Do Socialists Even Have Real Arguments?

in #anarchism8 years ago (edited)

When arguing for something other than libertarianism, one is caught in a spot where they're demonstrating that, in fact, they do accept the ethic of non-aggression by respecting the private property rights in the person they're arguing against, but their argument, in contradiction, is for some other conclusion than this ethic: such as that "I may do X to you, but you may not do X to me"; the opposite of the libertarian ethic, which universally applies, stating that it's never just and moral to use aggression against someone, i.e., initiate violence.

This is inequality in its finest, brought to you by those who would consider themselves none other than the crusaders for equal rights; just of course not in liberty. "Social justice" is when one person loses their rights for the other, as in the relationship of the taxed or tax-recipient; or in the case of paying reparations for something you never took part in. It was never meant to be something like "liberty for all." Indeed, they're advocates of statism, which says that there should be one law for the people, the exploited-class, and another law for themselves, the exploiting ruling-class.

But that's all another argument. I question, is there anything like a volume on "socialist economics", or why the minimum wage laws work, or some systematic presentation of how taxation makes us richer and how government measures this boost in utility for the common good it alleges to achieve? If it's out there, I've never seen it. I'm awaiting being linked to such a thing.

I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but I'm not so sure there's something like a logical treatise on democratic socialist principles that precisely, rigorously and concisely, states the case for why we should organize society in this way.

For the economists that enter the realm of ethics when saying that something should be provided by the State, i.e., when they exit the field of economics as a value-free science, where is your ethical theory to support the means you wish to use that will supposedly justify the ends of your economic engineering?

When socialists post absurd memes from Occupy Democrats or Being Liberal, such as the wild though brave claim I recently saw asserting that 90% taxation makes us all richer, I don't think they have any real supporting texts behind this. Sure, there are the Paul Krugmans who write regularly bad columns; there's a book by Bernie Sanders making up some numbers, surely packed with emotionally-driven rhetoric that appeals to young college students already exposed to the so-called "Cultural Marxism" in the environment they're in (though I don't like to use that term); etc.

But there are no real refutations that I know of against our theory of the effects of taxation: that it causes relative impoverishment. Where do they rebut this? Where's socialism's "Socialism in One Lesson: Helping you Understand the Ideas of Socialism?" Where is their line-for-line response titled "Why Henry Hazlitt is Full of Shit?"

I don't think there is such a thing. Socialism is just children crying on the internet; and none of them have sent me anything like an actual argument that convinces me of what socialism proposes: coercing people into prosperity.

The ideas we present, on the other hand, have a rich intellectual tradition behind them. They're not emotionally pulled out of our whiny-butts. They explain, in clear language, precisely what the science of economics is all about. Economics is made out to be the common sense that it is, and the mathemetized, charted-out nonsense taught in schools that no one has any interest in.

Really, it is for anyone, and anyone with half a brain should be able to begin digesting the principles of liberty; namely the ones that austro-libertarianism has to offer ("austro" referring to the compatibility of Austrian economics with libertarian philosophy). Unlike the socialists, we have logical writing that threatens to appeal to the masses at anytime.

If you want to know why the State isn't "us", and why we think you're silly when talking about "your" country or "your" representatives, we got it; why taxes discourage production, minimum wage laws don't work, and tariffs are bad, we've got it; why we don't believe in socialist military monopolies and how we could have defense without the State?, here it is; how the roads could actually be privatized, and how what we think is a joke ("muh roads") is something you find intellectually profound, being some great problem in society requiring, yet again, coercing innocents; or what about if you asked us to provide a systematic treatise on economics, covering man from the very beginnings of nothing through the process of how wealth is created, and how government intervention destroys this process?, well, boy, do we got it; how about if you thought we were just joking of the idea that printing money and using fiscal policy to centrally plan and steer the economy by some supposedly expert economists makes a lick of sense? Got it.

