Voluntaryists vs Socialists Debate part 1 of 27 - Introduction

This was a Voluntaryist vs Socialist debate held recently at the Libertalia Cafe in San Diego. The debate was not about what form of government should exist, but whether or not government should exist at all.

Representing the Voluntaryist team: Joseph Corbett and Joey Hill

Representing the Socialist team: Herb Shore and Gregg Robinson

The Moderator was Donna Orlando

This is a 27 part series of short clips so you can navigate the debate easily, like on a DVD.

Enjoy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Voluntaryism
• Socialism
• Freedom
• Coercion
• Taxation
• Government
• joecorbett
• joeyhill
• herbshore
• greggrobinson
• Debate
• sandiego

[limitedgovt999]

@ghostofjackie

What will blow your mind more is how much better off you would be if we lived in a society where we weren't subject to a monopolistic govt that deprives us of freedom and prosperity. That is, a society where there is competition in every field and where productivity is alive and well driving down prices so that even the poorest of society can live a decent live.

Don't mistake that with what we have now where govt is involved in every detail, particularly in the banking system.

[Z0mgZ0mbies]

Voluntaryism is the wave of the future.

[dubified89]

5:07 So when they're talking about anarchy, they actually mean it, unlike the authoritarian collectivist 'anarchists' on the left.

[eleganz]

I don't have time to watch the entire series right now so who won?

[Tougemaster06]

@Tougemaster06 Investment does not create wealth. Wealth is generated by labor and accumulated. Capital does not increase its own value by itself.

[Tougemaster06]

@stealthswimmer Yes there was a time when they were free...It was called the dark ages...Welcome to era of Capitalism..

[stealthswimmer]

@Tougemaster06

It's a sliding scale. It's not like black and white where you go "ok this is free and that market isn't free" or something like that. And there have been times when markets were largely free.

Furthermore, wealth is generated from multiple things - deferring of consumption(savings), investment(often done by capitalists but not always), labor, & trade(since value is subjective, trade moves things around to who values them most or as is approximated by compensation)

[jksville]

I love it, you can tell by the age of the debaters which philosophy is on it's way out, and which one is on the way in.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 I think the fact that imperialism became a reality after the conference of Berlin in the 1885-1887 lead to a dramatic rise of living standards. IN fact, many nations in their governments debated that colonialism would be good because it would be improve living conditions for the working class. That is why people are able to buy 10 packs of underwear for $3. If you want to understand Capitalism, you have to understand the whole of society, not ideal abstractions.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 There is such thing as inherently monopolistic constructs. If we look at the real world, commerce requires means of exchange, including roads, telecommunications. If all of these were privatized, the overhead cost on these commodities would be expensive, and shut out smaller competitors who lack the money to operate a business dependent on such means. The State is an integral part of industrial development.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 Subjective value is not exchange value. The problem with subjective value theory is that it makes ideal abstractions about how the economy (and economy in a Marxist sense is different from your Austrian worldview) the world works, ignoring history, politics and human psychology. I would imagine its difficult for the USSR to make 'high quality' cars, if they had little industrial development. Demand disciplines private labor in the market, it does not create value

[LaughingMage]

Of COURSE it's a at a Cafe in San Diego...