Start Date: Friday, April 5, 2002 Finish Date: Friday, April 5, 2002

     The following is a debate I had with a Capitalist. What is so interesting is not so much the content of the debate, but rather the way the Capitalist argued. Setting: I originally asked him if he would link to my A Real Education book, since he ran a Libertarian site (http://www.libertarianthought.com/). He seemed to like it, but then saw that I was a Socialist, launching us into a debate. Take a look...

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
HIM TO ME

Never mind my last email. I read the last chapters of your book and your section on Socialism. It's sad to see people who think they advocate rights and freedom preach economical slavery on ignorant arguments and think they can get away with it.

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
ME TO HIM

Greetings,

I'm glad that you had a chance to read some of my articles on Socialism.

You made the comment "It's sad to see people who think they advocate rights and freedom preach economical slavery on ignorant arguments and think they can get away with it."

It is rather interesting that you can make such statements, such Ad Hominem Abusive arguments, but I have heard much of the same from other Libertarians. Is it possible that you could produce some argumentation -- some factual argumentation -- that Capitalism has more merits than Socialism? That complete limitlessness in economy is favorable compared to regulated economy? But now, I ask that you justify Capitalism in some sort of legitimate way.

Punkerslut,

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002

HIM TO ME

"It is rather interesting that you can make such statements, such Ad Hominem Abusive arguments, but I have heard much of the same from other Libertarians. Is it possible that you could produce some argumentation -- some factual argumentation -- that Capitalism has more merits than Socialism? That complete limitlessness in economy is favorable compared to regulated economy?"

Since you said you have read my web site somewhat, you should already have the answer. And since you already talked to other Libertarians, you should already know anyway. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you attempting to justify yourself in my eyes? Or are you honestly this ignorant of economics? What more facts are you looking for than the obvious already?

PS you do not seem to know what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is the fallacy of using a person's character as an argument instead of facts. My statement about you was a conclusion, not an argument.

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
ME TO HIM

Greetings, again,

Since you said you have read my web site somewhat, you should already have the answer.

I have read about how there should be freedom, but since you have read the articles on my site, you should also have a reason to find Socialism disagreeable. Please, instead of relying on Ad Hominem arguments, show me that I am wrong with legitimate reasoning.

And since you already talked to other Libertarians, you should already know anyway.

Many other Libertarians were distasteful towards me -- they also used Ad Hominem instead of argumentation.

Are you attempting to justify yourself in my eyes?

No.

Or are you honestly this ignorant of economics? What more facts are you looking for than the obvious already?

Again, that is an Ad Hominem argument.

PS you do not seem to know what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is the fallacy of using a person's character as an argument instead of facts. My statement about you was a conclusion, not an argument.

I did not say "Ad Hominem." I said "Ad Hominem Abusive." An "Ad Hominem Abusive" is substituting abusive remarks for an argument, such as "It's sad to see people who think they advocate rights and freedom preach economical slavery on ignorant arguments and think they can get away with it."

Punkerslut,

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
HIM TO ME

"I have read about how there should be freedom, but since you have read the articles on my site, you should also have a reason to find Socialism disagreeable. Please, instead of relying on Ad Hominem arguments, show me that I am wrong with legitimate reasoning."

Same answer than before. Or do you think that Socialism can come about thru freedom?

While no doubt some people will take the opportunity to use their freedom to live in a socialist environment, I doubt everyone is as economically-challenged. I certainly am not: do you propose then I should be killed for opposing your "Free" Socialist State? Some communists I have talked to said as much: at least they honestly understand that the unrestrained state power they advocate is little more than an attack on our lives, and think accordingly.

"Many other Libertarians were distasteful towards me -- they also used Ad Hominem instead of argumentation."

"Also"? Since your standard of what an ad hominem is seems rather low, I can imagine you see them everywhere.

"Again, that is an Ad Hominem argument."

It was a question, actually, one you didn't answer. What is it you want more than all the evidence we already have, that economical freedom is the best way to live in society? Are you one of those who seek a "social order" that they think is best for everyone to follow, and are dissapointed that no one wants to follow you?

"I did not say 'Ad Hominem.' I said 'Ad Hominem Abusive.' An 'Ad Hominem Abusive' is substituting abusive remarks for an argument, such as 'It's sad to see people who think they advocate rights and freedom preach economical slavery on ignorant arguments and think they can get away with it.'"

When exactly did I say I was arguing with you? I have no such intention. I'm just curious as to what your point is. I always like to hear popular fallacies about freedom or capitalism, so I know what to write about.

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
ME TO HIM

Greetings,

"do you propose then I should be killed for opposing your 'Free' Socialist State?"

