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.
If I have to answer to anyone, then I'm not free. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Owning nothing sets you free. You've seen homeless people, I'm sure. The cost of freedom is high but the alternative is to live out in the wild. If cows and chicken could chose, which life would they chose ;)
This is the reason why government fear drugs and try to control them. The drug may make you not want to be productive. Have you ever seen a pot head working his little butt off ;)
In the video and the way it is explained you would consider ourselves to be an intelligent form of livestock. Although I do find this video to be a hyped up distortion of the truth. It obviously is refering back to the slave trade calling it's slaves livestock (which through history have been of all colours and races) and how we are just a variation of the slave trade, and that by allowing the slave to be more "free range" they recieve better production.
Basically he is saying that the government is the controller of these free range slaves as if it is a bad thing, instead of stating that the government is voted for and is there to actually serve the people and if they don't do their jobs efficiently, they will be sacked. What he doesnt tell you is that alot of the national debt is created by the people borrowing for things such as cars, fancy housing and overblown credit limits. And that a country which is badly governed usually has alot of fighting and TRUE starvation. Yet judging by his accent he wouldn't really have experienced that. He speaks out against the government as if they are using the countries people totally for their own good instead of saying that you get paid well if you get yourself educated and do a good job. It sounds like to me that he is trying to swing people with a bias oppinion of the TRUTH. While we may just be a free range version of LIVESTOCK, thankgod it works pretty well and if we all did a better job, it would be running even more efficiently. The only time it doesn't work well is when GREED steps in or people think they deserve everything for doing nothing or doing something half assed and this happens at all levels.
We are nothing more than hamsters running and running on a wheel, going no where. Observed through a glass as each experiment is preformed on us. (Didn't watch video, hope this comment fits the topic)
Who's doing the experiments for what reason? Isn't that too just a life in slavery, or do you think it's better to watch hamsters running than to be a hamster running?
I agree we are hamsters running on a circular wheel. the average worker gets a less pay raise per year then how fast inflaition raises the prizes of goods for everyday living.
Inflation is just hidden tax and is easilly controlled by the FED
The reason this is so is because it isnt in the interest of (their) society to have people being idle - if workers got paid more they would work less. So what is wanted is that you get just enough to live by for a full weeks work.
Monetary policy is about keeping the economy growing at a stable rate. A growing economy is good for everyone. The intent is not to erode workers' earning power, that's just an unfortunate side effect. We can mitigate that effect by redistributing some of the wealth through progressive taxation.
I've seen this guy's stuff before, and it always annoys the hell out of me. Classic naive libertarianism. "If we just had minimal government the market would make everything sunshine and roses."
Democratic governments protect human rights, provide public goods, prevent monopolies, maintain national security, enforce laws, regulate the economy, protect the environment, etc. These things are very important for the well being of society. Government is supposed to compel people to do stuff they don't want to do, for the good of society. Yes, government has problems, but the alternatives are all much worse.
Government is the one thing that prevents us from becoming human livestock to the most powerful 1% of society.
I won't even get started on the tons of ridiculous distortions and bad logic in the video, cuz that would take all day.
I haven't watched many of his videos, so I'm not sure what you mean with your simplistic generalization that all libertarians want is a free market and happy capitalism. This movie definitely says nothing of the kind...
I think it's very easy for you to sit on your high horse and look down on people who, on your view, are too naive to understand the complexities involving a government. The functions of a government are indeed very complex, but you are implying that whoever questions their existence are nothing more than fools who don't understand this complexity. Coming to a debate with the preconception that your opponent is naive keeps you from improving your knowledge about the world through that discussion. I don't believe in God, but I would never start an argument with a religious person with the preconception that they don't understand what I'm talking about. They have brains just like I do, and their perception of the world is just as limited as mine, so I can never know if there's something I can learn from them. I try to keep my mind open.
