mjmannino81 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 When discussing politics or economics with a statist or Marxist what economic or political theories do you like to throw at them? Do you have a top 5 list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I don't have a top 5; just a top 1: economic calculation (also known as the coordination problem or knowledge problem). It's imporant to avoid getting drawn into a debate over whose ideas are better because no idea, no matter how great, will ever materialize without prices. Any system which distorts or obstructs prices is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 1) states will always serve special interest groups because of the difference in incentives for people paying subsidy vs. incentive to keep subsidy 2) As soon as you have a state it corrupts the market because if I can make more profit from lobbying than from serving my customers I'm gonna do that 3) if democracy is not a fit way to run a flat ( you and me vote, flatmate 3 has to wash the dishes and hoover the floor every night while we put our feet up) why is it a fit way to run a country stuff like those arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtort Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I don't have a top 5; just a top 1: economic calculation (also known as the coordination problem or knowledge problem). It's imporant to avoid getting drawn into a debate over whose ideas are better because no idea, no matter how great, will ever materialize without prices. Any system which distorts or obstructs prices is doomed. I have to 2nd this. The majority of marxist arguments revolve around the idea that workers are not given full value for their labor. If you ask them how they determined the value of labor they tend to start stuttering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippert Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Right,marxist claim value of done work should not be determined by supply and demand, but by the average time that is needed to do it. You can easily drive this ad absurdum by this: Imagine I do 1000 push ups. It is hard work and the average time needed is 1000s + So I get paid for 1000s hard work. If everybody is just working out to get their money nobody creates anything useful, but by marxist theory should still get paid. Marxists usally tend to bring up a socialist job system, where your tasks are selected by the government. If they claim otherwise, you can correct them with this argument above. What marxists generally don't understand is, that the position of capitalist property is not constant. So if you own capital, you are under pressure by all other people, which could easily buy the very same kind of capital on credit and refinancing it with the profit margin. This reduces the profit margin drasticly. On the other side, if you don't own capital, your wage is still a better option then with owning capital, because you can do so by buying that capital on credit. The marxist view is that there are two groups, the capialists and the working class, when in fact there are not. You can destroy that division, by pointing out, that workers already own capital, their body. That is usally dismissed by marxist because they formulate an inconsistent exception for this. Really interesting stuff gets, if you apply this capitalist/worker division on the state, because it drives them to interpret marx as an anti statist, which he probably was. (His "communism" e.g. is stateless) So the argument goes as this: "You critizise capitalism for forming two groups: the capitalists excecuting power over capital and the working class who don't. And then you advocate a state. But what is the state, if not a new capitalist class, a group of people executing power over all capital. You still have a Proletariat, the peolpe who are not part of the government. In classical socialism these are all people except the elite. In democratic socialism/ democraties it is the minority. So you can't escape this dilemma with a state. If you want a maximum amount of capitalist, why don't you advocate anarchocapitalism plus workers buying capital on credit and getting their own bosses?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Depends what kind of statist they are. Marxists (self professed) are a lost cause in my opinion. They will wrap you in a word salad of their choosing. Arguments from sophistication (complication) will abound and just frustrate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I try to avoid "debating" with statists and marxists. At every opportunity I make the point that taxation is theft and requires the extortion and kidnapping of innocent people. If this point is ignored or rejected, there is no point in continuing the conversation. The conversation will not be a meaningful debate and I know that they will not be swayed. Once a person rejects basic morality and reason, demonstrates the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and rejects an offer of help, I accept the 'fact' that it is too late for them. Their brain is damaged beyond repair. I wish I could help them, but I need to be realistic. A lifetime of propaganda, fear and violence, and the lack of any good influences takes its toll. Some people are damaged but fixable, but most are the shattered and unrepairable remnants of what used to be a human being. I think we should focus our efforts elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just for the fun of it, here is one of my favorite anti communist arguments. Imagine an absolutist capitalist society. A single corporation has taken over all other corporations. It is the only employer that exists and holds a monopoly in all industries. All people are forced to work for the corporation. The board of the corporation lives in luxury and all the workers live in poverty. The corporation controls the police and uses them to severly punish any who speak out against the corporation or disobey its commands. The corporation owns all media, and all media unequivocally presents pro corporation propaganda. Nobody may enter or leave the society. Nobody may attempt to compete with the corporation to provide any good or service. Nobody may attempt to produce goods for themself. All items of value are owned by the corporation. The most minor indiscretion against the corporation