I do not, nor have I even slightly indicated as such.

"Since your standard of what an ad hominem is seems rather low, I can imagine you see them everywhere."

Again, that is an Ad Hominem Abusive remark -- there is no need for you to continue with these assaults of rhetoric, which is the base of your argument. If you are unfamiliar with formal debating, there should be some books on it at the library. An Ad Hominem Abusive remark, as I stated before, is to substitute an abusive remark for an argument. It's not simply proper argument etiquette to refrain from such a remark; it's called being polite.

"It was a question, actually, one you didn't answer. What is it you want more than all the evidence we already have, that economical freedom is the best way to live in society? Are you one of those who seek a 'social order' that they think is best for everyone to follow, and are disappointed that no one wants to follow you?"

I could have gone without that last sentence. However, if there is complete economical freedom, society would quickly delve back into the Industrial Revolution: being paid pennies an hour for working 16 hours a day. That certainly was no way of life, but it was Capitalism, it was free economy, it was "liberty." To quote Robert Green Ingersoll...

"I HARDLY know enough on the subject to give an opinion as to the time when eight hours are to become a day's work, but I am perfectly satisfied that eight hours will become a labor day.

"The working people should be protected by law; if they are not, the capitalists will require just as many hours as human nature can bear. We have seen here in America street-car drivers working sixteen and seventeen hours a day. It was necessary to have a strike in order to get to fourteen, another strike to get to twelve, and nobody could blame them for keeping on striking till they get to eight hours.

"For a man to get up before daylight and work till after dark, life is of no particular importance. He simply earns enough one day to prepare himself to work another. His whole life is spent in want and toil, and such a life is without value.

"Of course, I cannot say that the present effort is going to succeed -- all I can say is that I hope it will. I cannot see how any man who does nothing -- who lives in idleness -- can insist that others should work ten or twelve hours a day. Neither can I see how a man who lives on the luxuries of life can find it in his heart, or in his stomach, to say that the poor ought to be satisfied with the crusts and crumbs they get." [*2. Eight Hours Must Come, 1890, by Robert Green Ingersoll.]

Punkerslut,

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
HIM TO ME

"Again, that is an Ad Hominem Abusive remark -- there is no need for you to continue with these assaults of rhetoric, which is the base of your argument. If you are unfamiliar with formal debating, there should be some books on it at the library."

You seem to still suffer under the delusion that I have the intention of debating you. I am doing no such thing. What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

"I could have gone without that last sentence. However, if there is complete economical freedom, society would quickly delve back into the Industrial Revolution: being paid pennies an hour for working 16 hours a day."

Yes, when productivity was lower. As technology and techniques get better, an individual can produce more and more. Complete economical freedom would not make all this crumble: rather the contrary, it would accelerate the development and use of new technologies. This is Economics 101 stuff which I'd think should be obvious to anyone.

Furthermore, economical freedom is directly correlated with a higher GDP per capita, not lower: you cannot refute empirical data with ignorant bromides.

If this is your only point, then there is no use discussing anything, as you have nothing of interest to say.

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
ME TO HIM

Greetings, again,

"You seem to still suffer under the delusion that I have the intention of debating you. I am doing no such thing. What is so difficult for you to understand about this?"

Who said I wanted to debate you? You were making Ad Hominem Abusive remarks, regardless of whether I asked to debate you or not.

"Yes, when productivity was lower. As technology and techniques get better, an individual can produce more and more. Complete economical freedom would not make all this crumble: rather the contrary, it would accelerate the development and use of new technologies."

Actually, it was the Industrial Revolution that made the worker completely dependent upon a wage to survive. With technology came the slavery to wages, thus the so called "slave-wage."

"Furthermore, economical freedom is directly correlated with a higher GDP per capita, not lower: you cannot refute empirical data with ignorant bromides."

Anonymous Authorities argument -- where's the proof?

Also, is it possible that you could possibly show some decency when exchanging ideas? To state that I am suffering under delusion, or that I am ignorant of economics, is no way to win a debate, nor is it a way to make yourself look glamorous.

Punkerslut,

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
HIM TO ME

"Who said I wanted to debate you? You were making Ad Hominem Abusive remarks, regardless of whether I asked to debate you or not."

Any fallacy is only a fallacy when it replaces an actual argument. Since I was not making any actual argument, you cannot call me on a fallacy. What is so difficult about this?

"Actually, it was the Industrial Revolution that made the worker completely dependent upon a wage to survive. With technology came the slavery to wages, thus the so called 'slave-wage.'"

Yes, just like we were dependant before on the crops or on the whims of the king. Only a communist would claim that factory work was not an improvement (otherwise, why would have everyone moved to the cities? Your argument is completely muddle-headed).

