My Encounter With A Group of High School Socialists (VANITY)

This is long, but I think it is important. We are fighting Leftists in the government and media who exclaim the virtues of Socialism, but we forget that there are legions of young people that the Left has been mercilessly (and without consequence to them) indoctrinating young people for decades without any countervailing information. This encounter I detail in this thread shows just how much and how prevalent this is. It was (for me) my first chance to drill down on young people to see just how deep and fervent their indoctrinated beliefs are.

Last Saturday we had a festival in my Leftist Blue State/Blue Town of about 10,000 people, where they blocked off the streets and invited vendors and groups to reserve a lot to set up a booth, with vendors and subjects covering everything from household cleaning materials and jewelry to martial arts.

Our Republican Town Committee (RTC) set up a booth, and we had about four to six of us staffing it from about 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM. We had campaign signs for our preferred candidates, free candy, water, political handouts, free pocket Constitutions, and a free raffle that was intended to draw people in for discussion.

Everyone knows that nearly any religious or political thing causes people to avert their eyes and walk faster as they pass the booth, so the free raffle, stocked with things like a portable Bose Speaker, movie and supermarket gift certificates, and books was intended to draw people in. (my contribution was two books by Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics-A Commonsense Guide to The Economy and Economic Facts and Fallacies...I wanted to get his bookVision of The Anointed, but I couldn't get a copy for under $80, and wasn't willing to spend that.)

The raffle also allowed, if someone wanted to, the ability to opt-in on our email group with the goal of increasing our membership, which now stands at maybe a couple of dozen.

We had a great time. I had a sandwich board I created that had our three prime candidates people should vote for on the front, and on the back, I had this:

But this most impactful thing that ensued over the course of the day was a group of teenagers (averaging in age of about 16-17, all males) who were obviously part of some debating club or socialist club I guessed, and in retrospect, were there with the goal of confronting Republicans to make them look ridiculous.

I say they were "obviously" part of some debating club or high school socialist club, because they came well prepared with a plethora of Leftist talking points.

I was impressed that they would make the attempt, since I understand it is a challenge for some teenagers to engage adults in this type of discussion. So they got points with me for that. I will outline our discourse below. It is a long read, but it is illustrative regarding the draw that Socialism has for young, indoctrinated people who aren't being told anything differently, know little or nothing about economics or the real world.

I was interested, because having no children, I don't have a direct window into how heavily they are being indoctrinated, or what they are being indoctrinated with.

One of them, obviously the spokesman or leader, had an unusual face that appeared to me to resemble the face of a Praying Mantis when viewed straight on. It was unusually triangular, broad and flat on the top, narrowing in straight lines to a very pointed chin. He came across as very self-assured and intelligent. He did most of the talking, and when he made a point that we would counter, as he spoke his piece to us and we listened, when we answered, the others would start furiously typing on their phones, and then interject points. It didn't realize it initially, but they were undoubtedly consulting what I assumed was ChatGPT or some other AI agent.

(Note: I am a fan of Dan Bongino, and one of the points he makes repeatedly in his podcast, which I agree wholly with, is that the Left is terrified of AI that they do not have control over, the reason being-they are afraid it will tell the truth. I leveraged that repeatedly to great effect when I realized that they were leveraging ChatGPT or some other agent in real time to form their rebuttals.

I was curious. I was really interested to find out what the intellect of these high schoolers was like. I am not one to decry young people for their beliefs these days, because I realize many of them have not been taught how to think critically, but have instead been indoctrinated by our teachers.

I will make one more observation: the adults I have interacted with and had discourse with have no deeper understanding of this hoax and political perpetual motion machine called Socialism and Communism than the young people they indoctrinate. I felt a palpable sense of relief at realizing this, even as dangerous as they are as mindless bots of the Leftist agenda.

These four or five teenagers showed up at our Republican booth, and waded right in. I was interested, but only jumped in (I was occupied with something else) when I heard them arguing with another one of our group, and someone else in my group invited me to jump in. This is roughly the order we discussed things in, and accurately reflects the flow and content as I could recall it.

INSIDER TRADING-TRUMP IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE
I came in at this point, and hearing one of my team talking to them about Nancy Pelosi while they countered Trump-Trump-Trump, I jumped in and informed them that Trump has many investments, he has put them in a trust to be managed by others. They countered that his affairs were managed by relatives or friends, and I stressed that even if that is true and that it might be better if that were changed, it is completely legal. I then opined to them that Insider Trading is not the biggest problem we face today, it is at $40 trillion and rising by a trillion dollars every ninety days. (That astonished them. They seemed to have no idea, and I had to explain that much of that increase is due to simply paying off the interest on our debt, which also baffled them. It would have baffled me too, as a high schooler. I was not taught such things back in the Seventies.)

