In another adventure in social networking, I joined a debate I saw in my Twitter feed to offer support for someone that was complaining about his student loans and not being able to pay them. Now, the support I was offering was for him to be innovative and find new ways to make money. As conversations sometimes can do, it deteriorated into an economic and political debate. There was a lot of droning on about how schools are so important but then when I and the other two would point out how they are woefully insufficient he would sort of agree. We all go back and forth for way too long. He disses my suggestion that a free market would fair better in education than government run… blah, blah, yada, yada… same stuff we all have to hear in a debate… “free markets haven’t been working” – “please don’t think we have a free market now”… blah… blah… blah… He says patents, etc keep markets back, I agree pointing out those are government run programs, not free market programs, etc, etc, etc…
Here is where it gets interesting:
I should note here that he also was stating that society owes it to educate each other and that research is valuable and needed (I pointed out that university research as far as educating people means squat and that people can research and invent, etc w/out gov run universities). I had also suggested that if he is having problems paying back his loans now that he needs to slow down (he has AS and wants a BS and then a PhD). I reminded him that going to college was *his* choice, not mine. He eludes that doing things other than his way is immoral, I call him out on it.
Finally, I pull a “Stefan” on him:
Me: i owe nothing to no one but myself and my family. why should i be forced under threat of violence to care for those that will not take care of me? i am independent. i don’t want anyone else to take care of my needs, besides anyone able to give you everything can also take it away.
Him: you DO owe others. You did not grow up in a vacuum. Society helped provide an environment. You must be part of that now. Hate to break it to you, but the Gov’t has the ability to take by force from you anything you have, no matter how you got it.
Me: so you don’t believe in liberty then… I’m a Rothbardian. you won’t change me. Check him out: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 BTW they have the ‘ability’ to steal from me b/c you give them that ability.
Him: sure I believe in liberties. Positive liberties count as liberties. No, they have that ability because society saw fit to give them guns.
Me: Society is not an individual. liberty is liberty. you cannot change its definition to suit your own desires. which is why *some* of us still have our own (guns).
Him: Right, society is a collection of people. We all help each other out. Some are just less charitable about it. I’m not, go forth and discover the preexisting definition of positive liberty.
Me: putting another word with “liberty” doesn’t change it’s definition. you cannot decide what is positive for other people.
Now, from this point. I should have stopped. The print out of our total conversation is 16 pages long! He made it clear that he has no problems accepting the proverbial gun in the room and using force to pay him for an education that he thinks he deserves because to him it means he can contribute his research later, as if that is some guarantee of making society better. It gets worse. He brings up utopia and I bring up free will. He says free will is an illusion. I propose that he is using his own free will to type this ongoing debate on Twitter and, I kid you not, he says it’s society and science that is making him do it. I suggest he embrace his identity and his power and own it, to stop handing them both over to other people and entities such as ‘society’ and ‘government’. He tells me to not force my idea of identity on him… you see where this madness is going right? Yup! You guessed it! But who will build the roads… I had quit replying before he posted that last bit but it always comes down to that doesn’t it?



