Arguments against free market and individualism

Hi, i'm debating an ancap neckbeard and he keeps bitching about how socialism is evil because it ruins muh free marketz and suppresses individualism

What should i tell him?

Attached: Communist-Cat-Costume-01.png (500x638, 123.51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eg3PL2HtXbk
youtube.com/watch?v=eijYEYzAQu0
youtube.com/watch?v=jgyhB5n2QXM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Flip it on him and tell him free market capitalism suppresses individualism.
Example: People with more money have access to a bigger megaphone than people with less money. They have access to advertising, hiring shills, hiring PR, etc. In such a situation, individualism struggles to thrive.

Also you can ask him why all the big social media corporations censor people's "individualism" so often. Follow up by asking why people don't switch to free speech alternatives as libertarian/ancap ideology claims they would.

Nothing in Laissez-Faire capitalism that requires the productive to be rewarded, and the lazy to be punished. You can inherit a **** ton of money, and be a lazy cunt, and be rewarded for it, and you can work 80 hours a week and earn a penny. That's all possible in Laissez-Faire capitalism, and is pretty common in many mixed-market capitalist societies today.

ncentives exist past monetary gain. We, as a society, must pass the obsession with materialistic incentives which is provided by capitalist indoctrination throughout our entire young, scholastic lives. In a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority and lived well. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much. Rather, the work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind as extreme wealth is not the option for this mark. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition. The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality.

Moreover I repeat, If people can "voluntarily" choose whatever defender of property rights they want, like private courts, then how do conflicts ever get resolved? Someone damages your property, so you sue them through a private court, and they can just refuse to be bound by that private court. Someone commits a NAP violation? Too bad, they refuse to be bound by the private court you picked! What if private security colludes with other firms? What if the judge they have decided to work with is not what the customer(s) want, and there are no other viable options? What happens if private security firms have an imbalance of power (i.e one is far larger/better equipped than the other)? These problems may not occur in wealthy urban areas where the market would be relatively competitive, but as we see with other industries, poor rural areas usually lack choice of who will provide service to them.

If i say that free market suppresses individualism then i would be accepting that individualism is good which is bullshit
I was hoping for a more direct argument against individualism but thanks anyway

It's more to get him to question his ideology down the line and either side with individualism or with capitalism. I tend to think collectivism and individualism kind of go hand-in-hand in a way, so I don't know that I can help you in the way you want.

youtube.com/watch?v=eg3PL2HtXbk

If the implication is the free market maximizes human happiness, then show him what hellholes are the "freest" markets of the world (Hong Kong for example).

youtube.com/watch?v=eijYEYzAQu0

If the implication is that the market allows for the individual to fully express themselves, remind him that individualism is antagonistic to individuality as much as whatever he thinks collectivism means. To fully express the individuality of an individual, none can have any power over the other, but individualism is the idea that the individual is the sole legitimate holder of power, that he utilizes to enforce his individuality over the rest of the population.

youtube.com/watch?v=jgyhB5n2QXM

Last link is just for fun.

Do remember that it will be almost impossible to convince him of anything. His definition of free market will probably be ample enough to include the relationship between a mother and a child.

Nozick and libertarians like him (Rothbard for example) face the same problem, their ideas are, to quote, "a priori", and consist of no plan, no long term goals, nothing except self-gain in terms of profit. This usually degrades into irrational selfishness, greed and avarice.

“In a civilisation frankly materialistic and based upon property, not soul, it is inevitable that property shall be exalted over soul, that crimes against property shall be considered far more serious than crimes against the person.”― Jack London, The People of the Abyss

Attached: you heve a choce.jpg (664x450 90.79 KB, 276.46K)

Lets follow a Lite Left theory; Rawls' Theory of Justice:

Principle 1: All people have equal liberties
Principle 2: wealth accumulation must not be so un-equal that Principle 2 is in danger.

Bill Gates
A) Earns more than the labor he put in deserves
B) Has so much wealth he couldn't use it in 5 life-times
C) Has so much wealth he can dramatically affect politics, despite being a single entity, over-ruling democracy through sheer mass.

Think of it this way, you and bill are playing monopoly except he owns 99% of everything, how likely are you to lose?

Gates owns Company X. He has 10 workers. They make Product A and he handles the labor of a CEO (I.E. high management). The labor of Gates is equal to the labor of 1 worker. The worth may be SLIGHTLy different, but when it comes down to it, without that worker's labor Gates won't be able to sell his product. Now lets move on. Product A is sold for 10000 dollars (say 20 computers = Product A). Remove 2000 dollars as expenses for the resources needed to make the computer we have 8000. The labor would roughly be divided by 11, factoring in the amount of labor each worker did. However in the real world, Gates would get 7000 and the workers would have the remaining 1000 divides between them, (again factoring in labor). WOuld gates deserve that 7000? No. He did not do more work nor is there a justifiable reason he should get this much. In addition having far more allows him to influence and affect the liberties of the workers he employs outside of the labor and outside of their direct relationship. you can say that the 10 workers are also consumers and can choose to reject him and quit, but that's when this idea expands to real world proportions of an international corporation and the problem of monopolies.
they have no money with which to "vote with their wallets (technically its bidding not voting even) and what money they do have is spent on basic survival. even if they had a little to spend its like comparing the actions of an ant to those of an elephant, the bigger guy has more money and will swamp the collective votes of all the poor without any trouble. We have no choice because the monopolies own almost all the "options" twix, vs snickers? same * people, CNN or Fox? same * people, just because they puppet different 'sides' doesn't make them actually against one another, its like a Punch and Judy show.

Attached: ancaps are protected by state.jpg (1252x590 15.8 KB, 21.78K)

The only time I tried to debate an ancap he tried to convince me that pharaons were communists, so never again.