I asked them straight up if they were socialists, just to get an idea of the terrain we would be having discourse on.

They admitted yes, they were Socialists, but qualified it by saying they were for “limited socialism” and I opined that Socialism is like pregnancy, where you can't be a "little bit pregnant" which they didn’t get. That one went right over their heads.

I asked them reasonably and politely if they knew what economics was.

None of them had any idea, so I told them (again, conversationally, politely, and reasonably) that economics is is the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources that have many different uses.

They all began talking at once, and I held up my hand as a polite gesture to ask them to listen, and I asked in a level voice if they agreed that Socialism involves the fixing of prices by government. They agreed that was correct, so I asked them another question: “So, you agree that the government will set prices for items?” And when they agreed, I asked very reasonably: “Do any of you understand the role that prices play in a capitalist economy?” None of them had a clue. Their answers were along the lines of “How much someone should have to pay for something”.

I told them that prices, due to the profit motive, allocate the scarce resources (which might have many different uses) efficiently without human intervention. I used the example of milk from dairy cows. I got them to agree that milk is a limited resource, and then I laid out that milk can go into plastic gallon jugs, be used to make cottage cheese, can be used to make regular cheese, can be used to make yogurt, and can be used to make ice cream.

(Note: I gave them credit at this point because they appeared to be genuinely listening instead of ganging up on me. And I have to say, I must thank the excellent Thomas Sowell for the examples I used below, from his fabulous and approachable book Basic Economics-A Commonsense Guide to The Economy. If you have not read this and are, as I was, a dunce about economics, it gives you two feet to at least stand on. It opens a lot of avenues of learning and context.)

Proceeding once they stopped talking, I asked rhetorically: "How is it that a limited resource like milk can be sent to factories that may produce the various products from that milk, and ensure that the right quantities are sent so those different factories so that none of those factories have too much milk or too little milk, and that stores don’t have product going bad on their shelves, and that consumers like us get as much of any product in a capitalist profit-driven economy as we might wish to consume?"

They looked at me blankly, and I held my hand up in the air as if holding an imaginary dollar bill and said: WE vote, with our dollars we spend, how much of that scarce or limited resource, milk, goes to which factory. When we buy one of those multiple possible products from that limited resource with our dollars, that sends a feedback signal to the various manufacturers and sellers of those products exactly what is most important to the consumer who is voting with their money. Those manufacturers then buy more or less milk to make their products, and the sellers know how much to buy so they don’t have products on the shelf going bad because people don’t want them.

I said all this while waving that imaginary dollar bill above my head. And I told them that all this accurate allocation of resources is done without the intervention of a single person who has to TELL someone how much milk to be produced to be sent to manufacturers of dairy products, how much milk to send to each factory, and where that milk is to be sent across the nation, or even the world. Nobody has to figure that out. The dollars spent by consumers like you and me are what make those decisions. Again, I gave them credit for actually listening or appearing to listen.

But before I could tell them the kicker, that my waving of this imaginary dollar bill was the famous “Invisible Hand” they might have heard of that makes all that production, manufacture, shipping, and sales automatically happen, they lost their focus and began to start in on profits, which drives it all, and to them, underlying it, greed.

I pivoted to Rent Control as an example of why fixing of prices by a government NEVER works, and why the capitalist profit motive is the best way to ensure that people get what they need at the best cost.

RENT CONTROLS
I began this by using the Socratic Method, and asked them levelly “What city in the US has most and longest standing rent control conditions?" With prompting, they agreed it was New York. Then I asked “What city in the US has the highest housing costs?” To which they also answered “New York”.

(I will note that all this time, I didn’t notice that while one person talked with us (usually their front-man or spokesman) the others were typing furiously on their phones, consulting AI.)

They countered with “New York City has ‘rent stabilization’…” which made me realize instantly that they were consulting AI. That is specific wording they would not have known, but I have seen it in AI.

When I explained to them that setting price controls on rent destroys the availability of rental housing and apartments because if a landlord, who must maintain the value of a property for rental cannot charge higher rent to cover the cost of upkeep and maintenance because of rent freezes by the government, they will not be able to maintain the rental property, and worse, people who might want to invest in building or owning a rental property won’t do it because they cannot make money, they won’t build new properties. Existing properties become dilapidated slums, and no new properties will be built. The end result is, you then have rent expenses that are fixed for consumers, but there is a shortage of apartments to rent, so people cannot find anywhere to live.

