Debating the theory of profit

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/0000...
Image via Wikipedia

My recent spat with a proponent of Austrian Economics had started from his attempts to explain profit by ignoring the productive process. Eventually this progressed to the point where he was arguing from the superiority of capitalist intellect and further from there to plain insults. The dicussion was not going nowhere fast.

So I decided to do something new (for me at least). I challenged him to a formal debate. At least this way, by trying to convince an audience instead of each other, we can avoid personal insults and stick to arguing the arguments. The audience instead can be the one that judges.

This is actually one of the main problems of arguing on deep reddit comments or on any other semi-obscure location. The only ones who judge the arguments is the opposing side and as both sides are obviously quite strong in their opinion (or they would not be debating). As such, they end up seeing the opponent as being stupid for not seeing “the truth”. A debate might be the solution.

Unfortunately, reddit does not provide the best functionality for debates, as it may have voting buttons for each comment, but they are built mostly for hiding trolls and spammers, not for agreeing/disagreeing, not only that, but it’s difficult to see debates and separate the debaters from the commentators. It’s also difficult for people to follow the debate.

So I discovered an another site that has been built explicitly for debates and invited my opponent to argue his point there. The Debate on the Theory of Profit begins. Go over, check the arguments and leave some critical comments.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

8 thoughts on “Debating the theory of profit

    1. My thoughts exactly.. as if the guy will ever admit defeat when he can just start yelling "Marxist! Marxist!" instead of actually engaging in some sort of discussion.

      1. Ah, this is why I challenged him to a debate rather than argue in private. In his latest argument you'll see that "Marxist! Marxist!" ins indeed his chosen tactic. But I can only hope that the audience will punish it. Also for not being able to type in a more laconic manner but insisting on posting walls of text.

  1. The Superiority of a few Slave-Owners to their many Slaves had been apologetically defended by Aristotle, who wrote in his Politics, Book I, Part 2: "For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest."

    In short, some are masters simply because they are smarter. A typical vulgar apologist of slavery, he seemed to forget all those previous conquests thanks to which prisoners captured by the Greeks became their slaves.

  2. The Superiority of a few Slave-Owners to their many Slaves had been apologetically defended by Aristotle, who wrote in his Politics, Book I, Part 2: "For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest."

    In short, some are masters simply because they are smarter. A typical vulgar apologist of slavery, he seemed to forget all those previous conquests thanks to which prisoners captured by the Greeks became their slaves.

Comments are closed.