Fallacy Friday #3: Government isn’t Perfect, But its the Best There Is

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” —Winston Churchill

I have heard this argument in many conversations with people that are supportive of Statism. Quite recently I was chatting with someone about my ideas and theirs. They were surprised that I would be against all forms of Government and said “It’s true (that democracy/government) is not perfect, but it’s the best we have.” As if this is the best system we can figure out. One that uses violence and coercion in order to maintain peace.

The Churchill quote above is often cited by these supporters. I’m happy to see that they concede that democracy is flawed, but dismayed that they cannot possibly see another social organizing tool that does not use violence and coercion in order to achieve peaceful ends. One simply has to take “government” out of Churchill’s quote and replace it with “slavery” to see the absurdity of this defense of Statism.

Like it or not, we are all government property and if you don’t believe me, let me ask you some simple questions. Do you have the right to put whatever you want in your body so long as you don’t hurt anyone else? Do you have a right to the fruits of your labor or do you pay a portion in tribute to government? Is your relationship with government voluntary or do you have no choice in the matter? Do you own the property upon which you live? I bet you answered no to all of those. Government does not allow you to exercise your own discretion in what substances and foods you can put in your own body. Government takes a portion of your earnings as tribute for all it’s “stellar” services it forces on you. If it is slavery to take 100% of what someone earns at what percentage is it no longer slavery but becomes “taxation”? Government forces you to associate with it’s bureaucrats and does not allow voluntary relationships to dictate society. Government taxes you for the privilege of owning property in a certain area. This means when you “purchase” your property it was for a licencing fee and the taxes are just rent. This is because if you refuse to pay taxes on property you already own, the government will take it away from you. You and I are slaves and any form of “rights” are not natural rights but privileges granted by the all mighty State.

Humans have natural rights though. Individuals and their ideas are what makes a society a society, not a monopoly on violence that is constantly infringing on these natural rights. The system we have, while it is better than some, is still not free. Charles Bukowski said “The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.”

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
-Frédéric Bastiat

Bastiat has a better description of how, yes government accomplishes some things, but it doesn’t accomplish them well. His quote is almost like he was writing today and not in the 1800s. Today we have this group lobbying for this and that group lobbying for that. Someone has to pay for all of this and its the producers. Democracy has created a system to which man A believes he is entitled to the property of man B and he will use the coercive force of government in order to attain it. In reality, no one has any legitimate moral claim to you, your body and your property like you do. The problem is that so long as we are complacent with government we must also be complacent with slavery.


TBT #3: Modern Liberals and Classical Liberals

Liberalism. What does that word conjure up for you? More than likely you think of people with a “Change” bumper sticker on their Prius and a habit of being “tolerant” except when people believe differently than them. But that is not what the term means. Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on the principle of liberty and freedom. One has to ask if the “modern” liberal is actually an advocate of that or in fact an advocate of Statism which is always in opposition to liberty. Ludwig Von Mises in his book entitled “Liberalism” lays out the classical liberal position.


“Liberalism has always had in view the good of the whole, not that of any special group… Historically, liberalism was the first political movement aimed at promoting the welfare of all, not that of special groups.”

But when has the modern liberal actually advocated for the well being of all and not that of special interest groups? Today we see liberals advocating for fast-food workers, minimum wage, and “the other 99%”.  Henry Hazlitt, on of my favorite authors, said “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Modern liberals never do this. They fix prices, look to the original sub group they wanted to help, see if it helped them and then move on. They never look at the broader economic field to see what their policies have done. They beg for government intervention and give government more power in order to “help” one group of people. They only look to see if that group is being serviced and never to what government is doing with the new powers they just gave it in other areas (and when they do notice abuse, they blame someone else).

Classical liberals like Bastiat were against government intervention. Mises said “Imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme . . . there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want.” Now we see the opposite view from liberals. They want a world where there is no private property in the means of production. They want the workings of the market to be highly regulated by Government. They support tariffs and trade barriers under the guise of “protecting American jobs.” And they definitely do not support men living and working where they want. So how did liberalism get hijacked by the very ideology it opposed?

