Which is worse - a fool with an education or one without?
To help answer this vital question, here are two case studies from recent YouTube comments. The first is on a brief video satire on why it's absurd to claim being gay is a choice. This is the "uneducated" case study, in which an evangelist debated with, erm, someone called Kapitano.
Bornagain001:
Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Matthew 7:6
Kapitano:
I trust you're making *some* sort of point, oh born again one. Perhaps you're even responding to other people's points.
But if you want to stand a chance of being persuasive, an explanation is the minimum required.
A contextless quote from the King James Bible won't cut it.
Bornagain001:
My purpose here is NOT to persuade you of anything but to WARN YOU of the very real ETERNAL CONSEQUENCE your present life is taking you.
Kapitano:
Perhaps if you were to be persuasive, your warning might be effective.
Ah, unless you don't really want to save anyone from damnation - you just want to gloat that we'll be damned and you'll be safe and smug in heaven.
Bornagain001:
God knew you would SIN....God PROVIDED the ONLY WAY to get that forgiveness.
Kapitano:
That's called a "Protection Racket".
Which makes god a gangster.
There then follows a day's worth of "debate" over whether the flood story is literally true. Bornagain001 was beaten several times by people much smarter and more patient than me - not that he noticed.
Bornagain001:
I AM NOT wise. What I am relaying to you comes from GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD. My suggestion is that you gain a little wisdom and start paying attention.
Kapitano:
Your infallible words seem to be failing quite a lot.
The ark is impossible, hell is a mistranslation, the bible is disproven, god doesn't exist and you are an idiot.
Oh, and being gay isn't a choice.
Bornagain001:
"The way of a fool is right in HIS OWN EYES,
But he who heeds counsel is wise."
Proverbs 12:15
Our second case study is a much more refined affair, in the comments of a 1946 educational film. Here, a defender of the Chicago school of Neo-liberal economics debates rationally with, um, some bloke called Kapitano.
GrampaCrusty:
The government protectionism you are referring to is NOT a capitalist principle. It is socialism at the corporate level - redistribution of wealth. Taking money from people/companies that have earned it and giving it to companies that have not. REdistribution of wealth. And even at the corporate level, it is anti-competitive because as you pointed out, owners aren't risking their own money anymore, which encourages carelessness.
That is not a capitalist principle. Its corporate socialism.
Kapitano:
You're getting confused between capitalism regulated by government, and socialism.
GrampaCrusty:
No, redistribution of wealth in any capacity is an aversion from capitalism. Capitalism regulated by government means enacting laws to protect people from things like predatory lending and unfair business practices.
If you are redistributing wealth (spreading it around), you are engaging in socialism, which is nothing more than the path to communism.
Kapitano:
You speak as though there were only one form of capitalism. Historically there have been dozens.
"If you are redistributing wealth...you are engaging in socialism, which is nothing more than the path to communism."
...according to your private definitions of the words. And again you speak as though there were one form of 'socialism' or 'communism'.
Both words have several meanings. Try being clear.
GrampaCrusty:
In the context of this discussion, unless otherwise stated, American capitalism is understood.
Socialism:
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
- Merriam-Webster
Again, in the context of "path to communism" there was little question which definition was being referenced.
Kapitano:
Which American capitalism? Enterpreneurial "wild west" capitalism, government sponsored capitalism under Roosevelt-LBJ, Chicago-school capitalism under Regan-BushJr...?
So that's the MW definition of 'socialism'? Never come across that one before. Not surprising they got Marx completely wrong though - he never used the term like that.
GrampaCrusty:
Absent statements to the contrary, its typical to assume present time.
This discussion is not an exhortation on the many forms of economic systems.
The simple MW definitions are sufficient - that being the system of economics characterized by distribution of goods determined mainly by competition in a free market for capitalism.
Goverenment mandated redistribution of wealth is not free market competition.
These differences are stark enough to differentiate the two approaches.
Kapitano:
"Goverenment mandated redistribution of wealth is not free market competition."
You mean it's not compatible with *pure* free market competition - which has never existed.
