My Response To Other In A Forum

[Outlaw289]

This is my response to some socialists on another forum. Please tell me if you think I hit the nail on the head or not. My name is ^Guardsman^, btw

Where does one draw the line on allowed personal freedoms and the betterment of society?

I give you personal freedom and rights when applied to crime.

The personal rights of criminals appear to be at the forfront, as the laws are infringing on their personal freedom. Never mind the betterment and productivity of the society, pay attention to the rights of the individual.

My point being, when the rights and personal freedoms of the individual takes precedence over the society and it's prosperity, things tend to get messy.

Okay, society is comprised of many many indiciduals, correct? How can something be good for "the public" while still conflicting with an individual's rights? This individual is part of the public. Personal rights of "criminals" are there for the wrongfully accused. You are innocent until proven guilty, and to treat otherwise is to assume, and to assume makes an ass out of you and me (hahaha play on words).

One should consider the words of the Late great JFK. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

I take this to mean, sure enjoy your liberties and freedoms, but not at the expense of the society.

With that assumption, you are saying that rights are granted to you by the government, which violates the concept of rights. Rights are absolutes. You have a right to Life (to prolong and enhance by your own effort), Liberty (to have your freedoms protected from those who would take 'em away) and Property (a right to keep what you earn).

JFK's quote assumes that government grants you your freedom, which is wrong, ESPECIALLY from a president that should be abiding by the US Constitution which contradicts directly with that quote

Therein, I find from observation, is the problem with Capitalism and open-free markets. What's to stop a person from ammassing a large amount of wealth and power and infringe the rights of others by screwing them over? Squeezing out the little guy. With a govt. controlled market, it is ensured that everyone gets a fair chance.

Whats to stop such a person? This is where a responsible government comes in. First, understand that capitalism is a system of contracts. You give me A, I give you B, and we stay loyal to this agreement or mutually withdraw. If such a person were to attempt to screw everyone over, the government must pursue legal action against such a person, as he violated the property rights of the other individuals.

Gov't controlled markets make sure the little guy has a chance at the expense of the big guys. The big guys, who make our skyscrapers, our planes, our electricity, our defenses, our food and our factories, these are the people who are extorted by the government so Joe Schmoe can get a university education, based on the assumption that since he could not achieve his own moral value on his own (which would be gaining a good education), others must be extorted to provide for him. Thats slavery.

Remember Pol Pot's communist regime? He started by killing all the "big guys", all the people taking the country into a progressive future. The scientists, the literate, the inventors, all felled by the muscle of the almighty worker

As well as the blaise attitude that health care should be parcelled out as a commodity. That Old age pension should be a nerchandise. You end up, in a free market with minimal govt. control, a group of people who with money can afford the best treatment and will be well taken care of in the old age.

Leaving the less successful desperate to eke out a meager living, fighting for survival. Lords ruling over the peasants.

As we know "they who have the most gold makes the rules"

Such a statement you said above would be circumvented by a government that protects property rights. You assume a capitalist system would defraud people, but fraud is a violation of property rights and should be punished by the government.

"they who have the most gold makes the rules" wouldn't apply in a minarchist state. A government should have 3 primary responsibilites: To provide a police and military to protect the property rights of the individual, to provide a court system for which to handle disputes in a rational matter, and a government to lay down the law and punish violations of law (preferably a system based on a strictly interpreted form of the US Constitution, IMHO)

personal self interest over collective betterment. A very dangerous concept.

I prefer much, the socialist concept. An elected body of representives, answerable to the collective, but at the same time ensuring that the society is taken care of, that it progess's, and not at the expense of the commom people.

Answerable to the collective. The collective is a majority, correct? Using that definition, the 51% would be allowed to utterly exploit the other 49% because more people, the collective, said so.

If I'm not correct in that analysis, what is to say the "collective" is fit to run everything. People with no formal education working as janitors and whatnot are allowed to say how whole factory chains should be run? People who cannot provide food even for themselves when free are supposed to be able to ration food wisely to everyone else? A collectivist government would end only in a miasma of short sightied decisions intent on catering to he who shouts the loudest.

A republic, which abides by an Objective code of laws, would be obliged to protect the rights of those 49% or those people who go against or would not benefit from the collective. And if thats not the case, people should be allowed to bear arms as to protect their property that others have unrightfully claimed the privellege to seize.

Capitalism breed eliteism. Elitsim breeds resentment. Resentment breeds anarchy and violence. These are a detriment to any progressive, forward thinking society.

All people should have access to good health, safe haven, and qaulity life. Not just the select few who can afford it.

Its not capitalism that breeds elitism. Its he who has the most force. Elitism can be bread in a total slave society, a society of giant government, or an anarchist region, just because the uppermost class wields all the force. When you have a government that intervenes against the INIAITION (not the retaliation against) of force, this elitism cannot be bred.