There were a string of Presidents that saw Federalism as something that was in the way. They were the progressives. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are the main culprits of mixing the ideas of the progressives with that of liberals. Ludwig Von Mises said of the American Liberals:

“In the United States ‘liberal’ means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”

 Mises accused the socialists of hijacking label after label in his book socialism.

“The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is ‘State Capitalism.’ [Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the ‘classic’ ideal of egalitarian Socialism.”

So it was the socialists and progressives and fascists that have hijacked the label of “liberal.” At one time, the true liberals wanted the label back but of course that never happened. Now the term is so tainted with government and state worship I’m not sure true liberals want it back. The freedom movement advances though and new words and labels are made for those that truly believe in freedom. Libertarian, Anarchist, Voluntaryist are just some of the terms used by the freedom movement that embody the ideals of the classical liberal. Always keep in mind though when modern liberals call themselves “liberal”, they stole that term and use it inappropriately to mask their Statism.


Refuting Salon: 11 Questions For Libertarians Answered and Refuted

Salon has posted an article called “11 Questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites” that can supposedly “prove” that your libertarian friends are hypocrites. Unfortunately, Salon is like the Fox News for progressives so nothing they say will be factual and any legitimate position they attempt to refute will be grossly exaggerated and inaccurate.

The article starts out by saying that the philosophy is all but dead and is only kept alive by billionaires. Right off the bat we have a strawman, but we can’t expect anything less from Salon can we? They exist to propagandize collectivist thinking and make that logical mess seem appealing. The line that really got me was “They call themselves “realists” but rely on fanciful theories that have never predicted real-world behavior.”

Really?

So on December 16th 1998 when Ron Paul was interviewed just before the impeachment of Clinton was to go before congress; and Clinton had just done a 4 day bombing campaign in Iraq along with a blockade to starve out the nation; Ron Paul didn’t predict that our statist foreign policy would invoke a terrorist attack and make us all less safe? Oh wait he did.

And it’s not like Ron Paul predicted the economic meltdown years before it occurred and no one listened.

Hey wait. Didn’t Ludwig Von Mises, one of the patron saints of libertarian thought and Free Markets, predict the collapse of the German Mark as well as the Depression of 1929? In fact he was nearly alone in his predictions at the time. And it’s not like Mises Protege F.A. Hayek won a Nobel Prize because of his “Fanciful Theories”. All in all, it’s not like Mises wanted to bring economics back to praxeology, or human action. This is because he was one of the few at the time that was looking at why humans do certain things in economics, not just the numbers. Austrian Economists (libertarians) are probably the only people today in economics that recognize in it’s study that humans are unpredictable and make motivated choices. Krugman and all of those guys never talk of human action, in fact they ignore it! So as you can see, libertarianism is full of “fanciful theories.” They go on to say:

But the libertarian movement has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, and there’s a simple reason for that: money, and the personal interests of some people who have a lot of it. Once relegated to drug-fueled college-dorm bull sessions, political libertarianism suddenly had pretensions of legitimacy. This revival is Koch-fueled, not coke-fueled, and exists only because in political debate, as in so many other walks of life, cash is king.”

Its as if they make it sound like libertarianism is the only view with millionaires (which it is most assuredly not). If it was, then it would be much more prominent than it is now. It would be, I don’t know, as big as the liberal/progressive ideas that Salon likes to vomit out. In fact, 2013 saw liberal and democrat interests take the monetary advantage from the billionaire bracket. So stop crying about the Koch Brothers Salon, your asinine progressive agenda is still in the lead for donations from billionaires.

Before I jump into their questions, I need to define the Non-Aggression Principle.

“The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.”

It’s the idea of “mind your own business” and “you own yourself.”

