CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
They seem to trust government far more than they do the American people.
It makes sense to think that there needs to be law and order, it doesn't make sense to to think that that law and order go against the interests of people who do no harm to others.
Liberalism is about huge and parasitic government with more control over the electorate with intense central planning. Therefore, freedom and liberty are anathema to their values. They even may have nightmares about freedom.
Utopian liberals view the Constitution not as safeguard to our liberties, but as an annoying obstacle to their utopian goals of concentrating power and central planning in the federal government to empower them and implement their grandiose visions. Liberals only champion the Constitution when it serves their larger ends like the use of the misinterpreted Commerce and General Welfare Clause.
Actually, I know a lot about liberalism, I was one at one time myself some 7 years ago until I was directed towards reality with a book called The Law by Frederic Basitat. Liberals live in fantasy land in collectivity.
No, you are living in a fantasy land. You think government is some entity that's out to get you. It's not. You're delusional. You should probably be checked for tumors or something which is making you this way.
If government is not out to destroy freedom, then why there was in 2011, 100,000 pages of new regulations passed just by the federal government?
Because you cannot destroy something that's worth nothing. The freedom to damage yourself is worth nothing is all it accomplishes is damaging yourself. The government regulates so that people can be safer.
Or, well, attempts at least.
If our government was really trying to destroy our freedom why haven't we just collapsed and reformed several times like Russia?
It depends on the liberal democrat. I know it's so easy to slap a name on a group of people and act like they're all the same and have the same views and motivations.
And why is it so ingrained in human nature to believe that the other side hates everything good and wants evil? The picture/definition above is disappointing. Though it sometimes may seem that liberal democrats don't like America or Americans. It's not true for most people. It's quite tempting for me to think that(because it feels so right) and I used to think that way to be honest.
I like America + Liberals annoy me = Liberals hate america and everything good and they're a threat against those things.
A + B does not = C. If it did it wouldn't take much critical thinking, reasoning, or compromise on my part.
I could choose to be lazy and give into the prototypical bandwagon of conformity or I could accept the fact that my perception of the world is not pure truth.
So back to the question my answer would be: kind of.
What kind of freedom are we talking about?
A free market economy? Small government? This is clearly feared by the majority of those on the left. But of course they don't fear individual freedom. Though they may oppose certain things like gun rights etc. They could argue the same for those on the right.
In my experience most liberals conger up images of a fat white slob in a wife beeter sitting on his couch watching fox with a blank look on his face and drool on his chin, or "stupid white people" compositely and mindlessly buying whatever they see on TV while dumping their pills down the toilet, throwing trash out of their car windows, putting a cross on the wall in every room of their house and having a deep fear of sex and talking to their children, when the words "America" or "American" is uttered. To them that is what it means to be an "American"......but they are not stereotyping, they are to "open minded" for that!
Democrats love the idea of coercion and hate the idea of freedom. They will never admit their love affair of government. Just go ask those over there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Freedom of individuals to make their own choices and suffer the consequences, to spend their own money and suffer the cosequences, to eat what they want and suffer the consequences,etc,etc.
They believe that through legislation they can limit those consequences but this action takes aways one's freedoms.
You might want to say "Centrist Democrats", not "Liberal Democrats". Democrats are traitors to liberals just like Republicans are traitors to conservatives.
Okay. Prayerfails doesn't know what Liberalism is. Now you don't know what socialism is.
And will you fuck knobs quit serial downvoting me every time I come to one of prayerfails hate speaches?
Seriously. Sorry for interupting the paranoid "everyone's out to get me its the end of the world blah blah" circle jerk but at least someone has to talk sense to you morons.
In pursuit of my degree I've come across a couple of studies showing that Conservative types have larger Amygdalas that can attribute to fear and other emotions. However, this doesn't prove that Conservatives will make choices out of fear.
As well, I find it quite paranoid to believe that big government is necessary to keep the world from crumbling (explaining the regulations on guns, drugs, the market, sexual lifestyles, etc.)
Everyone seems to have their reasoning for why government must take over. But in the realm of thought of Classical Liberals, a powerful government is far more detrimental than a current human stain. Drugs seemed like a problem back when they were legal, especially things like morphine, cocaine, and heroin, but the attempt of government to keep these things out of our hands has greatly harmed society far more. It is not about fearing that the government is out to get us, it's about recognizing that government should be greatly limited in its power over us no matter how bad things might seem at first.
Yes, that the section of the brain which is associated with fear is more active during decision making does have a correlation as to whether one is conservative or whether one is liberal. Of course there could be other reasons, but if you do not see the obvious and unfounded fear prayerfails harbors toward all things collectively done from street lights to school you've not been paying attention... which would be odd because you're one of the few to reply to his deluge of I-hate-government debates.
And I fundamentally disagree with the very premise constantly put forth that liberals believe government "must take over."
Some things people collectively do better. I argue roads, schools, military, enforcing law, putting out fire, etc. Some things they do not, like selling clothes or doing phone surveys, whatever it may be. And there are still more things where a delicate balance between private and public is desirable, to varying degrees. Either way though we are government so its not some foreign evil entity taking over, it's collectively agreed upon mass populace takeover we call government.
