Wheylous as the learned Social Democrat
SM as the right-wing nutjob.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually pretty satisfied with the status quo. We just need some stricter regulations on the banking system and some more money to fix public schools and improve the social safety net. We can do this if we exist foreign interventions and put the money at work at home. Furthermore, remove tax loopholes and stop wasting the SS trust fund.
The regulations in place have not been a safety net for millions of homeowners who had bad mortages in an already tightly controlled system where the state has been in bed with the banks, something that anarcho-capitalists are directly opposed to. How many more ineffective regulations should we have? There always seems to be a loophole that allows for more bad banking practices. More regulations just add to the buereaucracy only making the situation worse. And more money to fix public schools? It has been proven time and time again that money thrown at public schools does absolutely nothing. History shows us that the main purpose of public schools is not to educate, but rather, to indoctrinate. This aside however, the funding of the public schools and regulation of the private schools (the schools which I advocate) is more harmful to the poor in that the funding for these supposedly "free" schools comes from high taxes. Really, the only difference between the two is that the cost of public schooling is spread out over the population of the entire country, and the cost of the private school only affects the family of the student. Abolishing public schools and mandatory schooling laws and replacing it with free-market education would bring us better schools with a better incentive to make the children actually learn something (being that the schools would be depending on the regular payment of the family and not living off of the yearly government payment) and we would be freer too, by not giving up the fruits of our labor by paying for somebody else's bad education through taxation.
Wheylous is a proponant of "improving" the social safety net, which basically means expanding the welfare state. This is a bad idea because, first of all, Wheylous is encouraging people who are on welfare to continue to live off of the public nickel, also known as money that was forcibly taken from working and peaceful people. This only encourages their situation, and therefore the best thing to do would be to return to a truly free-market economy, where these people feel more responsible for their earnings, and more poverty is derailed due to the abolishment of this kind of taxation which can create poverty in the first place.
The regulations in place have not been a safety net for millions of homeowners who had bad mortages in an already tightly controlled system where the state has been in bed with the banks, something that anarcho-capitalists are directly opposed to. How many more ineffective regulations should we have? There always seems to be a loophole that allows for more bad banking practices. More regulations just add to the buereaucracy only making the situation worse.
Oh, do not mistake my statement. I think we should improve our regulations. They were obviously inadequate for stopping the Great Recession, so we need smarter regulation. It is true that regulation can at some point stifle businesses. That's why we need smarter and more targeted regulation. Not just "more" regulation. The loopholes you point out are just one example of things that need to be fixed - the system is a leaky one.
And more money to fix public schools? It has been proven time and time again that money thrown at public schools does absolutely nothing.
You claim that history has shown that more money doesn't lead to better schools, yet you fail to cite any sources. I can claim random things too, if I so wanted.
But even disregarding that, I definitely agree that we need structural reform in the United States. Look at Finland - they are able to provide one of the best (if not the best) education systems for a smaller cost than the US is. However, US teachers are not paid enough for the job they do, and that is part of the problem. We drive all our smartest people away from teaching because of our terrible education system. It needs to be fixed.
History shows us that the main purpose of public schools is not to educate, but rather, to indoctrinate.
So what if that is what they have been historically? The point is what we can make them now - places where our young can learn. Education boosts human capital and thus production - something from which we all benefit. And how can you really claim that schools indoctrinate - wouldn't we then just have the Democrats or the Republicans if that were the case? Instead, we have states which furiously teach opposing ideas.
This aside however, the funding of the public schools and regulation of the private schools (the schools which I advocate) is more harmful to the poor in that the funding for these supposedly "free" schools comes from high taxes.
Again, more claims without any substance to them. Thank you come again.
Really, the only difference between the two is that the cost of public schooling is spread out over the population of the entire country, and the cost of the private school only affects the family of the student.
Thanks for making my point for me - if we have private schools, the entire cost of the schooling would fall on the shoulders of poor families, not on everyone. Do you think everyone can afford private school?
Abolishing public schools and mandatory schooling laws and replacing it with free-market education would bring us better schools with a better incentive to make the children actually learn something (being that the schools would be depending on the regular payment of the family and not living off of the yearly government payment) and we would be freer too, by not giving up the fruits of our labor by paying for somebody else's bad education through taxation.
Once again you claim something without any backing. And what if the schools (if any) for the poor people don't have the money for books and technology? We'd create a caste system in the US. That's not what I or anyone else wants. Is that what you want?
