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?
Arguments against free market and individualism
Jaxon Bell
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Alexander Butler
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.
Zachary Fisher
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.
Camden Lewis
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.
Thomas Cox
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
Wyatt Perry
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.
Jason Bennett
youtube.com
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
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
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.
Dominic Green
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
Nolan Harris
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.
Jayden Myers
The only time I tried to debate an ancap he tried to convince me that pharaons were communists, so never again.
Alexander Bailey
Don't even try debating race with them, no matter how much proof you show them that all human races are different. You can shoot them on the leg and they will still swear that we are all the same and that identity politics are literally rape
Christopher Lewis
wrong board faggot
Jack Baker
...
David Hernandez
Tell him it means less under capitalism than socialism since under the former if your individuality can't make money you fucking starve.
Eli Miller
capitalism ruins free markets.
see this graph? it's the measure of profitability (price of investment divided by the value of surplus goods) the market over time. it always falls because the price of fixed capital (ie farm, factory, mine) production always grows faster than the cost of paying wages and the demand of surplus.
markets always become oligopolies because that's how the free market works. companies no longer invest and competition naturally recedes.
Oliver Evans
"Good"
Levi Miller
Ryan Green
What do you mean races are different?
Eli Price
What kind of profound revelation do you think "people differ from other people" actually is?
Benjamin Parker
Jacob Moore
Individualism is a cancerous ideology. Individuality is fine, individualism is sociopathic and atomizing.
Ethan King
Xavier Morris
That's a bit disingenuous to put compare BLM with the KKK as if it's just the opposite side of the same coin. They're both idpol, both cancerous, but BLM is hardly a militant kill crazy hate group, despite the presence of some absurd members who do actually hate white people.
Jose Bailey
Also an ancap daily struggle "we've never had true capitalism" and "capitalism is just voluntary exchange"
Luis Butler
You should tell him "you know what it is" then shoot
Jackson Rogers
Despite what capitalists tell you, capitalism isn't individualism. They act like it's individualism because people have "free will."
News flash: Just because the government doesn't take your money doesn't make you "free."
If a private business is corrupt, no one can do anything about it. You think Amazon would care about workers going on strikes? One of the main ideas of publicly owned means of production is that the people decide the conditions. If workers strike, you can't make shit, so you have to give the workers what they want. The "workers unions" in America act as if they make a difference in protecting workers against their bosses, when in fact they're more tyrannical than the capitalists themselves when it comes to using other people's hard work to their advantage for personal profit.
You can always change a publicly owned system. Private companies don't give a shit about an individual. Capitalism and "corporatism" aren't individualist. Don't let capitalists use that word, it makes it seem like they have the moral high ground… because saying "you're not individualist?" sounds like "you want tyranny over people's free will?"
Capitalists always say shit like
and
I think that the majority of socialists can agree that we're not advocating for "free money for all just for being alive." They think that's what collectivism is.
Benjamin Jenkins
Ask him to explain why he believes socialism "suppresses individualism", then point out his strawmanning that will inevitably become apparent.
Eli Campbell
Why would you argue against Human™ Nature™?
Jayden Davis
former lolbert here
literally tell him basic social policy or economic findings from a fucking intro textbook
for example, active fiscal and monertary policy triggers the austro-tards
or explain them how debt ACTUALLY works, it will blown their minds
you could test / troll his knowledge by claiming that the Coase theorem disrpoves free markets, even thought it sort of neutral
or compare nations tax rate vs economic performance
bad argument, those two are prime anti-libertarian city(states), that video is retarded, singapore has fucking state owned corporations and private housing is almost banned, singapore heavily regulated trade so its safe from external shocks