Because the extreme position of "all government is evil" has so taken root over the past couple of decades (among those with an IQ 6-10 points lower than the national average and whom also base decisions on fear I might add to be half as insulting but more based in reality than this entire debate), does not necessarily or in reality equate the opposite being true of liberals.
It's only when compared to the extremes prayerfails exhibits that my position is automatically assumed to be equally extreme. The equivalence is false.
Government can be a useful tool and offers the regular people a means to some power when it is some form of democracy and corruption is limited. We are one such country luckily. There is no reason to not wisely use government. Knee-jerk "all government is bad" idealogies are not wise, and I suspect far more based in fear of government than any form of liberalism is based in the utterly silly notion of "fear of freedom."
Yes, that the section of the brain which is associated with fear is more active during decision making does have a correlation as to whether one is conservative or whether one is liberal.
Your first link hardly used specific scientific studies to point out that fear is used to make decisions; all it did was use old data (ironically from your second link) to interpret an idea that Conservatives are fear mongerers.
I like your second link because it pointed out the only scientific thing about your claim (and I'm putting words in your mouth for your own sake), that Conservatives have a larger Amygdala.
Now, I don't know how much you've studied on the Amygdala, but it's role in the brain goes far beyond "fear." The Amygdala is a regulator in the brain for emotions. Not only emotions currently felt, but emotions felt in the past or even imagined emotions. A weak Amygdala can contribute to high levels of neurosis and hysteria. Someone who's been through traumatic experiences would be in constant fear at random moments if they have a smaller Amygdala. Those with a larger and stronger Amygdala would be able to control those emotions better.
The Amygdala also helps with threat assessment. As your second link explained, Conservatives, because of this, are better at recognizing threats. Now, this isn't to say that a large Amygdala would make you a great Watch-Dog. This could, at times, instead cause overreaction. However, your first link implies that this is always the case when truly it isn't.
Some things people collectively do better.
This has only been proven to be true when it's voluntary. This is why, actually, Bush avoided the draft. He said that a voluntary military is far more effective than a non-voluntary military. In some ways this proved to be true in comparison to Vietnam. However, this can be attributed to other things.
I argue roads, schools, military, enforcing law, putting out fire, etc.
I say no, they aren't.
Specifics, please. You never responded to my other point in another debate where I went after some of these things specifically.
But the American War machine is hardly a good thing. Not to say that we're better off without a military, but we're certainly not good with what we currently have.
Same thing with law enforcement.
And fire fighters are at a county level AT MOST. This is the only reason why we hardly have any problems with them. However, Liberals do not advocate County large government sectors.
Even so, the fire departments throw away most of our money. They are far from perfect.
Schools... I've said a lot about schools in my many years here. Nothing I've ever heard you ever make any contrary statement. Is it that easy to say "big government is good... schools!"?
it's collectively agreed upon mass populace takeover we call government.
Not exactly. The United States was founded on a Constitution that allows for a Democratic Republic. However, the Constitution was written to prevent the government from becoming large enough to become too powerful. The first, and only, rewrite that the Founding Fathers advocated was to eliminate the Articles of Confederation in order to have a more reliable military.
They feared this rewrite because already they were going against their very principles, but they were very much against the Federal government as it currently stands, with agencies such as the FBI, ATF, FDA, and various unwarranted commerce regulations. The Bill of Rights was only rejected by the Federalists because they felt that the Constitution was good enough to prevent government from becoming powerful enough to take away any of those specific rights. They feared that writing a Bill of Rights would focus too much attention on those rights being the only inalienable rights. It was about a statement that government can not seize any of your individuality or property.
Because the extreme position of "all government is evil" has so taken root over the past couple of decades (among those with an IQ 6-10 points lower than the national average and whom also base decisions on fear I might add to be half as insulting but more based in reality than this entire debate), does not necessarily or in reality equate the opposite being true of liberals.
I agree that Conservatives who support big government (war on drugs, war on porn, war on terror, gay marriage, christian authority, etc.) are probably more dumb than Liberals who just want higher government action in economics, but the link shows that fiscal conservatives, Liberal or not, are more intelligent than those who want more government involvement in the economy. Another article that talks about Libertarian reasoning.
So really, looks like, sure, maybe Conservatives with all their Jesus loving and drug hating are not as smart as Liberals who tend to not love Jesus as much and trade it for drug use, but it doesn't seem to have to do with disliking government. In fact, Mensa has a disproportionate amount of Libertarians.
Instead, attacks on personal liberty, which Conservatives do slightly more than Liberals, is what makes one stupid.
It's only when compared to the extremes prayerfails exhibits that my position is automatically assumed to be equally extreme. The equivalence is false.
Well, even compared to my views your views are pretty far to the left. On personal liberty, I would say that I'm probably more Liberal than you, but economics you fall on the opposite spectrum of me. I differ from PrayerFails because I do not agree with him, and I tell him when I don't. But I disagree with you even more... it only makes sense because you are far from my views while he is only a more extreme version of me when it comes to economics.
Accompanying the physiological differences were deep differences on hot-button political issues: military expansion, the Iraq war, gun control, capital punishment, the Patriot act, warrantless searches, foreign aid, abortion rights, gay marriage, premarital sex and pornography.