"Impure" free market competition - as with a mixed nationalised/privatised economy, or partial wealth redistribution - is manifestly a possible form of capitalism. One that you're living in.
To call it socialist is like calling feudalism capitalism because it's got merchants.
GrampaCrusty:
Depends on your definition of "pure".
The simple fact is (remember, this is YouTube, not a PhD dissertation) is the more wealth redistribution you have, the more socialist leaning you are.
Obama's redistribution of wealth (spreading it around) is government intervention taking money from those that have earned in honest reward and giving to those who have not.
Redistributing wealth. That is a socialist principle. Not a free market or capitalist principle. Don't get lost in minutia.
Kapitano:
"Redistributing wealth. That is a socialist principle."
Is America a socialist country? No. Is it a country where capitalism is becoming slightly more constrained? Yes.
Is redistribution of wealth a socialist principle? Yes. Is it a principle unique to socialists? No.
Is Obama a socialist? No. Does he want to end capitalism? No. Does he want to save the American capitalist economy? Yes. Do you approve of his method? No. Will it work? Unknown.
In short:
Is it helpful to conflate redistribution by socialists to attack capitalism with redistribution by capitalists to help capitalism? No.
GrampaCrusty:
Not so fast.
America is becoming increasingly socialist. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. These are government redistribution methods. Taking from those with ability, giving to those in "need" (or want in many cases) - Marxist philosophy, not capitalism.
Obama is a socialist. Look into it - he was a member of Chicago's "New Party" - a socialist organization, in the late 1990's.
Taking from certain people against their will and giving to others, is abandoning capitalism.
So what's the verdict?
One argues their position by redefining words to suit, the other does it with threats, and both seem to think endless restatement is persuasive in itself. One speaks grandly and tries to sound like an academic, the other SHOUTS AT YOU ALL THE TIME, and both do it to cover a certain fuzziness. Winding up the bible-basher (koran-basher, atlas-shrugged-basher etc) is much more fun, but doesn't call for any actual thought.
You can't actually win an argument against either of these types, because even when you fix them down to a definite position they can't wriggle out of - and explain why that position makes no sense - they forget instantly that it's happened. It's like knocking down the energiser bunny. Or nailing mist to the wall.
As for which of the three players is the fool and who's got the education, that's for you to decide.
The Bible thumper I don't care to address, but I do see the point trying to be made my Mr. Economist there. The trouble in what I think you are trying to point out is that there isn't a simple way to define a position or to explain an a broad statement. You pointed out the the different types of Capitalism. Very few people care for that kind of detail when giving or hearing political philosophy--if they care for it at all. As he said, this isn't for a Ph.D. I can give you a number of political theories as to why the United States went to Iraq or I can boil it down to a few broad statements. I don't think that you were the audience he was aiming at.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible thumper I don't care to address,Well you know me. I'm not really anti-christian, just anti-hatefreak. It just happens most haters and cranks come varnished with religion.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the big exception in America is the Randians. But they just call you "collectivist" and "anti-life" in every sentence. Anyway...
but I do see the point trying to be made my Mr. Economist there. The trouble in what I think you are trying to point out is that there isn't a simple way to define a position or to explain an a broad statement. You pointed out the the different types of Capitalism. Very few people care for that kind of detail when giving or hearing political philosophy--if they care for it at all.Indeed, but Mr Economist clearly thinks of himself as knowledgable in political philosophy. If he were, he'd address some details - or at least acknowledge their existence - instead of constantly sidestepping them.
As he said, this isn't for a Ph.D. I can give you a number of political theories as to why the United States went to Iraq or I can boil it down to a few broad statements.And I'll listen to both. But what Mr Economist did was repeatedly assert the broad statement in slightly different words as though he were going into the political theory.
In short: he's a fraud. If you're going to argue against the stimulus package, argue facts and theory. Calling it a scary word like "socialist", over and over again, without any knowledge of what that really means, is pathetic.
He may as well yell, "Obama is a poopyhead!".
I don't think that you were the audience he was aiming at.The audiance he was aiming for was people who knew even less about economics than him.