Question #1:
So the article goes on to say that society cannot order itself. Really? I will direct you to my article of Polycentric Law and Ireland as well as this article entitled “Anarchy – Never Been Tried?

Their question is:

Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?

Unions are society self organizing. There is nothing against unions organizing and working together for their benefit. There is nothing wrong with, as a group, choosing not to work in order to make a point. What you don’t have the right  to do is keep others from working which is something Unions actively seek to do. If you are one strike because you don’t like the pay, but someone is will to work for that pay, you have no right to use violence to keep them from working. This violates the central philosophical axiom of libertarianism. The Non-Aggression Principle.

Political parties and elections, or Government, are not society spontaneously organizing in way that does not violate the non-aggression principle. Government is a racket that is a monopoly on violence, force and coercion within a given arbitrary set of boundaries. Government makes it illegal to steal from them or anyone else, but it will steal from you through taxation. Government will make it illegal to kill them or anyone else but will then convince you that enough if people do it it’s ok. We’ll just call it war. Elections and democracy are just a euphemism for mob rule where if at least 51% of the population wants to strip the rights of the other 49% through elections, they can! For a deeper look check out my post about democracy and government. So no, government cannot exist without violating the non-aggression principle.

As far as the Occupy movements go. You have the right the gather with anyone you choose for what ever reason you choose so long as you do not violate the non-aggression principle. So as long as you are not harming someone else, destroying or stealing your property you are ok. It’s not a societal organization like I described in article about polycentric law, but it isn’t wrong either.

Question #2:

Cato also trumpets what it calls “The Virtue of Production” without ever defining what production is. Economics defines the term, but libertarianism is looser with its terminology. That was easier to get away with in the Industrial Age, when “production” meant a car, or a shovel, or a widget.

 Today nearly 50 percent of corporate profits come from the financial sector—that is, from the manipulation of money. It’s more difficult to define “production,” and even harder to find its “virtue,” when the creation of wealth no longer necessarily leads to the creation of jobs, or economic growth, or anything except the enrichment of a few.

Which seems to be the point. Cato says, “Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.”Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

This writer must have received a lot of Fs in school for only using one resource like Cato. Cato is not the flagship of libertarian thought and certainly not the one for Anarchistic Libertarian thought since they are Ok with limited government (This voluntaryist is for no government).

I’d like to pose a question to author. If things like a widget, shovel, car, train, plane, factories and equipment or even land did not exist, than would this manipulation of money even be possible? You see they see only a small piece of the puzzle. Production is the task of man rearranging elements of his environment to eventually produce a desired end–a good.

Further more, this implies property rights. Socialism for instance aims to own the means of production and take it away from the private owner. But humans are the ultimate producers. Without us, there would be no production. So you have a right to your body. You have a right to what you make with your own property. Some bureaucrat in Washington who had nothing to do with you producing a product on your own property with your own materials has no right to demand a tribute of any sort. It’s called theft. So this is what is meant when libertarians talk of protecting the productive people. Taking a portion of what someone produces through violence, threats of violence and force is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Question #3:
The author talks about how fast-food businesses and retailers depend on employees in order to create their wealth. They then argue that the worker has the right to coordinate with other workers in order to negotiate better terms. They then ask their question:

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Yes, this question was already answered above. What these workers do not have a right to though is to use the violent and coercive arm of the government to force their employers to give them what they want when they cannot peacefully  negotiate it. Also you are not allowed to force people to join your union or collective. Most unions are involuntary so that is a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Question #4:
The author talks about banksters and how they shafted all of us. They then ask the question of:

Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?

I’m sorry but this is just willful ignorance. I wish to ask the author a question. How do you think these banks and rich elites are able to shaft us and get away with it? Is it because they buy off the biggest monopoly of all called government? The author is afraid of this sort of abuse so they advocate for something that makes the abuse possible, government, in order to keep the abuse from happening. What? How does that make any sense? That is just pure stupidity. “I don’t like monopolies so lets make a monopoly called government in order to keep monopolies from happening.” That is the gist of the argument the author is advocating for.