"People are experiencing the world, experiencing threat, differently," said University of Nebraska political scientist John Hibbing. "We have very different physiological orientations."
That psychological orientation, as the studies show, means conservatives are pussies and afraid. There is no study showing that liberals have below average sized Amygdala however, that is a red herring you threw in. Ours are likely mostly normal size. Hence the understanding that some balance can be struck on political issues, ie, government isn't evil and out to get you and at the same time individual freedom is important.
Prayerfails is arguing against something which does not exist, a master liberal plan for government to control everything. He is the one basing these very debates on fear, yet saying liberals are the ones who are afraid.
Liberalism is more freedom, not less, because it mostly pursues things which empower the most people through better educations, better pay, better health. These are the things that make one "free."
This has only been proven to be true when it's voluntary. This is why, actually, Bush avoided the draft. He said that a voluntary military is far more effective than a non-voluntary military. In some ways this proved to be true in comparison to Vietnam. However, this can be attributed to other things.
First, no. Even if one is forced to say, help move a rock, the rock is still moved quicker with two people than one. That your very premise is incorrect aside, who the fuck said military shouldn't be voluntary? This has nothing to do with my point whatsoever. Are you saying Liberals are for more war and a draft? If so you've fallen as deep into crazytown as prayerfails.
More to the point paying for the military is not voluntary. Are you arguing it should be? And whom would pay voluntary soldiers should people decide they don't want to pay?
I say no, they aren't.
Specifics, please. You never responded to my other point in another debate where I went after some of these things specifically.
I don't have time to re-explain the exact same thing only to get downvoted 5 times per reply by morons, so I didn't but I guess I will now.
But the American War machine is hardly a good thing. Not to say that we're better off without a military, but we're certainly not good with what we currently have.
And who are you arguing against? I think the military should be smaller. I also think we need to have a military. Did you even read what you replied to? What's so hard about the concept of balance?
Same thing with law enforcement.
Okay...
And fire fighters are at a county level AT MOST. This is the only reason why we hardly have any problems with them. However, Liberals do not advocate County large government sectors.
Do you advocate County large government sectors? Are we in bizzarro world? You're saying now that "ah the evil liberals want less government!" It makes no sense. To my knowledge the fire fighter system is working pretty well as is in most places, at least those where psycho t-bagger reps aren't trying to get rid of it to save $5/person in taxes or whatever.
Even so, the fire departments throw away most of our money. They are far from perfect
Nothing's perfect. It's not throwing money away though. We individually pay practically nothing for the service of, should there be a fire, they will put it out and maybe save a few people. If you were to hire a personal fireman to follow you around in case of a fire you would need to be a multi-millionaire. This is an example of when collectively we save tons and tons and tons of money and get better service thanks to taxes and government. So thanks for supporting my point.
Schools... I've said a lot about schools in my many years here. Nothing I've ever heard you ever make any contrary statement. Is it that easy to say "big government is good... schools!"?
Yes it is. If schools are only a private for-profit industry it will revert to, as it was for centuries, a case where only the wealthy can afford schools. This means 80% of the population or more will grow up not reading, writing, doing math, etc. Just like it was for centuries. Economies will stagnate, invention and breakthroughs in science will all but stop.
Again, sure, you'll save 200, 300 in taxes. Is it worth it? Well history says no.
Not exactly. The United States was founded on a Constitution that allows for a Democratic Republic. However, the Constitution was written to prevent the government from becoming large enough to become too powerful. The first, and only, rewrite that the Founding Fathers advocated was to eliminate the Articles of Confederation in order to have a more reliable military.
They feared this rewrite because already they were going against their very principles, but they were very much against the Federal government as it currently stands, with agencies such as the FBI, ATF, FDA, and various unwarranted commerce regulations. The Bill of Rights was only rejected by the Federalists because they felt that the Constitution was good enough to prevent government from becoming powerful enough to take away any of those specific rights. They feared that writing a Bill of Rights would focus too much attention on those rights being the only inalienable rights. It was about a statement that government can not seize any of your individuality or property.
What does that have to do with anything I've said? Have I advocated seizing rights or property? Why do you keep going off about stuff I'm not talking about?
You were replying to my explanation of government as something agreed upon by us, the people who decide what the government is and who represents us. The Constitution is again a great example of what I'm saying. Yet you are describing it as if it does not support my point.
Not necessarily.
I agree that Conservatives who support big government (war on drugs, war on porn, war on terror, gay marriage, christian authority, etc.) are probably more dumb than Liberals who just want higher government action in economics, but the link shows that fiscal conservatives, Liberal or not, are more intelligent than those who want more government involvement in the economy. Another article that talks about Libertarian reasoning.
So really, looks like, sure, maybe Conservatives with all their Jesus loving and drug hating are not as smart as Liberals who tend to not love Jesus as much and trade it for drug use, but it doesn't seem to have to do with disliking government. In fact, Mensa has a disproportionate amount of Libertarians.
Instead, attacks on personal liberty, which Conservatives do slightly more than Liberals, is what makes one stupid.
