Aaron Clarey - 13 of 14 - How to Argue Against Socialism and Defend Capitalism

[whoo689]

Putting anyone with even an inkling of non-laissez faire beliefs on economics under the banner of "socialist" is just dumb. It's intellectually lazy.

I'm pretty libertarian, but even I don't believe that we should just let companies and the market go wild. It's unrealistic. You need SOME restraints here and there.

[collapseofthedollar]

please don't ever call yourself a libertarian

[whoo689]

You don't actually believe in laissez-faire, do you? Come on, you know that doesn't work. As efficient as companies may be, and I'm no liberal, sometimes companies go a little overboard in pursuit of profits. I don't get why libertarians think they have to believe in no regulations on the market in order to "be libertarian."

Now, certainly, there is a lot of gov't that needs to be cut, but it's not like all gov't is necessarily bad.

[whoo689]

And socialist is a pretty strong word. It's not to be used lightly just because someone happens to not conform to a very narrow vision of the free market. Now, I'm very pro-small gov't and whatnot, but even I realize now that, yes, some deregulation on the financial sector did contribute to the meltdown. And unscrupulous bankers did screw up. It's undeniable! Everyone knows that's part of the story. It cannot be blamed 100% on gov't, I'm afraid. But that doesn't make me a liberal...

[whoo689]

The problem is, I think, that too many libertarians believe in free-market fundamentalism, similar to christian fundamentalism. They hold the market up as some kind of materialist god without ever really thinking if the market can work efficiently 100% of the time. I'm certainly no friend of gov't and know in most cases private sector is more efficient, but every now and then, I hate to break it to you, the shit hits the fan.

When that happens, sometimes better regulation may help.

[Spectre11B]

@whoo689 I've been reading your comments and I'm impressed. You hold many of the same views that I do.

I think the only contention that we may have is in your definition of efficient market. To suggest that the market is only running efficient when it is perceived as beneficial to most parties, is to assume that there is a failure of the system when it isn't. I dont hold this view. The market is working as it should. Freedom of choice must have consequences.

[whoo689]

If that makes me a "socialist", so be it.

[whoo689]

It seems to me this guy is arguing more for laissez-faire than simply 'capitalism'. Most Democrats aren't "socialists." That's just nonsense and a stupid talking point. Most Democrats in America accept basic capitalism and free enterprise just as conservatives do. They just don't believe the invisible hand works perfectly.

And of course, they do enact a lot of bad policies, but let's not malign these people and distort their views to make ourselves sound somehow MORALLY SUPERIOR.

[TheEntentrainer]

I think he misinterpreted the correlation. When your poor, you get more children, because they are like some sort of life insurance.

[cardlizard]

well i think he is retarded here ...making his point that children makes you poor or poorer ...lol well how do you continue to exist if you makem oney your god and you choose to breast feed your porsche or boat rather than your children ...the truth is that there is no future with out children he is an idiot here about this point and this point only , he talks about dumb kids well it is the parent's of those kids who are at fault for not paying attention to your kids .

[elbuggo]

6:50 any system could work in Sweden. Doesn't mean its good. But now Sweden is becoming swamped with third world people with much lower IQ.