So no this libertarian will not admit that because I’m not an idiot.

Question #5:
It seems like with every question the authors shows that they understand less and less of the material. They talk about how “government created the internet.” This is true. But the market is what made the internet useful. This article answers that charge rather well.

With this remark, Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don’t like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.

No read my article on democracy. It’s funny that the author think that “iron-fisted rule of wealth” with in opposition to democracy when it’s really behind it. As I pointed out, government is a monopoly, so what is to stop the super elites and rich, who “run” for office and rig the system, from using their wealth to manipulate it. Within a free market they have to compete with each other in offering the best services and the best prices. Hardly abusive. But with government, they can get a government granted monopoly (like power and water for instance) and just shaft the consumer because the government has their back and they send the elected officials kickbacks. Gee, I wonder which system is really “iron-fisted rule of wealth.”

Question 6:

Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?

First of all, government doesn’t create anything. Everything government “creates” was built and funded by someone else who was put at gun point. Since it is not governments money, they don’t care how they spend it. This means they take risks with money that the private individual never would. These leads to massive wastes of capital. This is the typical statist fallacy of the seen vs. the unseen. The statist can only see what is in front of them and think that that is the only option. But if government had not stolen from one person to make a mal-investment else ware, think of all the good investments that were never made with the stolen money? So good try, but your logic is incredibly faulty.

Question 7:

Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?

Intellectual property is a hilarious position from the statist point of view. This is because, in general, the statist loves government because they hate monopolies (which is ironic in and of itself since government is a monopoly). But intellectual property is itself an individual seeking a monopoly for an idea and using threat and force to keep other peaceful citizens from rearranging their property as they see fit. IP is actually a violation of property rights because it’s one person defining what another can and can’t do with their own property. Think of the fashion industry. What if someone patented pants. Well that would be terrible. We would only be able to buy paints from one person. This is a monopoly and it it’s wrong. It also stifles innovation and slows down progress. What if one person, sees your idea and knows of a way to improve it. For an in-depth argument against IP, read this essay.

Question 8:
The author talks about how democracy is flawed and even points out that it is because of the rich. “Our democratic process is highly flawed today, but that’s largely the result of corruption from corporate and billionaire money.” That’s great you acknowledge that the system doesn’t work but then you make an idiotic comment. 

Why isn’t a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of “spontaneous order”? Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?

This is just idiotic. It’s because government is coercion. The market is voluntary and people voluntarily vote with their dollars and they are never coerced into buying something with their dollars they do not want. And since democracy can be bought off as the author pointed out, it’s a way to make the peons feel involved and the super rich to them what they were going to do to them anyways. This is why this article is just totally inaccurate to the libertarian perspective. You cannot distinguish that the market is voluntary and government is not? Go back to school… Of wait you probably did learn this in school because they just government indoctrination centers.

Question 9:

Libertarians are right about one thing: Unchecked and undemocratic force is totalitarian. A totalitarian corporation, or a totalitarian government acting in concert with corporations, is at least as effective at suppressing the “spontaneous order” as a non-corporate totalitarian government. Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?

This is cute. Corporations are only a threat so long as government exist. They use government to pass regulations to stifle competition. and acquire wealth at the expense of the poor through taxation (Think of the military industrial complex. You pay for that!). If government did not exist, these corporations would have to compete with each other in order to offer the best products and services at the best prices. Once a monopoly on force that can be bought off comes into pay, then you have problems. The relationship to government is never voluntary so that means the only threat to freedoms are government itself.

Question #10:

Most libertarians prefer not to take their philosophy to its logical conclusions. While that may make them better human beings, it also shadows them with the taint of hypocrisy.Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” That raises another test for our libertarian: Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were “parasites”?