This is a bad idea because, first of all, Wheylous is encouraging people who are on welfare to continue to live off of the public nickel, also known as money that was forcibly taken from working and peaceful people. This only encourages their situation, and therefore the best thing to do would be to return to a truly free-market economy, where these people feel more responsible for their earnings, and more poverty is derailed due to the abolishment of this kind of taxation which can create poverty in the first place.
Wait, you're claiming that taxing people is what made them poor? Don't make me laugh.
You talk about providing subsidies to the unemployed, and it is true that paying people who are unemployed will likely increase the number of unemployed by some small amount or will result in the currently unemployed being unemployed for longer. However, it allows them more time to search for jobs, which means they will find a better match for their skills, which will improve the economic allocation of human capital.
Furthermore, even if it does have that effect, it's just basic human respect for each other that we do this. If people are starving and without a roof over their head, I mean, come on, we live in America, we will provide for these people.
And your logic is not very sound, either. Should we remove private charity too? Because that's also a subsidy to the poor which makes them poor for longer. Your logic would say yes. I think this is despicable. Private charity should continue to exist, as should the welfare state.
So far, you've made completely unfounded claims and relied on some mythical free market which makes everyone rich. I hope you improve your performance and open up your eyes to the real world, or there's nothing much more to debate.
no u
?
Let's face it dude, I thought I was ready and I'm not.
Ding Ding Ding!
Another point for Statist Wheylous!
Social Democrats 2
Anarcho-wingnuts 0.
How much more beating can they take?
*Volunman wipes the blood off of his face, gets up while Dr. DemoRAT jumps up and down in percieved glory...*
WAM!
SHAZAM!
BAGAM!
Volunman has saved the day once again!
In your dreams, you capitalist pig!
See, this is the kind of stuff I find all the time on RevLeft...pre-teen nitwits telling me how they will castrate me and drag my pathetic body throughout the streets of post-red revolution USA, with a carving on my chest that says "Capitalist pig".
The approach I would have taken would have been more of a Socratic one (I hope I'm using that term correctly - I mean asking questions and stuff).
Why? Because your opponent is usually very ignorant of his own ideology. In high school debate, a lot of teams ran communism plans (ie, turn the US into a communist nation). I learned over time that they had no idea how these would work. Just keep asking them both theoretical and factual questions.
Take what I wrote initially:
Let's deconstruct this:
We just need some stricter regulations on the banking system
Q1: Why do you think more regulations will fix the problem?
Likely reply1: Well, they obviously weren't enough!
Q2: Enough to do what? What problem was it that they needed to solve?
LR2: Enough to prevent the crisis.
Q3: What caused the crisis?
LR3: Unregulated financial markets!
Q4: Explain to me how unregulated financial markets
LR4: Uhm.... Banks were too big and took on too much risk.
Q5: And?
LR5: And they failed...
Q6: Why did they fail?
LR6: Because a few deals went bad.
Q7: How can just a few deals destroy the banking sector? Wouldn't they have an interest in spreading out risk? They want to make money in the long term too, not just the short term.
At this point, they probably have given up on this line of attack.
Alternatively, you could also have asked (somewhere in that sequence) -
Q: Have you considered the possibility that government was responsible for this mess?
They probably have not. Continue by explaining the basics of ABCT (make sure to stress the fact that the Fed helps big corporations!).
Next!
some more money to fix public schools
Q1: Why do you think more money will fix the system
LR1: Well, we first need to change how American education works and then add more money
Q2: If we're changing American education so much, how will you know at all that after the change we still need more money?
LR2: (Probably a terrible answer)
And then you engage the other line of debate:
Q3: How will you change the US system of education?
LR3: Create a centralized curriculum.
Q4: Why do you think the curriculum is the problem?
LR4: (I have no idea what they would say)
so on to another possible answer to Q3:
LR3: Pay teachers more
Q4: Why do you think that this is a necessary change?
LR4: Smart people are driven away from teaching. We need high quality teachers.
Q5: It seems that people are driven away from teaching for other reasons, not pay. Why not focus on the other problems in our education system instead?
LR5: Like what?
Q6: Well, (insert argument here). What I personally like is the argument that the most education systems are assembly lines where inherently heterogeneous inputs are taken and treated the same way.
See here:
I have other things I dislike about American education, but those are symptoms rather than root problems (lack of student engagement, etc).