This has shown the difference in class intelligence, not actual political leaning. Not sure why the writer tried to pawn it off as such. The questions are stated in such a way also, that I, a liberal, would have scored on the libertarian side. It tried to dumb things down too much to make the answers worthwhile.
That psychological orientation, as the studies show, means conservatives are pussies and afraid.
No it didn't...
There is no study showing that liberals have below average sized Amygdala
Considering that Conservatives take about 40% of the nation... their Amygdala would represent the rough average.
That was hardly my point. an average sized Amygdala isn't good or bad. You seem to still have little understanding on how the Amygdala works...
the rock is still moved quicker with two people than one.
If a hundred people are trying to move 10 rocks and 50 of them don't want to be there, it's going to make it much more difficult for the other 50.
Have you done any studying on social loafing? Not exactly the same example, but another great explanation as to why more isn't necessarily better.
Do you advocate County large government sectors? Are we in bizzarro world?
I feel that you haven't read anything I've ever said... ever... my god.
If schools are only a private for-profit industry it will revert to, as it was for centuries, a case where only the wealthy can afford schools.
Absolutely no evidence of this. Public schools have been provided by the public sector since the 1600s in the United States. While voluntary at first, it simply wasn't a demand of the time. Corporations didn't demand that people have a high-school degree to do mediocre jobs. The uneducated were commonly employed for a long time until public schools started becoming more funded and a mandatory requirement for all American children. This then brought the issue of Universities, where businesses most often demand that someone have a college degree in order to be employed. Universities are not free, so this has created a huge problem for the lower class anyway. The Middle Class can make it so long as they put themselves in debt, and the higher class are, of course, at no worries.
Educational mandates and regulation greatly harm any potential for private schools to try and open up. In New Jersey, known for the highest in public funding, it is practically impossible to open up a private or even charter school due to the regulations. As well, the public schools have provided some of the lowest scores in the country due to the major reliance on public schooling along with inefficient spending.
This hegemony that the mainstream have adapted for education is the biggest problem for a free people. Now we are practically at the mercy of the State to put our children through a system just so that they are ready for another system, two systems that some of us (Marxist or not) can be very against.
But to you, none of this is a concern. I get it, but I suppose that's the biggest issue with collectivist thinking. Our beliefs don't matter to you, so long as we continue to fund your beliefs.
Again, sure, you'll save 200, 300 in taxes. Is it worth it? Well history says no.
History doesn't say this. And it's not even about tax dollars. It's about freeing the market.
If education is really that much of a right to you, why not advocate a voucher system that would greatly increase competition and save us on tax dollars?
Have I advocated seizing rights or property?
Yes, you believe in collectivism. I don't have to point out the other debates where you talk on how it's okay to ban fast food or w/e, just because in this very debate you've advocated collectivism and strong Federalism forcing the entire lot of people to pay for furnishings that they don't believe in, something that Thomas Jefferson called "tyrannical."
Democracy is not a good system. This is why the Constitution was written. To prevent the tyranny of the majority. to say that it's okay for government to have so many powers just because we're a democracy is completely ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This has shown the difference in class intelligence, not actual political leaning. Not sure why the writer tried to pawn it off as such. The questions are stated in such a way also, that I, a liberal, would have scored on the libertarian side. It tried to dumb things down too much to make the answers worthwhile.
Be more specific, I've provided three different links with three different studies. Are you talking about the IQ tests or the Mensa scores?
Considering that Conservatives take about 40% of the nation... their Amygdala would represent the rough average.
That was hardly my point. an average sized Amygdala isn't good or bad. You seem to still have little understanding on how the Amygdala works...
Average doesn't mean normal necessarily, or optimal certainly. I argue it's a problem. I think the study highlights why conservatives are also endlessly fearing something from commies to terrorists to the French to gays. So you have an area of the brain which does have to do with fear (and other things okay) and you have a group of people that are always scared. Seems a huge coincidence. And when was the last time liberals ran a campaign on fear? On the other guy is dumb sure, but nothing like "that person isn't like us! ooh scary!" "ooh, all your kids are going to be homosexual prostitutes if gays can get married, scary!" etc. I'm seeing a definite basis here.
I feel that you haven't read anything I've ever said... ever... my god.
I read it. Your argument supported the role of government, County government, in supporting firemen and trying to position me so it would seem I did not support it. I pointed that out.
Absolutely no evidence of this. Public schools have been provided by the public sector since the 1600s in the United States. While voluntary at first, it simply wasn't a demand of the time. Corporations didn't demand that people have a high-school degree to do mediocre jobs. The uneducated were commonly employed for a long time until public schools started becoming more funded and a mandatory requirement for all American children. This then brought the issue of Universities, where businesses most often demand that someone have a college degree in order to be employed. Universities are not free, so this has created a huge problem for the lower class anyway. The Middle Class can make it so long as they put themselves in debt, and the higher class are, of course, at no worries.
Agreed. Which is why higher education should be voluntary and free for all. Pay teachers more. Demand a Doctorate for Graduate + education. Pay for it by cutting military and returning to the 1990's tax rate and you can cut the debt at the same time... another evil liberal scheme, muhahahaha >_<
Educational mandates and regulation greatly harm any potential for private schools to try and open up. In New Jersey, known for the highest in public funding, it is practically impossible to open up a private or even charter school due to the regulations. As well, the public schools have provided some of the lowest scores in the country due to the major reliance on public schooling along with inefficient spending.