Ayne Rand was not truly a libertarian. She was for IP laws for instance. She really did get a lot of things wrong and a lot of things right. Libertarians just think that all interactions and relationships should be voluntary. This means being charitable is fine and  encouraged. I know you think you can take one quote from one person, create a straw-man out of it, “refute” it feel good about yourself, but you won’t get away with that here.

Question #11:

Libertarianism would have died out as a philosophy if it weren’t for the funding that’s been lavished on the movement by billionaires like Thiel and the Kochs and corporations like ExxonMobil. So our final question is: If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?

I need to ask what unfettered market was this? We have had a sort of free market but not an absolutely free one. If anything it was the regulations that Statists forced on the market that caused it to falter (think the boom-bust cycle our government likes to create). I like how they just claim that it was “unfettered” but offer no examples and no facts. They then complain about how billionaires are funding us libertarians. Like I said Salon, 2013 saw a monetary advantage from the billionaire bracket go to liberal and progressive interests. Stop crying.

Us libertarians should be happy about this really. It means we are starting to be perceived as a real threat to the “Statist Quo” (see what I did there?).


Conversations with Statists: Socialism and Fascism

So I like to browse the Being Liberal page on facebook and comment on some of their pictures. If, for nothing else, to at least have these people see things from a different perspective and challenge them. Their Memes are totally fallacious and lack any sort of credible intellectual base. But that is what Statism does, it grabs a hold of your emotions and manipulates you that way so that you can never see the economic, social and political issues rationally.

The other day they posted this image:

I am not Republican and Neo-Cons are just another side of the statist coin. But I felt that I couldn’t let them get away with this particular image. It screams “The other side is racist, we are the tolerant ones.” Below is the debate that ensued, I’ll let you judge just how tolerant and intelligent they are.

Me: News flash, the Nazi’s were socialists. Socialism is a step on the path to fascism because of the large central planning government it creates. I’m libertarian, but if I was a Democrat or Republican and saw that my party was for a large central authority, I’d be getting myself out.

This was my initial comment on the image above. I’m simply pointing out that “the Right” is not the only group with a sordid past. Of course a hail storm of unintelligible remarks and ad hominems erupt from here on out. Enjoy:

Dan The Statist Man: Adolf Hitler was in no real way a socialist. He was a corporal in the Heer (the regular German army, under Kaiser Wilhelm II) in WWI. He was a message carrier, which might sound innocuous, but was actually a quite dangerous assignment to have within a unit at that time. He was temporarily blinded by a gas attack, for which he was awarded an Iron Cross medal. After the war, he was contacted by his ex-officers, who asked him too infiltrate, and spy on for them, a small political group, NSDAP (Nazionale Socialist Deitsche Arbeitung Partie), the National Socialist German Workers Party. When Hitler first arrived, the NSDAP were an actual socialist political group. It was at their beer-hall meetings that Hitler discovered his talent for public speaking. He soon changed his goal from reporting on the group, to taking it over, which he quickly succeeded at (among the NSDAP’s extant leadership at the time were both Ernst Rohm, leader of the Stormtroopers, and Josef Goebbels, who at first was in staunch opposition to Hitler, but quickly became one of his most loyal followers). As part of an agreement with the group’s leaders as part of his take-over, Hitler was forced to sign a document entitled “The 25 Points of National Socialism.” Afterwhich, Hitler promptly ignored it, and molded the NSDAP into a totalitarian regime, with himself as the sole dictator. He did his level best to have the 25 Points buried and forgotten, it was actually an embarassment to him and his cronies later on. I REPEAT: The Nazi party in German was a socialist political unit IN NAME ONLY. It was a totalitarian regime, with Adolf Hitler as sole dictator.

Of course, there is nothing but fluff here. Nothing that proves that the Government of Germany at the time was in fact not socialist. Then another Statist chimed in with a very persuasive argument.

Carlton The Charlatan: Jon, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Solid stuff there. This comment, as I am writing this, has 2 likes!

