My comments in bold:
From Youtube and from the university, after hearing many arguments for and against socialism and after reading a lot of Orwell, I’ve concluded that socialism is really a management system -that is, it is not a real alternative to “free-markets”.
Well, maybe it’s not an alternative, but the existence of one means, by definition, that you don’t have the other. I think everyone agrees that capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production [=the capitalist]. Socialism requires that the means of production are owned by the state.
But I don’t like either term because it seems to me that lots of economics is subjective
What parts of economics do you see as subjective?
so when we say capitalism we aren’t really refereing to anything in the world except as far as certain hypotheticals are met or not (This applies to everything I suppose but more so for the use of capitalism as a word).
Not sure what this means. The word capitalism can be looked up in the dictionary.
I think this can be deployed in any arguments against capitalism
What can be deployed?
-freedom isn’t necessarily going to make you wealthier and intervention won’t necessarily make you poorer,
Mises wrote a whole book, Socialism, devoted to this very topic. He argues the opposite of what you claim here.
the difference lies in the fact that an economist would say that even if a central planned economy can produce more stuff, that doesn’t mean that producing more stuff is unambigously good in relation to all the foregone opportunities.
Restating that in simple English, you are agreeing that socialism is incredibly wasteful, a destroyer of resources.
So I would be wary of debating whether or not capitalism or socialism are superior organizational models -
If one system is far less wasteful than the other, it may not be “superior”, but I think we can fairly say most people would rather not waste their country’s money.
these are objective and outside of the subjective spirit of human action.
I don’t know what this means. I think LS hit the nail on the head here.
Instead one should say, that hypothetically,If people prefer to keep their wealth, then taking it away must decrease wealth
Decrease whose wealth? If the wealth of those who got it taken away, this is clearly true, and not bound by assuming anything praxeological.
assuming we take wealth and preference in a purely praxeological manner
Not sure what this means at all. LS for the win.
(since it is technologically feasible for central planning to create wealth),
If by creating wealth we mean getting maximal use of our resources, or close to it, this is wrong. See Mises’ book Socialism.
that is, wealth as much as it is a subjective thing and not an objective one.
So there is a subjective and an objective definition of wealth? What are these two definitions?
I would be reservedly bold and say further that the more one strays from this line of argument
Which line of argument?
the more liable you are to encounter insufferable contradictions.
Such as?
We should also,not be so opposed to socialists too, since their recommendations are just attempts at entrepreneurial activity
Say a clumsy buffoon gets on the stage and starts dancing. He is making an attempt, but he should get out of the way and let the competent dancers do their thing, if the dance compan y wants to succeed. Besides, socialists want to steal everyones money. Why should we not oppose that?
and their theories are written for a different audience
No. They are trying to convince the masses that the right thing is to take away money from anyone who has any. We are trying to convince the same audience the exact opposite.
and different purpose than ours -
We both want the same thing, increase human happiness. The q is, who is driving us over a cliff and who is pointing in the right direction?
thus comes equivocation
Not sure what this means.
and there can be no dialectic w/equivocation.
Not sure what this means. Also, what does w/e stand for?
Comments?
Have you studied any Logic?