No, public schools get lower scores because of socio-economic issues. Studies actually find there is no discernible difference between the test scores of the upper middle class in private schools and in public schools. The difference is the poor and those in bad neighborhoods overwhelmingly can only go to public school, come from broken homes where they're not read to and don't get internet etc. and bring down the overall test scores. But where else can they go? Underfunding schools only increases this gap. Leaving schooling up to private markets only creates a middle-man that needs to make money so vouchers would either end up costing more, or schools would close completely in poor neighborhoods where there is no financial incentive to open a school.
This hegemony that the mainstream have adapted for education is the biggest problem for a free people. Now we are practically at the mercy of the State to put our children through a system just so that they are ready for another system, two systems that some of us (Marxist or not) can be very against.
Sure. I kind of agree. Dumb people in a democracy = dumb democracy... cite the Bush years and Tea Party. There are however examples of very successful educations systems around the world, Finland, Japan, etc. None of the most successful examples have all privatized education. I also don't see private industry chomping at the bits to start schools in developing nations like India because they think it's a great way to make a buck. Education is important, and it is not something capitalism can provide through magic. It needs to be an agreed-upon social service we collectively pay for because it's good for society as a whole.
But to you, none of this is a concern. I get it, but I suppose that's the biggest issue with collectivist thinking. Our beliefs don't matter to you, so long as we continue to fund your beliefs.
If I believe I should be allowed to burn my kids with hot pokers, it's my belief. I shouldn't have to pay taxes that are just used on child services to take away the kids I burn with a hot poker ._.
I mean... what are we talking about here? No-school or only pay-as-you-go school? Okay, I'll give you that. In that way I'm a socialist and believe even if one never wants kids and never went to school themselves, part of their taxes should still fund school.
History doesn't say this. And it's not even about tax dollars. It's about freeing the market.
I disagree. Greater advancement I believe is the result of better overall education in large part. I don't believe markets dictate an educated populace is necessary therefore education increases. It's a cause/effect disagreement. I believe that the rapidity of recent human advancement is due to better education for more people, and the long, long, long sort of stagnation of innovation prior to the Industrial Revolution was due to a lack of that. Therefore history shows education helps society. Freeing what market? Where's this market to educate kids who can't afford an education?
If education is really that much of a right to you, why not advocate a voucher system that would greatly increase competition and save us on tax dollars?
As above, I don't believe the market would see a need to educate in poor areas and in inner cities. I also believe that, with a free market, small towns in States like Texas would be free to teach kids the Bible 24/7 and nothing about math, computers, etc and those poor kids will be stuck poor and dumb. If someone could figure out a way to ensure the poor and inner city kids are not abandoned, that there is some way to hold private companies to a standard of education beyond how much money they make, and that the temptation to make more money would not be so great that they simply lie about test results, I'd consider it.
Yes, you believe in collectivism. I don't have to point out the other debates where you talk on how it's okay to ban fast food or w/e, just because in this very debate you've advocated collectivism and strong Federalism forcing the entire lot of people to pay for furnishings that they don't believe in, something that Thomas Jefferson called "tyrannical."
You're greatly exaggerating the junk food point I made. The point is, State by State we say you can only sell X-proof alcohol for instance. My point is, why is this different? More people die from being fat than drinking too much alcohol after all. My point is it is hypocritical to cry about food police when its the same people who'd vote for keeping marijuana illegal every time.
Make it a free for all, or you can't complain when majorities in certain areas want to regulate something you may or may not agree with. Sure, you're probably for a free for all, but it's not going to happen, so in lieu, I'd need a stronger example of how regulating junk food is different than regulating alcohol or anything else.
Be more specific, I've provided three different links with three different studies. Are you talking about the IQ tests or the Mensa scores?
The one with the charts indicating the answers to a series of questions. I said the name of the blog in the last argument but don't know it off hand.
"that the section of the brain which is associated with fear is more active during decision making does have a correlation as to whether one is conservative or whether one is liberal"
Correlation is not causation. A common misconception.
"Of course there could be other reasons, but if you do not see the obvious and unfounded fear prayerfails harbors toward all things collectively done from street lights to school"
Yeah.. We could be reasonable. Or we could use an extreme example of somebody you disagree with. You make everything about radicals. They're easy to make fun of I guess.. easy to debate? But what about people like me and pyg who aren't waving I hate lib flags?
I just rarely ever see you compromise and meet anyone in the middle. It's like you're more attracted to these kind of debates where you can put things into a black and white perspective. People like prayer fails (and the old me) are the ones you just love to hate. It takes less effort to attack black from white rather than sort out those pesky gray differences. (;
ps: I do like your point that we are the government. It's kind of like the reify theory. Where we often put a label or title on something and act as though it's a real and separate thing. (Though the government is a real thing) It's just not a healthy way to think.
Correlation is not causation. A common misconception.
Sure, individually. But not in large groups. If 1,000 people drink from the same well and 900 get Cholera, the well is infected it is safe to say.