Me: Sorry guys, but Nazi Germany was socialist. I’m afraid neither of you know what you are talking about.
http://mises.org/daily/1937
You both miss the entire point. Socialism involves large central planning and central authority as a means to redistribute wealth and make market decisions. Nazi Germany had this. It’s as simple as 1+1=2. You have a large central government with control over the means of production. You have a large central government that fixes prices. What is to stop it, when you give it this much power, from turning fascist? I implore you to read the article above. Do you maybe think that Hitler saw the socialist party, with its advocacy for centralized planning, as a vehicle to power simply by the nature of socialism and it’s centralized monopoly? Let’s do some critical thinking here guys rather than reading a wiki or just saying “you really don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I apologize in advance because these people are dense and don’t get things right away. I make these same points often because they go unchallenged for the entire conversation.

Mark the Mentally Disembarked: Socialism is an economic system not a political system.

Me: Sorry mark but it is a political system.
“Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
It’s an economic system (and terrible one at that) but it requires a central authority and government in order to organize and enforce it. It’s still politics buddy.

Marks comment has 5 likes! This isn’t a very bright bunch, but lets just keep moving as it starts to get better.

Craig Moffitt Who Doesn’t Want The State To Stop It: Jon, why think for yourself when you can just blindly follow people who make shit up. I could tell you chapter and verse how you are spreading lies but arguing valid points with you is obviously a complete and total waste of time seeing how the only facts you except are ones that validate your already held bullshit.

I respond in kind:

Me: Really? So you have no argument other than ad hominems? I blindly follow people and don’t think for myself? Yeah thats why I think both parties are terrible. Because I let other people think for me. If anyone is rejecting facts it’s you. Instead of showing a valid counter argument you would rather insult my character. I have shown that in Nazi Germany they had price and wage control. They owned the means of production and they made centralized decisions. If you can prove otherwise and show that that is not socialism then be my guest. But don’t insult me personally, ignore the facts I bring, then accuse me of special pleading. If anyone else is special pleading it’s you.

Then I came back with a little jab, I’m not proud, but I’m not wrong about it either.

Me: No statist is satisfied it seems until everyone is liking the boots of the state with them. But hey, my refusal to kneel just means I’M the one too lazy to think for myself right?

Kim (Jong Un): Jon, despite having “socialist” in their title the Nazis were far from socialists. The Nazi ideology was based on a form of Fascism that incorporated scientific racism and anti-semetism. You seem to think socialism is a problem but the Democratic Socialism of the Scandinavian countries is working just fine. They all rate highly for education, healthcare, care of the elderly and disabled, environmentally sound, housing, job creation. They also rate low for teenage pregnancy and their crime levels are so low they have closed prisons down in some places.

Again, note that they keep suggesting that because the Nazi party was violent and racist, they couldn’t possibly be socialist too! Yet they have yet to address 1) The fact that the Nazi Government took the means of production away from private owners. 2) They had wage and price controls. And 3) they had large central planning that coordinated the economy. But hey, none of that is important. They like socialism and what does “means of production” mean anyways right?

Me: Kim you don’t seem to understand that socialism can take many forms and that the socialism of Scandinavia is not complete socialism. They actually have a less regulated and more capitalistic economy than the U.S.. They do well despite their their socialist leanings, not because of it. That said, they have a higher tax rate and they make less before taxes. They also have a smaller population than the united states and if they were to become states within the united states, they would rank as some of the lowest economic producers. So Scandinavia and it’s supposed prosperity due to socialism is a myth.
This doesn’t change the fact that Nazi Germany was socialist. As I said, they had price and wage control along with no private citizens owning the means of production. Look up the definition and key markers of socialism and you will see that Germany at the time contained all of them. Like I said 1+1=2. Socialism involves centralized planning which means it eventually leads to fascism.

Ah, Scandinavia. The supposed socialist paradise… Believe it or not, Sweden has it’s own racial issues at the moment concerning immigration so… But then someone named Sonja backed me up. Sonja, you’re cool.

Sonja: Jon, the statists don’t know how easy they they have it here.