You seem to deeply trust the idea of a democratic government. All these things you said it is ideally supposed to do for us are very nice. However, you recognize it yourself that things are not working exactly the way they should. In this case, I think it's more than necessary to stop and ask Why?. Remember the lessons of communism? It was a very nice idea on paper, but it didn't work well once you put human beings in the equation. Maybe it's the same for government itself? I think we should ask these kinds of questions more often... Does corruption come from the roots of the idea behind government? Maybe this system would work well in a simpler world, but have we reached such a complexity where we are just tying knot over knot and it has become too complicated for it to fix itself with the tools we've been using so far? It's law over law, bureaucracy over bureaucracy... Are our lives becoming better, easier? Could they be easier?
I think all these questions are worth asking, don't you? Honestly, have you ever actually stopped to think about them, or are you too busy pursuing the ideals of democracy as they were given to you, to be able to be really objective about the problems we have? To me, your previous argument sounded pretty similar to those used by religious people: substitute "democracy" with "Bible" and you have "The Bible gives us moral values, it makes us good, it keeps us alway from drugs....... Yes, the Bible has problems, but the alternatives are much worse".
I'm not saying I have answers, or maybe not even better alternatives... I'm just honestly looking for a solution. I'm looking forward to your reply, the same way I like to hear religious people's arguments.
This video is promoting the central assumption of libertarianism: "Government sucks". If government sucks, what does that imply? We should have as little as possible. How do we provide the benefits of government when we have a minimal government? The market magically takes care of that. This is the libertarian position. This guy doesn't like to state his position flat out, because it's less seductive to his audience, preferring to focus instead on demagogic government bashing. Here is another video where we explicitly argues for libertarianism.
it's very easy for you to sit on your high horse and look down on people who, on your view, are too naive to understand the complexities involving a government...
What? That's not what I said at all. I said libertarianism is naive because it assumes people are angels and that we'll all be better off without regulation. I make no claims about anyone's ability to understand government.
Coming to a debate with the preconception that your opponent is naive...
I didn't have that preconception. That was my conclusion after watching the video and considering his argument.
I think we should ask these kinds of questions more often
We ask these questions all the freakin' time, at least here in the United States. Small government is a core demand of the Republican party.
I think all these questions are worth asking, don't you?
Of course.
To me, your previous argument sounded pretty similar to those used by religious people
What's your point? That my argument is based on blind faith? Not at all. The benefits of government I listed follow clearly and logically. It would take too much time to argue each point, so I'll just do one: Government provides public goods. This is necessary due to the free rider problem. This truth is widely accepted in economics.
I'm not saying I have answers, or maybe not even better alternatives...
This is why I get so annoyed. I constantly deal with guys who rant about the evils of government. Not because they want what's best for mankind, but because they are selfish bastards who want to take all they can for themselves and to hell with everyone else. They never have an alternative solution, they just want to tear down the one thing that stands between us and the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish state of nature.
I'm not saying you or Molyneux are like them, I'm just explaining my motivation for deriding the libertarian argument.
I'm just honestly looking for a solution.
A more direct Democracy based on internet communication platforms like the one we're using now is the best idea I've got.
Personally, I don't look for an idea's origin every time I hear something new. I like to be free from preconceptions in my analysis, because this allows me to see ideas for what they are, not what they should be. Are we still talking about the video above? Because if we are talking about its producer, or the republican party in the US, I'm not particularly interested in that right now. If you think this video can only be seen inside a certain context, it's your right. I just think that being closed into your preconceptions has traces of close-mindedness. Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck. And I also think market sucks. If you don't think this makes sense, maybe we are talking about different things.
it assumes people are angels and that we'll all be better off without regulation.
OK, you touched an important point. Greed, selfishness... Are they part of our human nature? Probably... A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life, a system which creates artificial needs in us because the economy has to keep moving, does this system bring out these bad characteristics in us? YES. So are we born as angels? No, we are born to be competitive, violent, greedy, hungry, horny. Can a healthy system make us use our brains to understand these impulses should be controlled? Sure, to a certain extent. I think people who defend regulations with the "we are no angels" excuse forget how much our environment can bring out the good - or evil - in us.
I do think regulations could be much less than now, giving us the chance to think by ourselves - and make the good choice. We need more liberty simply because this would make us more aware.
