Arguing with Socialists

There seem to be few discussions more fruitless than sociopolitical discussions on social media, and few of these discussions seem to be more of a waste of time than trying to discuss economics with a socialist. Lest the comments on this post turn into a similar morass of wasted effort, perhaps I should start with a few basics.

1. I define rights for all human beings according to the universal and reciprocal principles of life, liberty, and property.
2. Each individual's sphere of authority is defined by where they would trespass against one another by the same standard. Lockean homesteading and voluntary exchange define legitimate property acquisition.
3. I favor the principles of free markets for voluntary exchange, but I do not preclude the possibility of communes, cooperatives, and other forms of voluntary human interaction.

The first sticking point with socialists seems to be the idea of "property." Neither Christopher Columbus nor the distant rulers of Spain gained any property rights by landing on a beach, reciting some words, and planting a flag. Property rights are not defined by government claims. Where governments do protect property rights to any extent, usually to ensure their own theft via taxation, this is used to claim that property rights are a government fabrication and thus part of the "capitalist system" to be overthrown.

Where property rights are acknowledged, there seems to be a sliding scale between legitimate possessions and illicit "private property" that has been stolen from someone based on the form of use to which it is put. Taken to the extreme, this view seems to imply that the moment someone offers a room for rent and hires someone to mow the lawn, they have become "exploiters." If a farmer hires help to harvest the crop, some seem to assert that the harvest help is owed a share in the crop or its profits equal to the farmer's. I hope this is hyperbole, but I have been told that rent is slavery, wage labor is slavery, and the prior investments and efforts of others are irrelevant when the socialist analyzes labor value owed to the worker in production.

Of course, property rights are a convoluted issue, but another complaint seems to be the idea of "absentee landlords." Since the homeowner who rents out a room and hires lawn mower service lives on the premises, it's OK, but if they bought another home or an apartment complex where they do not live, it is exploitation. If they operate a large factory or other place of employment, it is exploitative, while small-scale operations are not. The farmer who hires seasonal labor is entitled to his crop if he lives on the farm and works the field himself, but not if the farm is too large. This is even more absurd, though, because it relies on picking an arbitrary scale and says, "below here is fine, but above here is exploitation, because reasons."

Don't misunderstand me here, because I am not saying large corporations are paragons of virtue. While I do not understand the insistence that wage labor is inherently exploitative due to the value of not requiring initial capital investment being required and no wait for risky potential future profits, and thus could assert that the employee is more arguably exploiting the employer by that perspective, I cannot side with the corporate interests in the status quo economy we see today. They rely on subsidies, bailouts, protectionist trade regulation, competition-stifling business licensing/regulation, price controls, and sweetheart contracts all funded by extortion of the general population. In the absence of government protections, mega-corporations couldn't hope to withstand smaller, more nimble competitors unburdened by the weight of corporate bureaucracy and waste.

What perplexes me most, though, is that if socialist ideas are so good, why must they be as mandatory as the government's impositions we suffer today? If co-ops and communes are so much better, they should out-compete the employee-employer model in an open market. There is nothing about the concepts of a free market and voluntary association that prevents the socialist ideal from being tested and demonstrated. But no, the leftists in politics want to legislate, and the leftists in "anarchy" want to send dissenters to the firing squads, yet I am the one who is called the wannabe tyrant by both. It's a strange world.

---

I apologize if this is somewhat more disjointed than my last post. I am functioning on too little sleep and too much pain at the moment. I am on a proper computer keyboard instead of my phone to compose this though, so typos should be far less frequent this time!