After digesting the video, I noticed some better ways of debating that could be better for these individuals. They could of brought up the Aristotelian argument in terms of charity and responsibility. This is the premise that if the choice to charity is already made by a third party concerning a individual then all morality behind that choice is effectively diffused because the individual didn’t choose to do it. The individual was forced no matter his/her opinion to do it. They didn’t bring up any Austrian points concerning taxation distortion or the arbitrary nature of what should be consider necessary for human survival and how it would be produced. Many would say that the government would produce these things but the government is a monopoly [ another point they didn’t bring up, I mean come on the socialist themselves said they were against monopoly and the government is a monopoly on force and legal services ] however since government is a monopoly it can not properly establish a price system which is based on voluntary exchange therefore distorting without even considering the government’s contentions to raise prices to extract more from a captive consumer base. They didn’t talk about how trade benefits both parties in an exchange therefore disproving the ‘market is coercion’ argument. Maybe these points or something like them was brought up, the video seemed to skip to certain points in the debate at later parts.
I think this is partly the problem with debates, not necessarily the debaters.
Embrace it. It’s one vote over how a business will conduct its affairs. Has nothing to do with non-consenting parties. There’s zero coercion involved. Dimwitted socialists need to realise this.
In regards to externalities, specifically air, why would someone not try to reduce pollution? Pollution affects everyone, including the polluter. Also, pollution will make it harder to get people to work at your factory, if the air is bad.
If the option is breathe clean air and starve, or suffer some respiratory consequences and remain fed, I don’t think it will inhibit many from working at your pollution causing business. Take this 60 Minutes story, for example.
The assumption you should be making should be that one can work at a job that has clean air and pays well as opposed to working at a job that has poor air and pays well, since all I was talking about was air. Why would you assume I don’t understand the fact that there are many factors that go into choosing a job?
Well, this question was already answered, but Public choice theory also attacks this ridiculous complaint:
Individuals, to use economic jargon, measure the marginal benefits and costs of every action. So, when a person wants to buy a television set, for example, he does some research, and buys the TV which he believes will satiate his desire. In the political sphere, on the other hand, the marginal benefit of voting is insignificant, one of tens of millions; but what are the costs? Well, you have to understand the politicians positions, familiarize yourself with their voting record, their sociological, philosophical and economic rational. Furthermore, you have to understand complicated legislation (CAFTA trade agreements, Healthcare bill, ect) which are thousands upon thousands of pages long. The costs greatly out-weigh the benefits for the average voter. Which is why there is absolutely no accountability in the political realm, and voters cast ill-informed votes. The market, on the other hand, has to face the consumers, and is constrained by costs and the profit motive.
But it must be mentioned that for some groups, the marginal benefits do outweigh the costs. Who cares enough about “free-trade agreements” in order to read them in their entirety? Well, big businesses and special interest groups of course. The political system is built in such a way that only those who seek privilege actually care enough to educate themselves politically. Thus a system which claims to cater to the majority is actually designed in such a way that only the tiniest of minorities care enough to influence it.
So all I have to say is: Joey Hill is the man.
I would’ve liked to hear more from Joseph Corbett, though. I felt like his rebuttal was pretty weak and overall he was just there to throw out examples to disprove the Democratic Socialists.
Excellent post as always.
I know. Esuric your posts are completely awesome! You’re hitting premises left, right, up, down, and all around. Subverting opposing arguments and getting to the target where clarity lies in wait with such stupendous accuracy in order to provide knowledge to take the opposing arguments place. Therefore, not only philosophically attacking but maintaining a position that clearly is informative.
Well, Esuric is the internet reincarnation of Henry Hazlitt after all [:P]
Thats a serious compliment.
I have added links through part 24 now.
just watched the conclusion (part 27)
the last thing the socialists said was like “we won this debate cause the voluntaryists couldn’t admit that the market sucks and that there is coercion inherent in the market.”
Great…
The one thing I hate about debates is that some important and interesting points are shut down by moderators. It’s irritating because that happened quite a bit with this debate. The Socialists got away with a lot of simply ridiculous statements that even I could’ve countered.
part 21:
the s.d. keep bringing up they are empirical and they are forming society to reality and point out that the voluntaryist are using deductive reasoning and using that to form reality. and then the s.d. go on to say they would like a society that is democratic and even point out that gov’ts don’t always work the way they are supposed to. Ok so they have this idea that doesn’t always work the way it should, so, they’re one example of where it is working is Sweden and that’s all they want is a society like Sweden. But where they sit that is ONLY theoretical because they are NOT living in sweden. And the s.d’s also condense they’re theory, though they don’t like to call it a theory, on “whatever works”. But whatever works is void of content. Whatever works is what is happening in general. work is kinetic energy and the voluntaryist are pointing out that an individual only controls him or her self and that is what is working. nobody violates human action. that is all that is ever working in human nature.
thanks for linking these parts Spideynw
How do these debates come into existence? I have a team of 20+ members who could probably build a pretty powerful platform for such a debate here in Seattle, most of them are over the top intelligent and more then capable of carrying themselves in a debate.
I can’t find beyond part 24. Maybe you could link them?
edit: nevermind [:)] found them
You people have way too much free time.
Connections. You get to know people; the particular Mises group in the video is led by two owners of the café where the debate was hosted. As business owners they have quite a few people come in during the day, and they talk to their clients and whatnot and more likely than not they asked their clients if they would like to partake in a debate.