Government provides public goods
Can food, for example, be a public good? If we have the technological capacities to produce food completely sustainably, with no human labor necessary to feed the whole planet, how would the economy work? Considering most people working in the world do it not to starve to death, don't you think that many would choose not to work? Does nowaday's government want us all to be fed for free? How would you make money circulate then? Create artificial needs in us? That is controlling. Governments nowadays need people to work, need slaves. Would they be interested in giving us free food, shared goods? No. Your "free rider problem" only exists because we have this illusion of scarcity. Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.
A more direct Democracy based on internet
Now we are talking. One thing you got totally wrong about my point of view is that I don't want regulations. What I don't want is this many regulations, and no system where some people are given more power than others. Having a government composed of people is bound to be unfair, because it is based on unequality of power. No one knows what is better for millions of people, and no one should be given the power to rule over others. It doesn't matter how much civil participation you have, as long as there are states controlled by people it's not gonna work. I put with you my hopes on technology, I think it can take us to new levels of fairness.
I strongly suggest you the movie Zeitgeist Addendum, you might not completely agree with it, but it probably shows a point of view you are not used to.
Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck.
The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.
And I also think market sucks.
The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.
A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life
There are no first world countries like this. Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.
I read your blog post about evolution and whatnot. I agree that we can and should restrain our primitive impulses. But we will never escape the fundamental truth that behaving selfishly can be very profitable.
I do think regulations could be much less than now,
Which ones would you get rid of?
Like it or not, people left to their own devices will very often make lowsy decisions. I favor the soft paternalistic approach to government advocated by these guys. Guidance without overreach.
Can food, for example, be a public good?
Food is far from a public good. In fact supplies are not keeping up with the growth in population.
Vertical farming looks cool and promising, but it's very pie-in-the-sky at the moment. From the Wikipedia article: "The detailed analytical work needed to establish the feasibility of vertical farming has not yet been done." "the energy needed for artificial lighting and other vertical farming operations might outweigh the benefit"
Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.
Economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, not of creating it.
"Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."
The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.
And then? History teaches us about the past. I won’t be content with something just because it “sucks less”…
The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.
You are aware that one in four of your compatriots are obese while there is still hungry people in the world, right? Many sources say that the world produces enough food for every human being on the planet, and then there are sources like yours saying it doesn't. I'm not in a position to say who is right, but judging by the waste I see every day with my own eyes, I'm inclined to believe that the market is actually highly ineffective. The need to sell food tops the need to feed. Food is wastefully being given to people who don't make good use of it because money dictates the market.
You say economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people, so the money keeps circulating. It’s very irresponsible to keep feeding this cycle! How many perfectly wearable shoes, for example, are being thrown away every day? Can the planet keep up?
You seem to think very locally. There are no first world countries like this. Of course not, they have China to exploit workers for them. Can the market be sustainable in a global level?
Also, one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand. It's like airlines charging us more during high season. I'm sure they have some very logical economic lame excuse for things like this, for how at the end the “consumer wins”, but at the end of the day the truth is that CEOs are getting rich at our expense, and they don't even deserve it.
Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.
OK, tell me one country where people can happily live their lives without having to answer to anyone, and we will discuss from there.
Which ones would you get rid of?
I don't think that just getting rid of certain regulations is going to solve anything. The whole system has to be rebuilt around freedom, and assure one person's freedom doesn't affect another person's one. The only thing the system should protect is individual freedom, and access to correct information. We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go... Whyyy??? Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me? Can't we set people free? Not only free to enjoy nature, but free to enjoy all the knowledge human kind has gathered so far! (sorry for the outburst, it's just that these things make me deeply mad)
I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people
I think you do not understand Economics very well. Check out these ten basic principles, which have been established through many years of rigorous study. It's not about right and wrong, it's just about explaining the way things are.
It's true that in some cases corporations create artificial scarcity. In economics this is an example of market failure and the best way to fix it is through government intervention. Despite what the conspiracy-theorists like to claim, government is a friend of the people, not the enemy. It is through government that we can collectively work toward a better future. Take the U.S. National Science Foudation, for example, which carries out scientific research financed by taxpayers.
Can the market be sustainable in a global level?