Yeah.. We could be reasonable. Or we could use an extreme example of somebody you disagree with. You make everything about radicals. They're easy to make fun of I guess.. easy to debate? But what about people like me and pyg who aren't waving I hate lib flags?
I just rarely ever see you compromise and meet anyone in the middle. It's like you're more attracted to these kind of debates where you can put things into a black and white perspective. People like prayer fails (and the old me) are the ones you just love to hate. It takes less effort to attack black from white rather than sort out those pesky gray differences. (;
Got it. But actually I argue the same way with Gary777 (I think that's the right person) who is an extreme far left liberal. The difference is, when there is a far left ideology they get gang raped. Prayerfails has ten debates a day about the evil meeting me and my liberal cohorts hold to wickedly plot the end of his freedom... and none but I and occassionally Akula(sp) will dare point out the insanity, and I at least get a flurry of downvotes and misdirected arguments for my effort.
ps: I do like your point that we are the government. It's kind of like the reify theory. Where we often put a label or title on something and act as though it's a real and separate thing. (Though the government is a real thing) It's just not a healthy way to think.
We're government. It is what we make it. It's not some evil thing to "proceed against"
That you think it is despite the length humanity has come with government from longer lives to less poverty, kinda backs up my theory you're paranoid and the one who is afraid.
If you are referring to Democracy, it has failed miserably, Democracy is really tyranny of the majority.
Therefore, doesn't matter what kind of government, it is obtrusive and coercive, the only tool it has. This is opposite of voluntary and free. THEREFORE, YOU OBJECT TO FREEDOM!! The object to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
That you think it is despite the length humanity has come with government from longer lives to less poverty
Government is not responsible for longer lives to less poverty, it is the exact opposite, markets and capitalism are the reason for longer lives and less poverty.
Name one system in the history of humanity that has ever worked better than the various forms of democracy... one.
Government is not responsible for longer lives to less poverty, it is the exact opposite, markets and capitalism are the reason for longer lives and less poverty.
I nor liberals in general are anti-capitalism, despite your insane characterizations. However, without a means of balancing power, capitalism quickly becomes financial slavery of the many for the few. This means those without live shorter lives and have less money. There is no immediate incentive for "capitalism" to, say, educate the kid of a single mother who works as a waitress. Without government that and millions don't get an education because capitalism is not concerned with people.
A democratic government is concerned with its people because it is the people which give it power.
Name one system in the history of humanity that has ever worked better than the various forms of democracy... one.
Easy, Capitalism. There is no such thing as good system of government.
without a means of balancing power, capitalism quickly becomes financial slavery of the many for the few.
In a free market, there is no power. What you are getting confused is the current CRONY CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET CAPITALISM? In free market capitalism, those EVIL corporations wouldn't have the power of government force.
There is no immediate incentive for "capitalism" to, say, educate the kid of a single mother who works as a waitress.
In a free market for education, there is an incentive to educated anyone who is willing to learn because they are customers, and in free markets, only customers are to service, not POLITICS. Government provided education is politics.
Without government that and millions don't get an education because capitalism is not concerned with people.
This is an rhetorical cliche that when said over and over, idiots like your believe it.
Easy, Capitalism. There is no such thing as good system of government.
... alright. What if someone decides to shoot you? Or decides to set a building on fire. Or decides they had a contract with you but are not going to honor it. Or moves into your house and kicks you out?
Is Walmart going to come to your aid? Are you going to hire a band of vigilantes to get you justice? What if the person causing the injustice simply pays these vigilantes more money? It's a dumb fucking idea.
In a free market, there is no power. What you are getting confused is the current CRONY CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET CAPITALISM? In free market capitalism, those EVIL corporations wouldn't have the power of government force.
They'd have more power than current democratic governments actually because they would not be subject to any agreed laws and would have the resources to do as they like with no repercussions.
In a free market for education, there is an incentive to educated anyone who is willing to learn because they are customers, and in free markets, only customers are to service, not POLITICS. Government provided education is politics.
I hardly know where to begin with this.
1. Coke doesn't need the people who drink Coke to know shit. Neither does Apple, Microsoft, Google, GE, etc. Why on earth would they invest millions teaching kids so that one day they might or might not buy their product... which again they don't need an education to buy?
2. Government provided education is just education. If you're learning 1+1 from the government or from a private industry the answer is still 2... seriously, check for brain tumors.
This is an rhetorical cliche that when said over and over, idiots like your believe it.
Its the absolute truth actually, legally in fact. Corporations have a priority responsibility to make money for stockholders. If it means not starting schools, firing people, moving manufacturing to another country, etc, that is what they do because they are not concerned with people, their job is making money only for the handful of individuals who own and hold stock. That is all.
Is Walmart going to come to your aid? Are you going to hire a band of vigilantes to get you justice?
Why would Wal-Mart come to anybody's aid? Not sure if you have the intelligence, but it is a retail store.
Private police companies would compete in the marketplace for the best service and protection at the lowest price.
What if the person causing the injustice simply pays these vigilantes more money? It's a dumb fucking idea.
So, drug cartels and mafia have never paid any police officers or departments any money, and there is absolutely zero corrupt police officers and departments across America.
They'd have more power than current democratic governments actually because they would not be subject to any agreed laws and would have the resources to do as they like with no repercussions.
