Social Democrats huh. A pernicious bunch. The main thrust of these individuals argument is centered on democratic voting in all facets especially economics. They believe that democracy will bring fairness and equality if it is allowed to operate. A good rebuttal to these folk is Mises’ representation of the free market as a more efficient example of democratic voting. Each penny you spend is a vote and yet in this system we are not bound to the will of the majority.
Minimum wage laws, trade unions, and countless regulations don’t exactly fit into this label of “corporatism”. Interventionism or the hampered market, I think, Is a better and more reveling term.
The political Democracy that he will emphasize has nothing to do with voluntarism and individual choice. It is a collectivist idea and you must expose it for what it is. This is always the hardest part to refute in public debate because the term “Democracy” registers in the mind of most people as something that has to do with choice and freedom. You must always reduce the problem back to the basics: Political means vs voluntary means. The system of government does not alter this truth.
He will also make no distinction between economic power and political power and will most probably claim that the former is worst. This is easy to refute by simply pointing out that all political power is derived from force or threat of force, while economic power can only be gained by voluntary consent. The latter can be easily proved by very simple economic principles.
A sure way to piss him off (get him mad and lose face?), would be to pre-empt him on his stock standard anti-right wing issues and turn it around to blame it on socialism instead.
War is the biggest socialist program there is.
Public-Private partnerships are national socialist / fascist.
The Financial crisis is a result of the central bank. Which creates the business cycle. The bailouts are fascist. Privatized profits, socialized losses. The problem is the redistribution of wealth. The problem is socialism and the state.
Anti-trade union laws should be repealed, there should be freedom of association.. the problem rises when unions use physical aggression and violence against other individuals who would do their job for cheaper. That is unethical.
Minimum wage laws - barrier of entry for low income earners / the poor. It makes it harder for them to get employed. Disgraceful policy.
The government cannot create wealth, it can only destroy and re-distribute. Governments can steal from the taxpayer, hire people to digg holes in a desert, and call that job creation - but it’s not creating wealth, it’s destroying it.
The climate has been changing for billions of years. How arrogant to assume the resulting changes are caused by man. As climate gate has shown, that’s what all the modeling is based on - flawed assumptions. Regardless however, intriguingly it doesn’t matter whether it is happening or not - the solution is exactly the same.
Just after the marvelous Industrial Revolution, a woman and her family lived near a factory. She hung her washing of clean white sheets out to dry, per usual. This time however, the local coal plant had begun to produce pollution - i.e black soot, that landed on her washing making it dirty and black. She went to court, requesting an injunction and that her PROPERTY RIGHTS BE UPHELD. (See: Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution)
You know what the court said? - “It is the greatest good, for the greatest number”. So private property rights where not upheld. The result? Pollution is a tragedy of the commons. Get rid of the commons.
Oh, lord! These policies would turn the world into North Korea!
I stopped reading and just couldn’t take it anymore when I got here:
A minimum wage set at half average adult male earnings, with no exemptions.
At least with most minimum wages nowadays, you could argue that it’s low enough that it has little impact on the economy. Just imagine the misery this would create by itself.
As far as a strategy, pointing out government coercion (“violence/guns” strategy) is a good catch-all since it’s hard to debate 100 different specific topics effectively. But I do wonder what would happen if they insist on constantly bringing up specific policies. You could keep pointing out the gun in the room, but will that seem like a form of evasion to the audience? (I’m not saying it will for certain, just playing a bit of a devil’s advocate here.)
I´m not sure if those pointing out the gun would be a good argument to use throughout the whole debate, because even though as a Libertarian, we find it self explanatory and obvious, for most people it needs time to sink in, and then I agree with you, that it will seem as if I´m trying to avoid the actual question.
For a bunch of economically ignorant people, which your audience is likely to be, it may be the most effective tool you will have. It is not always pleasant to do so, but it is an eye opener to many. You are taking a rather unpopular position anyway, you might as well put it all out.