Introducing Libertarianism/Free Market Capitalism to a Socialist

I am going to be commencing an online debate against a Socialist from ISO.  What would be the best approach to introduce Libertarianism and the Free Market Economy?  I plan to give a brief overview on the individual rights, private property, limited government, decentralization, and free markets in my opening.  Anything I am missing?  I am hoping to give a positive theory, as opposed to just a straight out assault on Socialism, though those assaults may work its way in during the course of the conversation.

Remember to mention that voluntary socialism is compatible with a free market system but that voluntary capitalism is not compatible with a coercive socialist system. It I really wanted to set up a voluntary organization that had a socialized economic system among participants who voluntarily sign on a dotted line that would be okey-dokey in a true free market system. If I tried to set up a voluntary capitalist organization under a  coercive socialist system I would either have my wealth confiscated, wind up in jail or both.

ryanpatgray:

Remember to mention that voluntary socialism is compatible with a free market system but that voluntary capitalism is not compatible with a socialist system.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I think you are correct in that stressing the term voluntary would strengthen the argument.  That reminds me of a quote:

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz (1997)

What sort of socialist are they?  "Socialism" can mean about half a dozen different things.  Social democrat?  Marxist?  Anarcho-socialist (syndicalist, collectivist, communist, even mutualist or individualist)?

wombatron:

What sort of socialist are they?  "Socialism" can mean about half a dozen different things.  Social democrat?  Marxist?  Anarcho-socialist (syndicalist, collectivist, communist, even mutualist or individualist)?

He is of the Marxist variety.  It is a good point to bring up the various types of socialism, as each has a different slant.  It seems many times on the Mises board, the term socialist clumps together any individual who wants to raise taxes, control trade, and deliver government run services.

The toughest task of any argument is getting people to ask the right questions. Before they do that, there is nothing you can say that will convince them.

Depends on what kind of person you are talking to. If the individual is tolerant of philosophical conversation, begin with the absolute nessesity of self-ownership, which should be the least difficult. From self ownership, you can discuss libertarianism's idea of justice, and also validate the existance of private property. Once you have done this, everything else, all other subjects, are deducable. Example: How would a consistent philosophical libertarian view national soverienty?

Also, here is a heirarchical list of words to use, ordered from worst to best.

Capitalism<Free Market<Open Market<Voluntary exchange/ Voluntaryism/Free Exchange

Turf/Territory<Ownership/property<Fruits of labor.

As you said, it would be better to refrain from attacking socialism at the beginning, and indeed you should lay out the philosophical basics of libertarianism. Decentralization should be viewed as simply a logical result, not a pillar of libertarian philosophy IMO.

GOOD LUCK

ViennaSausage:

I am going to be commencing an online debate against a Socialist from ISO.  What would be the best approach to introduce Libertarianism and the Free Market Economy?  I plan to give a brief overview on the individual rights, private property, limited government, decentralization, and free markets in my opening.  Anything I am missing?  I am hoping to give a positive theory, as opposed to just a straight out assault on Socialism, though those assaults may work its way in during the course of the conversation.

IMO, If you can convince any socialist the of concepts of Free Association & Territorial Monopoly, then you've won half the battle.

At the very least, subsequent conversations should be less of a mindfield and more so walking on eggshells. 

I've also observed that (probably due to misconceptions on their part), if they discover you are an anarchist or open to the argument of anarchism, some socialists will become slightly more open-minded to your argument.  This is pruley ancedotal though, so don't too much stock into it.

Nitroadict:

I've also observed that (probably due to misconceptions on their part), if they discover you are an anarchist or open to the argument of anarchism, some socialists will become slightly more open-minded to your argument.  This is pruley ancedotal though, so don't too much stock into it.

I've had two polar experiences with suggesting anarchism to a socialist, one was accepting although we disagreed, the other thought I was a lune for suggesting such a thought, although he was sympathetic to no boarders.  I guess i have to thread lightly until I figure it out.

Mlee:

Capitalism<Free Market<Open Market<Voluntary exchange/ Voluntaryism/Free Exchange

Wording is key.  Thanks for the list.  I know he has it out for "Capitalism" so perhaps phrasing my points in other terms may prove more fruitful.  Then again, perhaps another anarchro-semantic digression may be necessary.

I think you should try to find out what benefits he believes the socialist system brings and try to explain how the free market provides these same benefits better or how government has historically been responsible for the lack of these good things.

That is assuming, of course, that he doesn't support death, destruction, and poverty.

Morty:

I think you should try to find out what benefits he believes the socialist system brings and try to explain how the free market provides these same benefits better or how government has historically been responsible for the lack of these good things.

That is assuming, of course, that he doesn't support death, destruction, and poverty.

This is also assuming you don't run into this line:  "But...But... without government, how would anything get done?"


As for the subject of coercion, I would approach with less outrage in my voice, and more of a questioning tone; a lot of people will just shut down their reasoning in a conversation if they feel like they are being talked down to, or "unfairly" insulted.

Nitroadict:

This is also assuming you don't run into this line:  "But...But... without government, how would anything get done?"

True, though, getting that question is inevitable when you are talking about liberty with the uninitiated, so he should already have a response ready.

My recommendation is to discuss absolutely nothing before you agree on terminology.  Let them provide the terminology. 

Insist that your socialist provides a definition of the following: 

1) socialism 

2) anarchism 

Such definitions -- if they can provide them -- invariably lead to the need to clarify other things such as: 

3) property 

4) private property (as it differs from any other type of property) 

5) ownership 

6) rights

7) rightful ownership 

Do not be surprised if the socialist tries to make nebulous distinctions between "possession" and "ownership" and "usage" or some other evasion.  Just insist on clear definitions. 

If your socialist fails or refuses to provide any adequate definitions, do not bother with the discussion.  Most of the discussions I have had with socialist-anarchists end up in circles with them not really understanding what they are demanding from their fellow man. 

I forgot a few more definitions.  Do not let your socialist use these terms without defining them either: 

8) capital 

9) capitalism 

10) The State

Morty:

Nitroadict:

This is also assuming you don't run into this line:  "But...But... without government, how would anything get done?"

True, though, getting that question is inevitable when you are talking about liberty with the uninitiated, so he should already have a response ready.

 

I somewhat agree, but even in hypothetical, I hate to refer to an audience as "uninitiated"; I would think the proper term is "unexposed" or "lied to", because "uninitiated" may imply a lack of a certain amount of intelligence, whereas intelligent people can be lied to all the time, and actually believe those lies, depending on circumstances.

Many liberals may simply balk at the term "free-market" due to a learned reaction based on partisan political ideas; but others may legitimately oppose the term "free-market", not based on because they believe mis-conceptions or lies that abuse the term, but because of objections to the fundamentals of the "free-market" (Ex.  "I do not think everyone would voluntarily trade with one another without some resorting to coercion, therefore...", etc.)

I'm not advocating watering down a message, but I do advocate not hammering away unless you also give your audience a hammer, to join in on the fun, if that makes any sense (I guess, in short, mutual respect during the conversation).

I meant no disrespect to the person he's trying to convince, or anyone, I was merely meaning those who are not knowledgable about liberty.

Morty:

I meant no disrespect to the person he's trying to convince, or anyone, I was merely meaning those who are not knowledgable about liberty.

No worries, I'm just saying it's often hard to avoid giving off the impression of such, in an argument of conflicting ideologies