Needless to say, they did not buy this at all, and said that any landlord should use their own money to fix property that needs maintenance and upkeep. I countered that many landlords are not rich and do not possess a large reservoir of money. Many of these people leveraged their existing money to get enough to purchase the building, and in the process, get enough from these rentals to make a living a put some money away, but many simply lose money and end up in a financial hole with a condemned slum property. The kids insisted that it was “only fair” that they use their own money, and when I countered that if a heavily leveraged landlord has to re-shingle a roof because they had damage in a windstorm, they won’t have enough money because rent costs are “fixed” for consumers, but the cost of wood, labor, and shingles keeps going up and the landlord won’t be able to fix that roof in a timely manner, and other problems such as water damage will increase the costs to the landlord. One of them sarcastically tried to ridicule me by stating “Who in Manhattan lives in an apartment building with shingles?” I started to answer that “Yes, there are buildings in Manhattan that have shingles…” then realized it was simply a diversionary tactic. I stopped, and again reiterated that many of these landlords are not cash-wealthy.

Then they pivoted to taxes.

TAXES AND GREED
They stated that the lower half of people when broken down by income were disproportionally bearing the burden of taxes, and rich people paid less, but before they could even finish I gently held my hand up as I did before and said “Stop right there.” It took several seconds and repeats to get them stopped, and I said “That simply is not true. Do me a favor. Ask ChatGPT to tell you "What percentage of taxes collected by the government as tax revenue are broken down by household income?”

They all started typing madly and stopped to read, and did not pursue any further. (Note: I didn’t need to know why, as I have asked Grok this question in the past and seen that nearly 90% of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. The bottom 50% pay around 10%, give or take. They knew they couldn't argue that point further.)

So they pivoted again, this time to greed.

GREED
One of the teenagers (he was wearing a crucifix around his neck which I now suspect was a prop because the others who were manning the booth with me told me later his father was a History teacher) referenced the Bible saying people shouldn’t be that rich because it was greed. He asked me if I was a Christian, and I said that I was. He asked if I was a Christian, how could I support someone being that rich. Their spokesman said: “Nobody needs that much money. Look at Elon Musk, he is the first Trillionaire in history, nobody should have that much money. It is all greed."

I said firmly that it wasn’t our place to determine how much money any person should or shouldn’t have. I added that the politics of envy don’t work, and will never work. I stressed that someone will ALWAYS make more than someone else, and it is a problem that will never be solved by giving more money to someone, because they will not be satisfied with that because there will still be someone making more money than they do.

I told them that Capitalism is the best form of an economy for flawed human beings-I said I was a flawed human being, and pointing at him, said that he was a flawed human being. Capitalism harnesses this natural, omnipresent self-interest into constructive channels and therefore, pulls in line with the capitalistic impulses, where Socialism contends that it harnesses the altruistic nature of good, and while altruism is present in many people, it can only be compelled by a government by force. It pulls in the opposite direction of human nature, and therefore, does not work.

I asked them to name one Socialist country which has had a successful economy. They said “Denmark!” and I held up my hand and said politely “No. Denmark is NOT a Socialist country. They insisted it was, so I said “Do me a favor. Ask ChatGPT if Denmark is a Socialist country."

They all furiously asked ChatGPT, and while their faces remained unchanged, they all immediately changed their focus to China.

"China is successful, and it is a Capitalist country!" their spokesman said.

I politely and firmly said that China is NOT a Capitalist country. (I didn’t want to tell them that even though Communist China is quite dog-eat-dog capitalist-leaning for an individual who wants to sell food or trinkets as long as you don’t cross paths with the government, the government fully controls industry. And everything else, including the citizens. But that would have confused them into thinking they were right so I didn’t say that.)

Then, one of the High School Socialists interjected that there was no poverty in China. Needless to say our eyebrows shot up, and we congenially introduced to them a man (member of our Republican Town Committee) born in Communist China in 1949 who emigrated to the US at the age of 41, so he knew full well about communism and poverty, and he told them, but it had no effect on them.

They insisted Communist China is capitalist, and I countered that if anything other than straight up Communist/Socialist, it is far more Fascist/Communist than Communist/Capitalist. When they insisted it was Capitalist, I suggested they consult ChatGPT, but by this time they had wised up and suspected ChatGPT’s answer would be closer to mine than theirs., and didn’t start furiously typing.

They simply pivoted again, this time to Public Schools as a successful form of Socialism

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCCESSFUL SOCIALISM
They said that an example of successful socialism were Public Schools which are successful and are paid for by the government…how could I be against that?