Sonja: how Bush made it so easy for them.

R.C… Cola: What about the socialist countries that appear to be doing very well to day. Much better than the US in so many ways.

You see, this is how I know liberals don’t actually read. I answered this question already RC Cola!

Inflated Bill: Folks who equate Nazism with Socialism are invariably those who wish to put forward a really warped view of history. They really have no interest in facts or truth, so it is an utter waste of time to engage in a debate with them – because they are more interested in their own, oddball opinions than anything approaching rational thought.

No Bill, liberals are the ones who have a warped view of history. Care to have a discussion on socializing the means of production, ignoring property rights and central planning? No? Ok. Now  this next comment was really good. You can tell this guy is a real critical thinker.

Angry Andrew: Jon, you’re a fucking idiot. Socialism is an economic system… it is not naturally totalitarian nor ancarchist. The Nazis were indeed socialist in their beginning, but that was only to attract people, they quickly switched to fascism thereafter and they promoted corporatism.

Wow, convincing. I didn’t see this fellows comment till later so I address it later.

Lacy the Crazy: perhaps you should look up “the Night of the Long Knives” when once he did not need them anymore Hitler eliminated all the “socialists” from the Nazi party to consolidate/cement his power and then read how he did his level best to stamp out communism. Hitler dismissed socialists and HATED communists and most were eliminated outright or enslaved or loaded onto the trains with the other “undesirables”. you are obviously a Troll whose intent is to muddy the waters. I would like links to your suppositions that fascism and socialism are related or the same and while you are at it I would like to hear how Scandinavia Is not heavily regulated and how they are closer to capitalism. did you pull that out of your ass? I have many friends in Norway, one of them actually works in the Banking industry. I can probably bring her into this conversation if you like…..

Tamara Shmamara: They used the socialist title to soften the blow but historians and economists have pointed out that they were clearly NOT true socialists. Kinda like we call ourselves a democracy but in all reality we are an oligarchy. You can call yourself whatever you want, doesn’t make it true.

This whole time I was asleep like a normal human but I awoke to answer the call!

Me: It’s funny how you all assume the Nazi party wasn’t socialist because they committed acts of violence. Sorry, but you can be a violent institution and still be socialist.
So let’s deal with this because all of you ignore it. Nazi Germany took the means of production away from private citizens. That is something you do in socialism. They had a prices and wage controls. They had a centrally planned economy. All of this is socialism. Stop saying that they are not socialist because they committed acts of violence. It just shows your bias because you like socialism. Lacy, you wanted articles? I posted one above.
http://mises.org/daily/1937
There it is again.
And then Scandinavian/Nordic countries:http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Scandinavia_and_the_social_state
Oh no, someone thinks differently than the mainstream statist propaganda you love so much.

At this point I start getting cheeky. Simply because no one seems to know what the definition of socialism is but they all think it’s great. These people vote. I know it’s scary. I then added:

Me: “You can call yourself whatever you want, doesn’t make it true.”
You can keep saying “they were not socialist” but that doesn’t make it true. Especially when they have all the economic indicators that show that they are. I know you all like socialism that’s why you find this so offensive. But Hitler used that specific party because, like I said, socialism requires a large and powerful central authority to enforce it. That large central authority is the first step towards fascism. This isn’t hard logic to follow guys.

Then this guy chimed in.

