist would provide at a fair price and high quality due to competition in the marketplace to meet such demands. However, the socialist ideal would force everyone to live at the same standards and thus corruption would ensue because of the human tendency to wish to live with individual maximizing the most he can get out of life, even if it means at the expense of others. Capitalism would answer that simply with a work hard attitude, rather than a criminal attitude which the state would force upon the populace. Also remember that material equality rewards those who would not take account for their mistakes and in effect denies accountability to the individual, if the individual is not able to be held accountable, what makes you think society as a whole can do it, let alone the state? So remember if you believe in maximizing your liberty and defending the abstract version of equality rather than decreasing your standard of living for the sake of others, and paying for the mistakes of others though taxation, oppression, and exploitation then come join the libertarian, free market side of the argument.