What’s the best way to refute these socialist arguments?
In a free market, people will become poorer because real values will not be created. Instead, the rich will hire the poor to produce unnecessary luxury goods
Without government subsidizing, the poor will not afford health insurances.
Capitalists make money by satisfying demand. If some stop satisfying demand for goods that aren’t “luxury goods” then another capitalist will come in and take the opportunity to provide these things. Also, capitalists will try to reduce the price of these things to get a greater part of the market and get more profit. The competition drives down prices and inreases real wages for all.
Not necessary if the free market was allowed to drive down the prices of medical expenses. Also, while becoming cheaper, private charity hospitals would also become more feasible, just as they were in the past when medicine was cheaper and more people had access when there were less socialist programs.
Unnecessary according to whom and what standard?
Reject it as a blatant assertion and demand that they back it with actual reasoning, rather than emotive pleas and comparisons to the current regulated system. If they say the current system isn’t regulated, tell them that you will not continue the discussion until they’re honest.
Values can be subjective. The “rich” are not coercing the “poor” to work for them, also the goods made are not forced upon the consumers, the only way any business can make a profit and stay in business is to meet the demands of the consumers. The owners of the means of production are subjected to the consumers. If they consumers are unhappy and stop purchasing the product then have they have made their choice and the “rich” must find another way to please them, or they are out of business, literally.
In accordance to values and mass production it is for the mass consumption by the consumers, if there are unnecessary luxury goods then the bulk of the consumers must have an interest in them in the first place. I find it typical of people who are somewhat anti-capitalist to claim the luxury goods we have are unnecessary and that “we” don’t need them (who’s to say), and at the same time use such goods.
Health insurance is a good, and there are charities (as well as already in place government programs).
When the f*** has this EVER happened??? Seriously, what stupid argument.
So let’s see, I’m rich, I higher a bunch of poor people to keep them poor and loose craploads of money because no one wants my products, so my money is going down a huge drain… Hmmmm… This sounds familiar. So WTF would be the point of this? And what stops a single person breaking this and start satisfying actual demand, poor or rich?
So I’d probably resond to this with the words “Are you high?”
As for healthcare, the state is the cause of high healthcare costs. Look up the Mises articles on this if you are curious about more. Stefan Molyneux has also made some very good videos on the subject.
The second is not an argument for socialism. In fact, actually, neither is an argument, both are stupid assertions. Give an argument and I’ll try to answer it. Give an assertion and I’ll assert that with a government, we get Holocausts.