I again politely held up my hand and said “Public Schools are failing.” They asked if that was the case (They didn't believe it, which is what led me to believe they were from one of the Private Schools found in the region, and were there for the day in our town) what do we as conservatives view as viable alternatives? I offered home schooling, private schools, parochial schools, and school choice. They latched onto private schools, and said not everyone has the money to attend a private school, to which I convivially agreed. I also took that opportunity to remind them that even though Public Schools are “free” in their eyes, Public Schools are funded by money taken from taxpayers by the government. Conservatives would rather see monies given back to taxpayers (instead of to towns or schools) who could then decide, even if they couldn’t afford Private Schools or Home Schooling, which Public or Charter school they wished to send their children to.

They had no answer for this, and pivoted once again to the Electoral college.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
(NOTE: It was about this time, as I was coming back from an errand, that as I approached the Republican Town Committee Booth, I saw it was surrounded by a larger group of teenagers, including the ones who had been there now for around 1-2 hours. They now had an adult with them, and it turned out to be the aforementioned History teacher of their spokesman. This really took these kids down in my estimation. It was like being in a fight you started, and when you lose, you bring your dad back. I lost any respect I might have held out to them. At this point, our RTC Chair had to finally shoo them away because it became clear they were trying to swarm our small contingent of conservatives, and would be egged on by their father. I was told the father did not possess any convincing skills or arguments. He was a Leftist.) However, four of the original guys stood off to the side, and one of them engaged me (out of the way, and then the other three came over to jump in)

One of them (not the prime spokesman, probably the #2 guy) Asked me why are conservatives supporting the Electoral College-it is like affirmative action for minorities, and we are against that?" I countered that it isn’t "affirmative action for voting, because it is cuts across all strata and includes people of all religions, sexes, and races. I said that we are a republic not a democracy and explained how democracy is like 51% of people deciding all children should be murdered, and that can be legally done, and democracy is a form of tyranny that does not protect the rights of the 49% in the minority. Further, I pointed out that the Founders very specifically took a dim view of "democracy" for just that reason, and our Constitution was designed to NOT be directly democratic. He insisted there should be one vote for one person and the Popular Vote should be the law of the land. I countered that would give a disproportionate voice to the large population centers which could tyrannize the smaller ones. I was struggling here, because it has been quite a while since I had a debate with anyone about Electoral vs Popular votes, and they were unconvinced. I suggested he read The Federalist Papers and educated him on what they were and why they were written. I decided that I would not convince him, and said reasonably: "You and I disagree on this. But you know what? I can tell you feel passionately about it. If you feel that way, there is a way to change it. It is built into the Constitution. You can amend the Constitution by getting an amendment put in front of Congress which must approve by a 2/3 vote, and then it goes to the states which 75% of them must agree to before it can get ratified. It is extremely difficult to do, but not impossible. And it was made difficult by design to prevent our founding document from being changed willy-nilly by whoever holds power. I suggest, if you feel that strongly, do it that way. Get involved."

We shook hands and parted amicably.

But resolved to re-read The Federalist Papers, and watched an excellent video from Hillsdale College that explained the Electoral College and why it exists. If I get asked again, I will be better prepared.

MY ENCOUNTER WITH AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER
I had one more interesting encounter before the discussion of the Electoral College I related above.

As I was returning to the booth, I was stopped by a woman who saw my military ball cap and wanted to thank me for our service. I noticed her husband was someone I had seen around town and even in my neighborhood. He was somewhat of an odd duck, and rode around one of those late 19th century bicycles with the huge tire on the front. He usually wore a derby or top hat, and his glasses were steampunk, wire rimmed, with various small magnifying glasses that could be used to view small work. He was riding his bike around at the festival, but I knew him by sight. We had a most pleasant conversation for about twenty minutes, as we walked slowly in the direction of my booth. She and her husband had questions about the military, training, and carrier operations. I can get quite chatty about these things, so we walked slowly and soon, I had to take my leave and said "Well, there's my booth-it has been nice talking with both of you. She looked at the Republican booth, and in a kind of horror and confusion, looked at me an said "You're with those people? How can you support a party that is tearing families apart and deporting them? They are deporting US Citizens! How can you support Trump? He is tearing apart families, they aren't getting due process..." (She became very agitated)

I interjected to say that I supported the deportations, these people were in this country illegally, were violating American laws that were constitutionally passed and on the books, and that if some mistakes were made in deporting millions of people where a US citizen DID get deported, this was going to happen and there were avenues for someone who is a citizen to address it and possibly be awarded damages. I conceded there may have been individual cases, and asked if she knew what the real numbers were, but she declined to answer.

It turned out she was an immigration lawyer and maintained that if even one US citizen deported means we shouldn’t be deporting at all-I should have countered that US citizens are being murdered by illegals, and even one murder by an illegal is one too many and means there shouldn’t be any illegals in the United States at all.