How would private companies not be subject to laws and contracts with existence of courts?
There are scarce resources, and companies can't do whatever they want financially.
I hardly know where to begin with this.
This is the truth.
Corporations have a priority responsibility to make money for stockholders. If it means not starting schools, firing people, moving manufacturing to another country, etc, that is what they do because they are not concerned with people, their job is making money only for the handful of individuals who own and hold stock. That is all.
Companies are not concerned with people. Really? Seriously, check your brain for tumors!!!
So you piled another cliche on top of another. Classic iamdavidh.
You will get the 2012 Most Cliches Used Nomination.
They have these private police. They're called protection cartels and they would work horribly. What if a rich guy decides to shoot a poor guy and just pays the "police" more money? Your theory would be a disaster in reality.
So, drug cartels and mafia have never paid any police officers or departments any money, and there is absolutely zero corrupt police officers and departments across America.
There will always be corruption. There would be more corruption if police were only beholden to the drug cartels, or whoever had the most money. Your logic is ridiculous on this.
How would private companies not be subject to laws and contracts if enforced by the courts?
There are scarce resources, and companies can't do whatever they want financially.
Private companies would not be subject to laws and contracts because there would be no one to enforce laws and contracts.
Companies are not concerned with people. Really? Seriously, check your brain for tumors!!!
So you piled another cliche on top of another. Classic iamdavidh.
You will get the 2012 Most Cliches Used Nomination.
Just because something is said often does not mean its false. The "it's a cliche" (which it isn't btw) "therefore it's false" is not a valid position.
The nature of a company is to look at the bottom line first. It is not to look at the happiness of the general population first. You do not understand the nature of business apparently.
What if a rich guy decides to shoot a poor guy and just pays the "police" more money? Your theory would be a disaster in reality.
Again, this doesn't happen with government police. Murder wouldn't be tolerated because private law protects life, liberty and property.
Your logic is ridiculous on this.
You are ridiculous, there would be still be LAW.
Private companies would not be subject to laws and contracts because there would be no one to enforce laws and contracts.
Actually, there would be private courts with arbitrators. no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal; otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.
Again, this doesn't happen with government police. Murder wouldn't be tolerated because private law protects life, liberty and property.
You are dreaming. If a person cannot defend themself and has no friends or relatives to defend them and they are murdered, none would bother to investigate nor prosecute unless it was done in plain site. If a powerful person with resources kills someone with little or no resources or way for vengence, they would be able to commit any crime they wished with near impunity. You seriously think if there were no government people would magically be less criminally inclined? Why? What would be the deterrent? Who would deter them?
It is not as if there are not places with very week governments. What they have in common is a worse life for the vast majority, and little to no justice for those not rich and powerful.
Actually, there would be private courts with arbitrators. no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal; otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.
That's all fine and well. Again though, it wouldn't work. If you are a judge and someone with power is convicted of something there is not entity to ensure a fair sentence for the person with power. If you are a person without power accused by one with power of some crime there is no entity to ensure justice.
Your ideal is a massive shift to the powerful in a world where the powerful already have too much of it, even in democratic societies. Your idea is a poorly conceived dreamworld which would send civilizations backwards thousands of years.
If a person cannot defend themself and has no friends or relatives to defend them and they are murdered, none would bother to investigate nor prosecute unless it was done in plain site.
Even if someone were to be murdered under those circumstances, the community has a incentive to find the murder, so people would pay for the investigation to catch the murderer and put him on trial.
If a powerful person with resources kills someone with little or no resources or way for vengence, they would be able to commit any crime they wished with near impunity.
No private individual would be granted special immunity even with resources and the same goes for public officials.
You seriously think if there were no government people would magically be less criminally inclined?
This is a serious misunderstanding. No, since it is a completely free society given no harm on others, most criminal activity is committed by government coercion. Government perpetuates violence through Autistic Intervention in preventing the use of drugs, sale of prostitution, and etc. Most crime comes from these forms of coercion. Therefore, the only private police service necessary would be murder, theft and rape. Basically, protecting life, liberty and property.
If you are a judge and someone with power is convicted of something there is not entity to ensure a fair sentence for the person with power. If you are a person without power accused by one with power of some crime there is no entity to ensure justice.
Again, there would arbitrators, completely free of politics probably because there would be zero. The political hacks known as judges would vanish.
Your ideal is a massive shift to the powerful in a world where the powerful already have too much of it, even in democratic societies.
Wrong, the powerful in world would be diminished because they would not have the government to use force as a tool to get powerful. Large business wants regulations because it limits their competition. There is a difference between power and market.
Even if someone were to be murdered under those circumstances, the community has a incentive to find the murder, so people would pay for the investigation to catch the murderer and put him on trial.
Not as much of an incentive as the powerful person who commited the crime. Afterall, as stated, the person killed had no friends and family. It would be a simple thing to advertise this powerful person's innocents, pay off these vigilante cops, and see no justice ever served. It is the most likely result of this sort of system.
No private individual would be granted special immunity even with resources and the same goes for public officials.