(The current version of the forum software does not properly format posts that have more than 10 quotations. So, I have split the post into two. That has made it easier to read. The second part is below. - SoftwareNerd)

Edited June 18, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

(This is Part 2 of Outlaw289's previous post. It was spilt so that the forum software properly-formats the quotations - SoftwareNerd)

I'm just jumping in on the last page of this -

Capitalism is not anti-state, on the contrary, it needs the state to survive, to make a proper business place.  A good example of capitalism without government regulation are drug cartels.  They function outside the boundries of the state, and have a tendency to shoot at each other, and customers have to be physically persuaded to pay debts, rather than legally.  Killing one's merchants and consumers is very bad for business.

Outlaw289: BUISNESS would theoretically need the state to survive, not capitalism. Most people make the misconception that if someone is pro-buisness, he is a capitalist. This isnt the case. A pro-buisness politician or a corporate CEO who uses government to seek profit is NOT a capitalist, but a buisness baron. Capitalism says that you achieve by your own values and you do all you can without violating rights.

Outlaw289: Drug cartels are a perfect example of GOVERNMENT driving people to violence, not capitalism. the US government, in all its infinite wisdom, decided to make drugs illegal. This means that drugs are even more highly valued, and legitimate buisnesses cannot sell them in a peaceful matter. This means that gangs will initiate force against one another for market space. If drugs were made legal, they would be produced more cheaply and in greater quality, meaning much could be sold, and being as buisnesses would bot be allowed to iniate force against each other, drugs would be sold in a peaceful matter just like cold medicine

Capitalism needs the state to do four things - to create a stable marketplace (this includes currency), to protect it from failure (ex., US government and Chrysler), to protect it from other businesses (predatory capitalism, and monopolies, which are inherantly anti-capitalistic), and to protect itself from forigen trade (where do you think our textile manufactuers would be if we didn't put tarriffs on chinese imports?).  The last one isn't really in the interests of free market efficiency, but if you own a business, you definitely want to be protect from other people who can produce your product cheaper....because you want to make some money too...

Outlaw289: Capitalism does need a stable, government provided currency, preferably on a gold standaerd.

Outlaw289: Capitalism does not need protectionism. That violates the competitor's right to property and liberty, because thats use of an agent of force (government) against an agent of trade (corporations). If government is not given power to rule over economic matters (like wages and land grants and etc.), then corporations would have no interest in gaining control of government since they'd have nothing to gain (much unlike US companies in the 19th century who used government to get land and taxpayer money, which IS NOT CAPITALISM)

Well, capitalism is an economical system, not a necessaraly political one. That capitalism should be inherently anti-state is a very "young" definition of the concept. While you might see yourself as a capitalist, the people who were around and founded the term probably wouldn't agree with you. I'm reffering to the "capitalism" of the 19th century, not today, and this form of capitalism WASN'T inherently anti-state. It was more or less "All people* sould be allowed to earn money as long as they do it within the bounds of the law. *) "All people" in this case refer to the ones who come from ceratin economical backgrounds, have a certain almount of money and are generally people who are like us.

Outlaw289:  To be frank todays version of "capitalism" is sort of a fasade. Today's capitalists claim to support a system that's so basic to the economy that it's more or less been around since the begining of time, and then it ADDS to this certain right-wing political opinions and claim them to be intregal parts of this system. When people say "I'm a capitalist" people know more about the general opinions of the person in question than the term "capitalist", had it not mutated, should mean.

Outlaw289: Todays "capitalists" arent capitalists but Pro-Buisiness statists

And capitalism hasn't been "keeping the worker down".

Right. Guns don't kill people, and all that. Sorry. :roll:

Outlaw289: Really? The worker, worldwide, when shown to be a productive one, has garnered a near double increase in life span, greater access to electricity, cheaper food, more available water, and generally just more advances and greater purchasing capacity. Hell, even the poor in America can, on average afford even a car, a small apartment, and air conditioning.

There were bumps along the way, sure, such as backwards child labor laws and exploitation both real and alleged, but overall capitalism has lead to the greatest increase in quality of life.

I disagree to that. And most organisations too, like the World Health Organisation, and a couple of other NGO's. "Capitalistic" nations, like the US, for example, appear lower than most semi-socialistic nation. Like, for example, Human Development Index, that measures the general state of health, education and BNP/capita in a nation. Here are the top six of ht enations measured by HDI in 2002:

1. Norway

2. Australia

2. Sweden

3. Canada

4. Belgum

4. The Neatherlands

5. Iceland

6. USA

Source? Human Development Report (UNDP)

Now, I find this sort of interesting, since it doesn't fit at all with your statment.

Ah, and let's separate healthcare here: Guess where the US got placed in term of healthcare, according to the World Health Organisation? No. 32. Par on par with Cuba. :roll:

Outlaw289: Guess where all those countries get the money for those social programs? From taxation of businesses, tarriffs, and other means of government extortion.

Outlaw289: Also, As for the myth of unbridled capitalism, the U.S. health care market is highly regulated, leading to distortions in the use and supply of care. This explains in part many Americans' difficulty in obtaining private insurance. Onerous standards set by governments rule out cheaper, more accessible policies.