is met with extreme punishment. It is a brutal slave society with all workers being the slaves of the corporation. Then inform them that you have just described communism in practice. Just replace corporation with government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Exceptionalist Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 If someone is willing to pay ye for food porn, so you can make $4000.00 a month, you can see very easily that hard work is not a sufficient criteria for creating something valueable for someone, as it equals a 2 month salary of an hard working middle class guy. What you think is useful doesn't influence the choices of those arround you, lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 1) states will always serve special interest groups because of the difference in incentives for people paying subsidy vs. incentive to keep subsidy 2) As soon as you have a state it corrupts the market because if I can make more profit from lobbying than from serving my customers I'm gonna do that 3) if democracy is not a fit way to run a flat ( you and me vote, flatmate 3 has to wash the dishes and hoover the floor every night while we put our feet up) why is it a fit way to run a country 1) states will always serve special interest groups because of the difference in incentives for people paying subsidy vs. incentive to keep subsidy 2) As soon as you have a state it corrupts the market because if I can make more profit from lobbying than from serving my customers I'm gonna do that 3) if democracy is not a fit way to run a flat ( you and me vote, flatmate 3 has to wash the dishes and hoover the floor every night while we put our feet up) why is it a fit way to run a country 4) States make it illegal for any other bodies to solve the problems they charge themselves with solving, so even if other people could do a better job they wouldn't be allowed to. 5) the temptation to Print/Borrow/Steal and pay it forwards to the next generation is too tempting when you want votes 6) No government departments is incentivised to solve problems since if they do they are putting themselves out of a job 7) Government will always get bigger not smaller, because if you try to make cuts people who have a monopoly service go on strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I have to 2nd this. The majority of marxist arguments revolve around the idea that workers are not given full value for their labor. If you ask them how they determined the value of labor they tend to start stuttering.The (Marxist) value of labor is calculated as whatever the current price of labor is, plus each laborer's portion of the seized-and-redistributed wealth and income derived from that most eeeevil of sources -- profit. For some reason, they think that the owners are in no way entitled to compensation for risking their savings, identifying a desired product, or organizing all the factors of production and distribution. These tasks take care of themselves, somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalmia Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Just for the fun of it, here is one of my favorite anti communist arguments. Imagine an absolutist capitalist society. A single corporation has taken over all other corporations. It is the only employer that exists and holds a monopoly in all industries. All people are forced to work for the corporation. The board of the corporation lives in luxury and all the workers live in poverty. The corporation controls the police and uses them to severly punish any who speak out against the corporation or disobey its commands. The corporation owns all media, and all media unequivocally presents pro corporation propaganda. Nobody may enter or leave the society. Nobody may attempt to compete with the corporation to provide any good or service. Nobody may attempt to produce goods for themself. All items of value are owned by the corporation. The most minor indiscretion against the corporation is met with extreme punishment. It is a brutal slave society with all workers being the slaves of the corporation.Then inform them that you have just described communism in practice. Just replace corporation with government.I have noticed that a common theme in those who oppose a free society is to project scare fantasies that are what already exists in reality. The fear that someone will just claim to own a vast tract of land without making a valid claim is in reality what already exists. Since those who claim state power have claimed vast tracts of land without doing anything to make their claims valid. A parallel list of these scares and the current reality supported by the state would be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 For the laughter of course.. http://www.theonion.com/articles/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-does,1382/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 For the laughter of course.. http://www.theonion.com/articles/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-does,1382/ My favorite Onion piece about the absurdity of the economy and the government is this one -- the Money Hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "The sheer number of shovelers*.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 also this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 also this Yes, the personal income tax is a true income tax (for the 43% of the population that actually pays income tax), whereas the "corporate income tax" is a really a "corporate profit tax." So, corporate income taxation creates an incentive to reduce corporate profit, and the easiest way to do that is to increase the corporation's expenses. Running household expenses through a corporation is a fairly universal practice. Every small-business employer I ever worked for had the owners' entire family on the payroll as ghost employees, at a level that saved the company taxes on the salaries they were paid, but low enough to keep from triggering much in the way of personal income tax for them. Cars, food, trips ... everything they could think of was paid by the corporation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Kalmia, you might be interested in reading up on 'projection'. I think that will provide you some background information for what you observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts