When arguing for something other than libertarianism, one is caught in a spot where they're demonstrating that, in fact, they do accept the ethic of non-aggression by respecting the private property rights in the person they're arguing against, but their argument, in contradiction, is for some other conclusion than this ethic: such as that "I may do X to you, but you may not do X to me"; the opposite of the libertarian ethic, which universally applies, stating that it's never just and moral to use aggression against someone, i.e., initiate violence.
This is inequality in its finest, brought to you by those who would consider themselves none other than the crusaders for equal rights; just of course not in liberty. "Social justice" is when one person loses their rights for the other, as in the relationship of the taxed or tax-recipient; or in the case of paying reparations for something you never took part in. It was never meant to be something like "liberty for all." Indeed, they're advocates of statism, which says that there should be one law for the people, the exploited-class, and another law for themselves, the exploiting ruling-class.
But that's all another argument. I question, is there anything like a volume on "socialist economics", or why the minimum wage laws work, or some systematic presentation of how taxation makes us richer and how government measures this boost in utility for the common good it alleges to achieve? If it's out there, I've never seen it. I'm awaiting being linked to such a thing.
I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but I'm not so sure there's something like a logical treatise on democratic socialist principles that precisely, rigorously and concisely, states the case for why we should organize society in this way.
For the economists that enter the realm of ethics when saying that something should be provided by the State, i.e., when they exit the field of economics as a value-free science, where is your ethical theory to support the means you wish to use that will supposedly justify the ends of your economic engineering?
When socialists post absurd memes from Occupy Democrats or Being Liberal, such as the wild though brave claim I recently saw asserting that 90% taxation makes us all richer, I don't think they have any real supporting texts behind this. Sure, there are the Paul Krugmans who write regularly bad columns; there's a book by Bernie Sanders making up some numbers, surely packed with emotionally-driven rhetoric that appeals to young college students already exposed to the so-called "Cultural Marxism" in the environment they're in (though I don't like to use that term); etc.
But there are no real refutations that I know of against our theory of the effects of taxation: that it causes relative impoverishment. Where do they rebut this? Where's socialism's "Socialism in One Lesson: Helping you Understand the Ideas of Socialism?" Where is their line-for-line response titled "Why Henry Hazlitt is Full of Shit?"
I don't think there is such a thing. Socialism is just children crying on the internet; and none of them have sent me anything like an actual argument that convinces me of what socialism proposes: coercing people into prosperity.
The ideas we present, on the other hand, have a rich intellectual tradition behind them. They're not emotionally pulled out of our whiny-butts. They explain, in clear language, precisely what the science of economics is all about. Economics is made out to be the common sense that it is, and the mathemetized, charted-out nonsense taught in schools that no one has any interest in.
Really, it is for anyone, and anyone with half a brain should be able to begin digesting the principles of liberty; namely the ones that austro-libertarianism has to offer ("austro" referring to the compatibility of Austrian economics with libertarian philosophy). Unlike the socialists, we have logical writing that threatens to appeal to the masses at anytime.
If you want to know why the State isn't "us", and why we think you're silly when talking about "your" country or "your" representatives, we got it; why taxes discourage production, minimum wage laws don't work, and tariffs are bad, we've got it; why we don't believe in socialist military monopolies and how we could have defense without the State?, here it is; how the roads could actually be privatized, and how what we think is a joke ("muh roads") is something you find intellectually profound, being some great problem in society requiring, yet again, coercing innocents; or what about if you asked us to provide a systematic treatise on economics, covering man from the very beginnings of nothing through the process of how wealth is created, and how government intervention destroys this process?, well, boy, do we got it; how about if you thought we were just joking of the idea that printing money and using fiscal policy to centrally plan and steer the economy by some supposedly expert economists makes a lick of sense? Got it.
No socialist, contrary to what we libertarians are capable of, has ever recommended me some mind-blowing book that suddenly makes me think it's moral and economical to use aggression to force people to do things they don't want to do, successfully converting me into a "democratic socialist" that thinks I'm not a fascist. Where's the book at? Clue me in to what I'm missing. I promise, I'm open minded; I'll accept the logic if its presented, and the conclusion of socialism if it follows from some correct premises about the nature of man. But they can't do it.
Socialists have no principles. It's pure emotion; it's a socio-psychological phenomena that anyone accepts themselves a socialist, advocating for a State to rule over them. There's no logic or reason behind it. There is no economic or moral arguments to support them; at least not ones that are logical, meaning that conclusions are consistently deduced from true axioms, such as our's of the fact that man is a purposeful actor. For them, it's all "I just feel like we should rob our neighbors because like...that's what I feel like."
