Arguing with Brother about socialism vs anarchism

[stephenscorzo]

I have an older brother who lives in England who loves socialism.  Unlike him, I do not have a Doctorate in Philosophy I have an associates degree from a trade school in IT.  He's returned to southern california and the inevitable debates have arisen when we meet:

 

1.  You cannot rely on the market to solve your problems because it is 50/50 chance of a solution, where as a law will make people uncomfortable and force them to change.  His example:  Whether or not I have created a Dispute Resolution Agency, it is still fifty fifty that the girl abused by her father will get any immunity from such services, nor if they belong to a collective such as Christian Conservatives, abuse will be condoned and resources pulled will be aggregated towards a DRA that supports their views, where as a law will outlaw that.  His secondary premise is that people are comfortable with things and nothing will get done if they are comfortable that's why there needs to be laws.

 

2.  The reason why Compton sucks is evidence that the market has failed.  Because they choose shitty services when they can choose better ones but don't.  They cannot rely on fixing the neighborhoods the way England has.  England uses social welfare to make sure that people get better and more humane treatment, because socialism helps people become liberated and individuals, and without that there would be no recovery.  Even though these practices are corrupt he thinks you cant destroy something just because it is corrupt, because everything is corrupt.

 

3.  You need a central authority because if you don't have it, people will hurt one another and some people may become exploited and not be able to market their skills and become solid individuals.  He states something about how a free market company called Phil Jones Gas sucks and takes 24 hours to get a gas repairman which means icy cold death for people, when British gas does it right away, and that people can choose to use British Gas (socialized gas) but use Phil Jones because it is easier and it's already there, which means with no regulation people will get shittier service.

 

4.  Redistribution is good because of John Lock's philosophy about property, which says it would inefficient to have people share everything and it would also be inefficient for people to have too much property.  He also uses Plato and Aristotle to similarly make the claim the redistribution is good and necessary for the government to do.

 

5.  Even though the government is corrupt, it must stay in place because no one will have any order without it.  Regulations are good and what keep things fair.

 

After hearing these revolting 5 points, I must say, it's much too difficult to argue, I know it's wrong, I can't allow it to go unchecked, and I hear now that my brother want's to get into politics in England.  What kind of counters does everyone see in some of these points, I apologize already if it is hastily typed, I can try to clarify on any of the points.

 

Thanks guys.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you want to get answers for these there are plenty in Stef's book "Practical anarchy" and other pod-casts. I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with your brother because these 5 debate points are just insipid, creationist level, state apologetics. Why wear yourself out? It may be best to argue from principle instead and not be sucked into these utilitarian traps. Ask him if he thinks it's morally justified to initiate force against you. If he says yes you know where you stand. If he says no then then how can he justify it for anyone else? He'll try to draw you back into the consequentialism but don't let him. 

[PatrickC]

Oh boy, whilst I've experienced all kinds of sillyness from family members in an assortment of other areas. Thankfully none of them have been dyed in the wool socialists, although christianity comes a close second.

 

I tend to agree with PT's advice. Because the leftist mindsight is one that has been embedded into the consciousness of many a student of the West and in particular England. They will pull you into a quagmire of postmodern, utilitarian and relativist thinking. Appeals to sophistication and self evident ethics, being their mainstay for attacking those that disagree with them.

 

I am tending to prefer to call these people out on their nonsense these days, but I don't think that would be very productive with a family member (relationship wise). So yes, use the moral argument, which frankly is the only vaccine against this kind of virus thinking. Best wishes.

[Pepin]

May I suggest like the others here is that what is really eating at you is your brother's willingness to use force against you. Forget whether he is right or wrong, rather focus on what you know is true: the ethics. Put into real terms the force he is willing to initiate on you. In your talk with him, really push for this clarity

 

It is much easier to ignore and to abstract this away with those who are less educated and have little influence on popular thought. Having a Doctorate in philosophy demonstrates his ability to understand reason and evidence in clear terms. His eagerness to involve himself into politics is a clear indication that he is willing to use force to achieve his ends.

 

As a last stitch effort, give him the book UPB and make it extremely clear that it is very important to you for him to read it. Trust me when I say that it is extremely important to you, so this will not be a lie or manipulation. If he doesn't or if he disagrees with the implications of the theory and is still willing to initiate force against you, then you know that he has an understand of ethics, he knows good from evil, and chooses evil.

 

What you do with this knowledge is your decision. You can continue to interact with him like you would before, but what is more likely to happen is that you'll have an involuntary change in the perception of him, and your actions will follow. When you see the gun, you can't not see the gun, you can't pretend it isn't there, you can't pretend that this is an abstract mental belief that has no affect on reality.

 

I'm so sorry that you are in the situation. My post likely feels dramatic and perhaps somewhat abrasive, but I think it is very important to be very clear about the cognitive dissonance that many people experience when they begin to accept universal ethics. I've had my own experience with the dissonance and am willing to offer any support I can.

[GRosado]

On his second point regarding Compton you should let him know that government has caused a majority of there problems. There isn't a free market in Compton only coercion either by the corrupt government or the street gangs. Also he states you shouldn't destroy anything just because it became corrupt, Ok then his socialist revolution is null & void off of that statement cause Karl Marx argued that when the government becomes corrupt & gives special favors to the bourgeoise it's time to get rid of it so in essence he is rejecting his own master.

On his 3rd & 5th point you should explain to him spontaneous order & how it will lead to a better decision making mechanism that is more efficient than government.

[Ruben Zandstra]

Your brother (from what you write) reminds me of a character in Stef's novel "Almost". If you get a chance please read it.

[cynicist]

I agree with Pepin. I could write a book about the all the problems with his arguments, so I understand why you would feel frustrated trying to argue each individual point. It's better to stick to the core reason why government is bad, which is the use of force against others. He will want to stay within the argument of effect sphere because that is debatable for eternity, but if you ask him whether he is ok with violence being used against you that will clarify things very quickly. 

 

If thinking about his answer to this question makes you uncomfortable, then you have your answer. 

[LanceD]

Your brother sounds like a typical socialist. He believes humans are inherently bad and need a strong centralized power to prevent them from being the evil douche bags they were born to be. It's the same irrational nonsense that guides the hard line Christians, the only difference is one chooses a mystical sky god to be their guiding power and the other picks the State.

 

Debating with your brother will never get you anywhere. His problems are ones that need to be taken care of with a therapist, where he can hopefully resolve his obvious issues and then learn how to use and apply rational thought.

 

Any true rational thinker will decide that freedom > the state, so anyone who cannot be convinced has other problems.