But I didn't say that. Again, I said "You and I will disagree on this. But at least we should be able to discuss the issue." She agreed, and we parted, but...it did not in any way feel as "amicable"!

https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac543cf-569c-83e8-af0c-0758ac3dc4d3

The piece is a first-person account by a Republican activist of political encounters at a small-town festival, particularly a lengthy confrontation with several teenage self-described socialists. The author uses the encounters to argue that young people have been heavily influenced by left-wing ideas without being adequately exposed to opposing economic or political arguments.

Main encounter with the teenagers

The author's Republican Town Committee had a booth with campaign materials, free food and water, books, pocket Constitutions, and a raffle designed to attract people who might otherwise avoid a political booth. A group of four or five teenage boys, whom the author believed were involved in a debate or socialist club, approached and began challenging the Republicans.

The author says the teenagers appeared to use ChatGPT or another AI system during the discussion. While one teenager argued, the others would type on their phones and then introduce new counterarguments. The author deliberately used this to challenge their claims, repeatedly suggesting that they ask ChatGPT to verify particular assertions.

The discussion covered several subjects:

National debt and insider trading: The author argued that insider trading involving politicians was less important than the roughly $40 trillion national debt, much of whose growth he attributed to interest payments. The teenagers appeared unfamiliar with the scale of the debt.
Socialism and economics: The teenagers described themselves as supporters of "limited socialism." The author asked whether they understood economics and found that they did not have a clear definition. He then explained economics in terms of allocating scarce resources.
Prices and markets: Using milk as an example, he explained his view that prices and consumer spending transmit information about demand and automatically direct scarce resources toward different products. He presented this as an example of Adam Smith's "invisible hand."
Rent control: He argued that government price controls reduce incentives to maintain existing rental housing and construct new housing, ultimately producing shortages. The teenagers countered that landlords should simply pay maintenance costs themselves.
Taxation: When the teenagers argued that lower-income Americans bear a disproportionate tax burden, the author told them to ask ChatGPT about the distribution of federal tax payments by income. He says they subsequently abandoned the argument.
Wealth and "greed": The teenagers invoked Christian teachings and Elon Musk's wealth as evidence that extreme wealth is inherently problematic. The author responded that inequality cannot be eliminated simply by redistributing wealth and argued that capitalism channels human self-interest into productive activity.
Denmark and China: When asked to identify a successful socialist country, the teenagers cited Denmark. The author argued that Denmark isn't socialist and had them consult ChatGPT. They then switched to China. The author rejected the characterization of China as capitalist and introduced the experience of a Republican committee member who had grown up in Communist China.
Public schools: The teenagers cited government-funded public schools as an example of successful socialism. The author argued that public education is funded through taxation and advocated alternatives such as homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice.
Electoral College: One teenager compared the Electoral College to affirmative action and argued for a nationwide popular vote. The author defended the Electoral College on the grounds that it prevents large population centers from dominating smaller states. He ultimately acknowledged that he wasn't prepared to win the argument and suggested that the teenager study the Federalist Papers and pursue a constitutional amendment if he wanted to change the system.

The encounter eventually became more confrontational when an adult, identified as the history teacher who was apparently the father of one of the teenagers, joined the group. The author viewed this negatively and says the Republican committee eventually asked the group to leave because they appeared to be overwhelming the booth's smaller group of conservatives.

Immigration lawyer encounter

The author then describes a separate conversation with a woman who initially thanked him for his military service. When she discovered that he was associated with the Republican booth, she became upset and accused Republicans and Trump of tearing families apart and deporting people, including U.S. citizens. She turned out to be an immigration lawyer.

The author responded that he supported deporting people who were illegally in the country and acknowledged that mistakes involving U.S. citizens could occur but argued that there were legal remedies for such mistakes. The lawyer took the position that even one wrongly deported citizen was unacceptable. The conversation ended without agreement, although the author says both acknowledged that they should be able to discuss the issue.

Overall message

The author's central thesis is that young Americans who identify as socialists may possess strong political convictions without having a corresponding understanding of economics, history, or constitutional government. He sees the teenagers' willingness to debate as encouraging, but believes their arguments largely consisted of talking points acquired from their education or political organizations.

He also portrays the encounter as evidence that conservatives need to be better prepared to explain why markets work, how prices allocate resources, the consequences of price controls, the distinction between socialism and mixed-market economies, and the constitutional rationale for institutions such as the Electoral College.

Importantly, the account is the author's recollection and interpretation of the encounters, not an independent verification of the factual claims made by either side.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.