With proper government regulation, yes.
one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand
The laws of supply and demand follow logically given the fundamental assumption of economics: rational self-interested actors exchanging goods and services. Yes this is an over-simplification of humanity, but simplifying problems makes them easier to study. It's like solving physics problems without considering friction.
We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go
Ok, these all sound mostly reasonable to me. However, none of these are the critical functions of government that I listed in my initial argument.
Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me?
Well, technically you could. You could wander around, living like a hunter-gatherer if you chose to. I think we can agree though that the benefits of society provide us with a more attractive alternative.
I agree that we should try and make the world better. But regulated capitalism is the best way of organizing society. No, it's not perfect, but there's really no point in criticizing our current system without offering a viable alternative. Without exchanging resources in a free market, how are we going to divide them up?
OK, let me interrupt this ping pong for a bit and try to make sense of what both of us have been trying to say so far.
We are trying to figure out if the government has been somehow restricting our freedom or not. That’s one of the main ideas presented on the video. I think the answer for this question is clear: yes. Everyone is born inside the boundaries of a country, automatically under the law of those who control that territory, under the condition that if we don’t follow them, the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us. You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free, and that’s a lie: from birth we are not allowed to do certain things, we are forced into life in society and educated for that. This is independent of whether all this control is here for our own good or not.
The video is not only saying we are not free to do whatever we want, its main point is that governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle, caring for the cattle’s well-being only as far as it affects productivity. Personally, I think this is a fair description of the reality we live in. Perhaps you understood it as if governments were doing this out of pure evil and thirst for power, but I see them doing it just the same way a poor farmer would do to survive given the circumstances. Governments don’t want to die, and they need a good economy to stay alive, they need a good economy to get stronger and be able to be there for their people eventually. Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run. They need to send them in wars, to take their money to bailout banks, to pollute the air they breathe… We are all slaves to capitalism, because the government is a slave to capitalism.
My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all. The economy might be a nice study of how things have been so far, but staying limited to that keeps us from seeing better ways of how things could be. Economic principles have been established throughout years, but haven’t been keeping up with our technological reality, population growth etc.
Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing for example. While this kind of service is still not perfect, yes, there will be space for people who “realize being selfish is profitable”, but it’s a fact that their space is getting smaller.
The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology. Not only the trend is that we will be offered more goods/services for free as technology advances, but also technology is limiting what people have to offer. Less people have opportunities to work everyday as machines take their place in factories, services, etc. Monetary economy’s solution is that every person on the planet should be doing more meaningful jobs then. But how do you measure meaningful if we are entering an era where most things can and will be offered for free? What if a person has a special talent to edit funny videos and post them on youtube for free making millions of people happy, is this person dispensable to the world just because they don’t have a way of making money?
Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses. It’s just not sustainable, simple as that. The system has to stop requiring people to make money 5 days a week just to deserve a place in society, because that is becoming less possible and less necessary.
The question arises “so, how are we going to distribute resources without money?” First, we have to realize that capitalism is not only dividing resources unequally, but it is also carelessly using up all the resources on the planet. Why does everyone need to own a car for example? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to have a system where you take the first car you see on the street, drive where you want to go, and leave the car there for the next person? I know systems like this are still not perfect, but what I want you to see is that capitalism could never support this kind of structure, because it conflicts directly with the need for consumers. The market needs us all to be consumers. Capitalism and this strong idea of private property will eat up the planet’s resources before we know it. Having that said, I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.
You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative. First, I think that whether we have an alternative or not, capitalism will collapse soon. The question is, are we going to be ready for that? Or are we going to continue holding on to something which doesn’t work, uselessly trying to adapt it to our new reality? I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work, the difference seems to be that you are satisfied with that, and I’m not. For me, the most important step in this transition out of this market system is to change the way people think. We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world, and things can be better for everyone. We need more people like Wikipedia/Couch surfing users, and less people like you, who say “I think we will come up with a better system someday; but until that day comes, being a greedy bastard is probably the best thing you can do for society.” Well, it is not, this is actually the worst thing you could be doing, and people like you annoy the hell out of me.