La La La La I Can’t Here you Chris: You need to go back to school and study the difference between socialist (communist), as opposed to fascism (Nazi-Hitler). Those two ideologies are 180 degrees apart. Whoever, saw a Muslim country that was socialist? Their government/ideology is based on their religion. Fascism is based on conservative ideology about purity and elitism usually, purity of race and religion. Hitler believed in a pure race, the Aryan race. Look up Aryan Race, Rick see what that means. Socialism is based on equality for all, now that rules out extreme Muslim leanings. Socialism is left of center, fascism is right of center. The Tea Party leans toward fascism, ie the KKK and neo-Nazi’s (skin heads etc.) Also read:http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Me: Chris, just like everyone else you make the mistake of assuming that because Nazi Germany did violent things, that it must not have been socialist. This is based off of your bias that you like socialism. I read your article and I don’t really disagree with it but let me take you through the logical steps in how socialism eventually leads to fascism.
1. Socialism, as I defined it above is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
2. It takes a large central authority in order to organize such an economic concept. Simply because if it didnt, we would have a free market. It takes a central government to take away the means of production, to set wage and price controls, and to enforce this process. This means government is not to be competed with.
3. Such a large central monopoly on force and coercion naturally leads to abuse. So you can see that you can be fascist with out being socialist, but you cannot be socialist without becoming fascist eventually.
Read this article chris, this is the third time I’ve posted it.
http://mises.org/daily/1937

At this point, I realized Andrew was really nice in his critique of my argument. Unfortunately for him, he only proved my points.

Me: Andrew above has eloquently shown how socialism centralizes authority making it easy to abuse. So thanks for that Andrew.

Me: Also Andrew has pointed out that corporatism only comes about with government meaning corporatism is separate system than pure capitalism. Thanks again andrew!

I then posted this info graphic because I thought maybe pictures would help them understand where I’m coming from. You have to keep things simple for them.

And it’s been quite over on this thread for last 6 hours.
So I post this not just to make fun of these people, because they do deserve to be made fun of, but to show the illogical nature of a Statist. Socialism aims to own the means of production. Without people, there would be no production. This means you are the means of production, and by extension, socialism is the ownership of individuals. That is an absolutely disgusting prospect to me. Why anyone would advocate for such a system is beyond me. But as you can see, nothing I argued was ever challenged. I did get insulted though. And I thought liberals were the tolerant open-minded ones? Weird.

Fallacy Friday #2: “But Without Government, Who Would Build the Roads?”

“There is only one source of roads, and it does not share power. If you end the state, all the roads will turn back into turnips, and everyone will forget how to build them.”

—Charles Magney

Roads. I had to tackle this one eventually so I might as well do it now rather than later. Statists often point out that the government appears to provide for important public services. A notable example is the very roads we use to transport the fruits of labor on and to go to and from work by. They really do play an integral part of our lives and make basic travel possible. Unfortunately for the statist, it’s a fallacy to think that Government is the sole provider of roads. It’s asinine to conclude that if the government ceased to exist at this moment, roads would disappear and never be built again.

This question by statists is really easy to answer. Governments do not build roads themselves. They subsidize them through taxation and then hire the job out to private companies to build them. The truth is that private individuals know how to build roads. They already build them. They have been building them through out history for a really long time. It’s not that hard to conceive of a situation in which private individuals build roads.

So I think the question the Statist really wants to ask is “Who will pay for the roads?” This is a slightly less idiotic question and is worth a serious answer. Wait, it’s actually really simple. The people that will pay for the roads will be the people that use them. This can be done many ways. The owner of a road could have a subscription fee to use his road, or maybe a toll. We have tolls and those work out fine. In any case, there could be user agreements, like when you download software, that specify the conditions of use. For instance, there could be a clause that subscribers to a road are not allowed to drive drunk on this privately owned road. The roads would be patrolled by private security that would not abuse their power and would treat you like a customer. This is because their jobs and pay checks depend on you using the road and being a repeat customer. This also means the roads would be better maintained and not riddled with potholes like our lovely government subsidized roads. This is, again, because they want your repeat business on their road. This means competition between roads. This means better quality roads at lower prices to the consumer. All in all, it’s a pretty good idea.

You see, statists hate monopolies. Or they at least say that they do. They really love one monopoly called Government and it’s poor excuse for roads that are patrolled by highway robbers and thugs. But a free society has so much more to offer at such a better quality. I don’t see why roads should be an obstacle to freedom. Freedom clearly shows that roads would in fact be better.