No socialist, contrary to what we libertarians are capable of, has ever recommended me some mind-blowing book that suddenly makes me think it's moral and economical to use aggression to force people to do things they don't want to do, successfully converting me into a "democratic socialist" that thinks I'm not a fascist. Where's the book at? Clue me in to what I'm missing. I promise, I'm open minded; I'll accept the logic if its presented, and the conclusion of socialism if it follows from some correct premises about the nature of man. But they can't do it.

Socialists have no principles. It's pure emotion; it's a socio-psychological phenomena that anyone accepts themselves a socialist, advocating for a State to rule over them. There's no logic or reason behind it. There is no economic or moral arguments to support them; at least not ones that are logical, meaning that conclusions are consistently deduced from true axioms, such as our's of the fact that man is a purposeful actor. For them, it's all "I just feel like we should rob our neighbors because like...that's what I feel like."

Sort:  

For the record, I agree with many of your conclusions while not necessarily liking your method of argument. I'm a Finance PhD Student and my undergraduate education was in Economics from a top US university. The argument for re-distribution of wealth is that each additional dollar you get is less meaningful to you compared to the last. For example, imagine two people who both come across a $20 bill on the street simultaneously. One person is a millionaire, the other is homeless. It's pretty clear that $20 would make a bigger difference to the homeless person than the millionaire and would be more eager to get the $20 than the millionaire. So if a legislature wants to maximize happiness, a simple way to do it is to take dollars from the rich and give them to the poor. I have personal beliefs about how working to earn money - as opposed to being given money - affects happiness, but I haven't seen research on that topic. There's also the point that redistributing money costs money, so if the government takes a dollar from a rich person, less than a dollar makes it to the poor. My point is that economics supports a mixed policy bag, not extremely liberal, conservative, libertarian or any other ideology. I do however think that economists are more prone to be libertarian because they understand domino effects and aren't usually swayed by a few isolated negative outcomes.

That's just a bad utilitarian argument for theft. The point is, and the case against the State is, that there is no means of measuring interpersonal utility; our preferences are ranked ordinally and not cardinally, and so there is no way to measure the "social utility" gained for the "common good" that you speak of. Even if there was, there's then no ethical case for such property expropriation you nicely call "redistribution."

You are basically correct if starting from a hard core barbaric concept of everyone for themselves. If you have no compassion for your fellow man then there really isn't anything to discuss. The countries with the highest quality of life are socialist to some degree. They recognize the reality that people left to their own devices are kinda shitty. Those "with" will trample on those "without". Libertarians call it freedom. I call it barbaric, uncivilized, and childish.

Interesting to know. Because you are an employee of Steemit and also because I lack the experience of the Americans and how they are and treat others in daily life in combination with their political views. You somehow have to live at a place for a while to understand.

I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of Steemit Inc.

I made a mistake and thought that you are roadscape (river/road), sorry for that

Socialism is the means of production being socialized property tard

Socialism also achieves its end of ending property rights through other means than outright nationalization, seeing the failures of Communism, namely that of taxation and regulation and legislation. The State is socialism. Socializing private property is not anarchism.

mfw communism has worked

mfw taxation and regulation are not needed in socialism

why is working for a boss or starving to death the only form of anarchy? are you retarded

Very interesting read , I tend not to comment on many political posts but I musy say a very good read

its actually autistic and wrong on every level

One cannot be an anarchist and cite Marxists.org

Voluntarily exchanging labor for money is not the exploitation that is the expropriation of taxation. Stop reading Marx.

Working and getting what you produce taken away or starving is not voluntary

please start reading anything really.... you need it

I think one of the major issues in this debate is definitions. I've noticed that a big problem is that libertarians, statists, leftists, and rightists use the same terms in spelling but have different meanings depending on the ideological group you belong to. For example, the definition of "social good" or "maximizing utility". For libertarians (I assume you are of the right-wing flavor), it could be the maximization of liberty. For leftists, it could be the maximization of equality. For rightists, the maximization of self-preservation, and for statists, the maximization of order and safety.

The point of this comment is just to show that you assume the end goal is liberty when other ideologues, such as socialists, may assume goal is equality.

Oh, and the original goal of socialism is to eliminate the need for government (just another example of shifting definitions).

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63931.73
ETH 2663.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.84