Here are my sources on education:
http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php?listID=9
At some point in the discussion, breach the issue of the free market as a discovery process. Once the inevitable attacks against it come, use the resources in the link above.
improve the social safety net
I would concede this argument for the moment (at least in this debate. If this were a competition debate, you can't afford to drop it. But then again, if this were a competition debate, you could just decide that your side isn't against the social safety net and you could be like "no debate there").
The reason I recommend dropping this for the moment is that it's a contentious and tough topic that is more difficult to discuss. In either case, if you want sources on welfare, see
http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php?listID=24
We can do this if we exist foreign interventions
Make sure to say that you agree. It builds a common base of understanding from which you can build.
Furthermore, remove tax loopholes and stop wasting the SS trust fund.
You don't have to address these. Well, you can agree to stopping the waste of the SS fund, but don't breach tax loopholes. If you get the opponent to see that you don't need more money for social programs, then you can argue even for decreasing taxes.
Since the initial shots by me in the debate were rather casual (and not in a competition), I would take time to explore the other person's worldview. Force them to see that they don't know much about it, and then plug it up with bits of libertarianism here and there. Then, show them how they connect and build a larger worldview.
One caveat: this works well only if the person you are debating is by himself. If you are debating against 20 people at once, this will not work because they will pull you in 20 different directions and the meaning in the discussion and self-questioning will disappear.'
I will address my replies as well, but a little later.
lol
Okay, you want to try again with the Socratic Method?
Sure, I can do that.
I'm not promising that my replies will be the same ones as above, though!
Go ahead with you first reply to my original post.
I was going to ask if you could please be a Marxist now.
Oh come on. I do not know their ideology, so I cannot be a proper Marxist.
But fine, if you want to pleasure yourself, I'll be the Marxist (or at least a poor strawman of the Marxist).
Here I go:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should establish a communist society.
Oh come on dude, that's no Marxist.
Here's a good example:
"WORKERS, UNITE! FUCK CAPITALISTS, THOSE GREEDY CUN*S! WE SHALL PREVAIL BY THE FIST OF THE PEOPLE!
But I'll respond to your cheesy Marxist impression anyways...
Why do you think a communist society should be established?
EDIT
By the way, if you want to really want to know how to act like a true Marxist-Leninist, take a trip to RevLeft. If you don't stick a needle in your eye, come back here guns a-blazin'.
Life would be a lot more fair under communal ownership of the means of production. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
And are you okay with people being coerced into this system?
SM - doesn't seem that bad:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/politics-f14/index.html?f=14
(in character in reply to your question)
What do you mean?
@ sane you
Oh yeah? Try posting something just remotely in favor of Austrianism/the free-market, and see if things "aren't that bad."
@ insane you
What I mean is, are you okay with peaceful people who do not want to be involved with your communist system being forced to join in and work "for the people" as you say?
I still don't understand what you mean "forced to work for the people".
Here is how the system would be in general - you have ownership over your personal goods, but the capital goods of your cooperative factory are owned together.
If you do not want to work, that is your option, but you will not eat, in that case.
Man, you really don't know how to talk like a Marxist.
But anyways...
How do you distinguish between this system and slavery?
I don't see how this is related to slavery at all. Please explain.
Yes but what is your definition of slavery?
I didn't bring up slavery, you did. You define slavery.
No YOU define slavery. I asked first.
This is childish. Why would I need to define terms that I didn't first use? And I don't see the point in this, but ok.
Slavery is forced labor. People force you to do something against your own will.
And you said before (in a not-so-clear manner) that in a communist society, the product of my labor will be...steered. If this is against my will, how do you distinguish this from slavery? Do you believe there is some sort of exception for your system that distinguishes it from slavery, despite the fact that you just contradicted yourself?
I'm in the online chat in case anyone wants to join. "Let's get this party started."
Clayton -
What will we be talking about?
And by the way, I'm in there.
@Skeptical: No toipc, it was just a general invitation to anyone online right now. You bounced before I could respond.
Well, I'm back.
Sorry, but I beat it fast. That chat was getting a little too whimsical.
No one forces you to work in any factory. You can choose which factory you work in. And everyone receives an equal wage.
Yes but equal wages are the product of your communist government messing around with the fruits of my labor and "distributing" them. Could you specify on why that is not theft? If you believe that that is not theft, what is your definition of theft?
Communist government? I don't know what you're talking about. In communism you don't have a government. Each factory has its own democratic control by the workers. It's not exploitation - no one is getting more than another!
How do you think this is not restrictive?
Once again, explain to me how this is restrictive.