Of course they would. Who would stop them? A bunch of people voting them out of... oh wait, no vote. Just money. They'd be corrupt as hell. It would look like Feudalism, or whichever system best kept the powerful powerful and those without working harder for less.
most criminal activity is committed by government coercion
This is utter bullshit. Not a person in prison was forced by any government in the U.S. to commit a crime, I assure you. Government coersion is practically non-existant, and where it does exist it only exists by the will of the people who vote for government. Who would be the people, not some magical evil entitiy off in the ether.
Again, there would arbitrators, completely free of politics probably because there would be zero. The political hacks known as judges would vanish.
Who would these magical arbitrators be? How would one become an arbitrator? Why would one become an arbitrator? What would stop a powerful person from simply paying off this arbitrator? How would anyone know and arbitrator would be paid off if there is no tool for people to investigate this sort of corruption?
Your solutions cause more problems than currently exist in the system as is.
Large business wants regulations because it limits their competition.
And this in a nutshell is why you are utterly lost when it comes to debates about politics and capitalism.
It would be a simple thing to advertise this powerful person's innocents, pay off these vigilante cops, and see no justice ever served. It is the most likely result of this sort of system.
Again, the community has a moral cause to find the murder.
There isn't just one POLICE FORCE COMPANY as there is today under an monopolistic system provided by government, there are multiple companies, so if he pays off one, there would be several more to investigate. LET ME GUESS, he has trillions of dollars and he is going to pay off all the police force companies. Just like judges, government cops are paid off just as much if not more either by drug cartels or pimps.
Of course they would. Who would stop them?
Market forces, if they are corrupt, the next people will gladly step in to prosecute them under the impartiality.
This is utter bullshit.
SORRY, I meant most criminal activity is committed from GOVERNMENT AUTISTIC INTERVENTION via drugs, prostitutes, weapons trade and etc.
Who would these magical arbitrators be?
Arbitrators would be hired by companies based on merit, are you really this lost? There is nothing to stop an powerful person from simply paying off this arbitrator, it is no different than the corrupt workings of judges in the current system, if not paid off, it is quid pro quo in favors. If corruption was apparent, market forces would move away from it. Even if one company becomes corrupt, market forces would shift into non corrupt arbitrators.
And this in a nutshell is why you are utterly lost when it comes to debates about politics and capitalism.
THAT WOULD BE YOU!!! As far as I can tell, you don't even why what politics and capitalism is.
Prior to engaging in any sort of debate, I ask the debate creator to please specify his or her definition of the following two terms: liberal Democrat, freedom.
Thanks.
(Glad to see some familiar names among the active community)
I haven't been on the site in some time. It was more typical of past debates to be more clear on terminology. In addition, I have not exchanged words with you and wanted to gauge your perceptions on either of these points.
Assessing the different talking points in this debate has led me to the conclusion that your negligence to include a clear definition of freedom (at the most basic level) has limited the likelihood for a clear and logical debate to occur. (perhaps that was your intention)
Freedom is not self explanatory. "Ordinary speech, being careless about details, frequently causes somebody to do something or permits a tree to fall. By failing to discriminate between the deontic, the alethic, and the mechanical, common usage makes the problem of freedom insoluble--or worse, meaningless (Gill 1971)." Your limited viewpoint is the exact reason why much of this debate lacks substance.
To define freedom, three postulates are required:
1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.
2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.
3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).
If I were to engage in your limited view of freedom, I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.
If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.
Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.
Are they afraid of freedom?
Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.
Works Cited
Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.
Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.
2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.
3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).
I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.
If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.
Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.
Are they afraid of freedom?
Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.
Works Cited
Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.
Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.
Liberals have worked to give voting rights to all people since the civil war. note: Republicans were more liberal at a point than republicans. but should on the opposing end, conservatives have been trying to take the rights aways from others. like women when i comes to contraceptives
Of course not. By opposition you would have at the other end of the spectrum conservative republican, which while claiming they want smaller government claiming individual rights at the same time dive head first into the pool of religious fascism which is a the bigger controlling factor than our government has ever been. While some would claim that the use of larger government indicates a fear of freedom, it is in fact the opposite when considering that the freedoms that have been gained by many groups of people have been due to democratic government continuing to fend off the conservative movements to place those groups under their thumb.(women, homosexuals, african-americans, the poor, etc.) While one could look at larger government and claim that democrats need to be "taken care of", it is in fact the best way for society as a whole and not just the elite few. Freedom cannot be only for those who can afford it and so the use of larger government to ensure freedom for everyone. An alternative question may be "are conservative republicans afraid of freedom" especially since real freedom would end the oppressive rich/poor society and pull them away from religious dogma.
Not as much as they're afraid of your loaded questions :I
Freedom is typically viewed as an universally cherished element in American society. The idea that you would go out of your way to post a question suggesting your fellow Americans on the other side of the isle do not share this same value as you is somewhat insulting.
Well, no. And considering the laws that Republicans are trying to pass, and have passed, about limiting people's freedom to move into this country, limiting people's freedom to get married to who they love, and limiting people's freedom to birth control and abortion, I would not be saying the left is the party that is scared of freedom.
Just the opposite. Liberal Democrats love individual freedom for everybody. Just yesterday when the Supreme Court legalized Gay Marriage as the law of the land, Liberal Democrats were cheering.