The term "wage slave" is fallacious, since slavery is the state of not owning oneself. In a socialist country, the government owns you and decides of your actions. In a capitalist country, you own yourself and you decide where you want to work.

"Anonymous Authorities argument -- where's the proof?"

The proof is two worldwide surveys that are done every year by Fraser Institute and Heritage Foundation that both show consistently that economical freedom is directly proportional to GDP per capita. They are not "anonymous”: they are even available on the Internet. If you have a beef with the results, talk to them, not me.

"Also, is it possible that you could possibly show some decency when exchanging ideas? To state that I am suffering under delusion, or that I am ignorant of economics, is no way to win a debate, nor is it a way to make yourself look glamorous."

I am forced to conclude you have reading problems. I have told you twice that I am *not* exchanging ideas with you. Do you not get it now? I am only talking to you in order to understand what your beef is all about.

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
ME TO HIM

Greetings,

"Any fallacy is only a fallacy when it replaces an actual argument. Since I was not making any actual argument, you cannot call me on a fallacy. What is so difficult about this?"

Are you capable of producing an argument without criticizing your opponent?

A fallacy is a flaw of logic or argument -- not only a replacement of an argument.

"I have told you twice that I am *not* exchanging ideas with you. Do you not get it now?"

If that is so, then what is the purpose of e-mailing me? In fact, what is the purpose of communication?

"The term 'wage slave' is fallacious, since slavery is the state of not owning oneself. In a socialist country, the government owns you and decides of your actions. In a capitalist country, you own yourself and you decide where you want to work."

The term "wage slave" is not fallacious, nor can it possibly be fallacious, is it is not possibly "fallacious." Is the word "Capitalism" incorrect? Or is the word "Socialism" a fallacy? Certainly not. A term cannot be incorrect, a word cannot be false, and a term cannot be fallacious. Perhaps you meant "misleading."

Also, you suffer from a Factual Error here. In the United States during the Industrial Revolution, it was a Capitalist nation, but people could not leave their land because they were in debt to mill owners, so they worked at mills even longer. They did not decide where they wanted to work.

The fact that you are incapable of producing a single argument, other than denying the very fact that we are communicating or insulting me, leads me to believe that Capitalism is founded on just this: abusive remarks. You have confirmed what I believed about Capitalism. Thank you very much for your time and patience, and your willingness to communicate with me.

Punkerslut,

DATE: Friday, April 5, 2002
HIM TO ME

"Are you capable of producing an argument without criticizing your opponent?"

Once again, *what argument*? I am not arguing anything with you. You seem to have a mental block about this.

"If that is so, then what is the purpose of e-mailing me? In fact, what is the purpose of communication?"

To get what your beef is exactly, to understand what it is you intend to argue against capitalism. I have said that already also.

"The term 'wage slave' is not fallacious, nor can it possibly be fallacious, is it is not possibly 'fallacious.' Is the word 'Capitalism' incorrect? Or is the word 'Socialism' a fallacy? Certainly not. A term cannot be incorrect, a word cannot be false, and a term cannot be fallacious. Perhaps you meant 'misleading.'

"Also, you suffer from a Factual Error here. In the United States during the Industrial Revolution, it was a Capitalist nation, but people could not leave their land because they were in debt to mill owners, so they worked at mills even longer. They did not decide where they wanted to work."

So... because people have debts, capitalism is bad? What kind of an argument is that? Are you seriously saying that people should be forbidden from contracting debts?

"The fact that you are incapable of producing a single argument, other than denying the very fact that we are communicating or insulting me, leads me to believe that Capitalism is founded on just this: abusive remarks. You have confirmed what I believed about Capitalism. Thank you very much for your time and patience, and your willingness to communicate with me."

*snicker* When you have a dream, facts are "abusive", yes. I chose to confront reality. Good luck in your dream land where centralisation is efficiency and socialism is prosperous.

DATE: Saturday, April 6, 2002
HIM TO ME

I just wrote an article for my web site about capitalism and the notion of "market failure" at http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/capitalism.html

This is a coincidence, as I was already writing it while talking to you. Unfortunately I doubt you'll understand any of the big words.

     There you have it: a collection of verbiage and insults. I wanted to debate, but the Capitalist could offer nothing other than his mockery. I certainly have my doubts about Socialism. It just seems by far too simple, too easy, and too obvious. Perhaps there is some intrinsic part of Capitalism that I am missing. There is always doubt. However, whenever I debate Capitalists, I receive only insults and mockery -- I have yet to see them produce a strand of evidence.

Punkerslut,

join the punkerslut.com mailing list!

copyleft notice and responsibility disclaimer