Outlaw289: Higly inefficient government spending has increased cost and decreased efficiency of healthcare. Also, the WHO defines healthcare availability as those who can get healthcare and the lowest possible income, IIRC. So its no wonder that socialist nations that offer "free" (i.e. we tax you through the nose) healthcare are ranked above the US

Buuuut, of course humans screwed a pretty noble idea up. And the fact that the rich ones didn't like this idea AT ALL shouldn't surprise anyone. Greed is a simple thing.

What is noble about communism? Its an honest question, no sarcasm intended

Well, the noble part about communism is that it is a reaction against the most screwed up part of capitalism: If you are born in an enviroment that gives you an edge, like a rich parent, you have a better chance in life. The basic though of communism is that all should be truley equal, not only have equal rights. Or, rather, that all people had the right to start at square one, instead of some having to start up from square minus fifteen, just because their daddy happened to be arrested, or something.

Add to this the notion that the quest to earn money sometimes has to be restrained in order to avoid things like exploitation, and that some things, like free healtcare and education is a right, and you have modern socialism. Also ad the thought that a revolution is nessecary to attain the goals that you have set up, and violá; You have communism.

I regard these ideals as noble, and only disagree on the last point, since I live in a democracy and don't have to revolt in order to be heard. But I have full understanding as to what would make a person belive this if they did not have the right to choose what they wanted. That'd make me hunger for action too.

Outlaw289: 1.So everyone should be tottally equal in every respect. Problem is, that cant happen. You can have political equality or economic equality, not both. If you have economic equality, the rights of the upper class are being violated because they are being taxed to provide for the lower class. If you have political equality, people usually end up remaining in their classes with intermittent shifts.

Outlaw289: Why are education and healthcare rights? By what RIGHT does someone with nothing demand that a doctor drop everything and care for him at a drawback to the doctor? By what right does an uneducated man say that he has the right to an education but have no work done towards achieving it. Healthcare and education are things of value, correct? So wouldnt it make sense to people to produce and earn value (money) to be able to spend their worth (in the form of money) on education and healthcare? There are lots of people who take adavantage of state provided education and then learn something useless like "cultural subjectivism in the western world" and then wonder why the hell no one wants to hire them? Wouldnt it be better if companies provided education and trained people with the information they needed to be taught to get jobs, rather than what the collective demands to be taught?

Outlaw289: Making healthcare and education "rights" would be equatable to making the minimum wage a million bazillion euros so everyone could afford everything, which would never work.

Outlaw289: Also, Im curious how things like healthcare and education are to be provided in a socialist state, voluntarily. I take it as fact that they would be provided by force, but I'd like to see your reponse as to how these "rights" are to be made available to everyone.

Edited June 18, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

...Please tell me if you think I hit the nail on the head or not....

What nail were you aiming for? In other words, how would you describe your specific personal purpose in the debate. What would you say was your primary objective?

In debates like this, my preference is:

* to keep the scope as small as possible; and,

* to understand where my opponent is "coming from", not by assuming, but by asking

These can be summed up as: take it slow

So, when Wardenhammer said:

1) Where does one draw the line on allowed personal freedoms and the betterment of society?

2) I give you personal freedom and rights when applied to crime. The personal rights of criminals appear to be at the forefront, as the laws are infringing on their personal freedom. Never mind the betterment and productivity of the society, pay attention to the rights of the individual.

My point being, when the rights and personal freedoms of the individual takes precedence over the society and it's prosperity, things tend to get messy.

And you reply:

Okay, society is comprised of many many indiciduals, correct? How can something be good for "the public" while still conflicting with an individual's rights? This individual is part of the public. Personal rights of "criminals" are there for the wrongfully accused. You are innocent until proven guilty, and to treat otherwise is to assume, and to assume makes an ass out of you and me (hahaha play on words).

I think you try to present an answer too soon. It isn't clear (at least from this snippet) what "rights of criminals" Wardenhammer is talking about. Is he talking about genuine rights? Or, is he talking about something that current law recognizes as a right when it ought not to ?

Unless you understand that, you and he might be talking of different things when you say "rights". Unless you understand that, you do not know if you agree or disagree with him.

Instead of giving your own answer, I would suggest probing his understanding. If you assume that your opponent is honest and serious about ideas, then try to "see things from his point of view". I mean this in the best of senses: attempt to understand what facts of reality he is referring to in the words and phrases he uses.

What types of "rights of criminals" is he referring to? If he objects to these, does he think criminals should have some other rights, but not these rights? Why?

[Outlaw289]

The people on that board generally are very vague in what they say. If I was to ask what the rights of criminals were, I'd get a response saying "laws that benefit criminals at the expense of society", and then nothing more specific than that

As for my purpose there, it was to defend capitalism against people saying communism was a "superior" and "noble" system that is impractical in practice. My primary purpose was to show that capitalism is the more moral and effective system, but I have a trouble explaining this to people left of center, and an easier time "converting" some of my centrist (they dont call themselves that though) or republican friends to pure capitalism

I figure I should at least finish Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism:The Unknown ideal before I start butting heads though