Once people have changed this primitive way of thinking (yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish), then we are going to put our efforts on the right things. If we put as much effort on finding ways for a sustainable life, as we have been putting on finding ways to make war, our science can take us far. We need to stop trusting the farmer, and start doing things for each other. If things can be done right, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t.
Because we were running out of space, I've decided to stick my response to your latest argument up here.
the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us
The government is given those rights by the majority of the people. If enough people decided to do away with government, then we could do that.
You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free
No I haven't. The two positions you offered in this debate create a false dichotomy. I don't think people are human livestock, but that doesn't mean I think we're totally free.
governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle
Cattle don't have human rights. Cattle don't get to vote.
Governments don’t want to die
A government is not a sentient creature, it doesn't make sense to say it "wants" something.
Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run.
Right, but if the end truly justifies the means, then this is a good thing.
to pollute the air they breathe
Government does not pollute. That's corporations. Government prevents excessive pollution.
We are all slaves to capitalism
Slaves don't get human rights. Slaves can't vote.
My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all.
Maybe, but the market and the economy emerge from the inescapable tension between selfishness and cooperation.
yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish
Sure we can see the advantages. But we'll never be able to eliminate selfishness. Certainly not while scarcity remains a problem.
Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing
Yes, this is a good point. People can be altruistic. A few things though:
1) How are these organizations funded? By voluntary donations. People donate resources they have obtained while working within the capitalistic framework. These organizations don't address the fundamental problem of allocating scarce resources.
2) Not everything can be done voluntarily. Who would do the unpleasant jobs if they didn't have to? Yes someday technology will eliminate those jobs, but that day is not yet here.
3) These are both examples of public goods. Couch surfing pulled in $779,538 in donations last year. The Wikimedia Foundation pulled in $7 million in that same year. Compare that to the National Science Foundation which had an operating budget of over $6 billion for the same year. We have here an excellent example of the free rider problem in action. Our power to do good vastly increases when we take a small amount of money from everybody through taxes.
The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology.
Even with technology we still face tradeoffs. Wikipedia's servers consume a share of the world's resources. Also, time is a finite resource. If you read Wikipedia for an hour, you have given up the possibility of using that hour for something else.
Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses.
Maybe. As scarcity is reduced there is less of a need for capitalism.
It’s just not sustainable, simple as that.
Government regulations can make it sustainable.
I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.
I agree. And regulated capitalism provides us with a platform atop which we can achieve this.
You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative.
Let me be clear. You don't annoy me at all. I have nothing but love and admiration for you and people like you. Manipulative videos which do nothing but turn people cynical toward their most promising source of salvation are what annoy me.
I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work
It obviously works quite well. The fact that you and I are able to have this conversation is a testament to that.
We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world
I don't think this will be a big revelation for most people.
---
Here are a few relevant links I would like you to take a look at:
What part of "we all" didn't you get? This debate is far from being about you or your government. As a matter of fact, it is not only about the obviously "evil" governments you say have been slaughtering people, but about how you might be blinded by your government to think exactly that, that you are doing just fine.
Isn't the ruling class just as enslaved as the "cattle"? What does the ruling class gain by having human cattle!? If you know anything about economics, you should know that money is always accounted for. Businesses know what the total production cost of something is, and tries to keep it as low as possible, so the price the consumer pays isn't too high, and covered in that end price is the business's profit... so who's getting the money? If the ruling class isn't eating people, and it's not profiting from the cattle's currency... what else is there? Power? If you're a farmer of cattle, what power do you have but over your cattle??? Basically, if you have power over nothing, doesn't that mean that you have no power, and if you have power over oppressed people you only have as much power as the oppressed people?
The power of the ruling class is only as good in quality as the power of it's slaves... as a ruler you would need to tend to your slaves, as a slave yourself, for whatever benefit comes by being a slave owner... this would make the difference moot. Slaves would have just as good of lives as the slave owners.
If you're running a farm of people, you would expect something in return, right? And because there are only the bourgeoisie (the farmers) and the proletariats (the cattle) who will be giving you anything for your trouble as a farmer, but the cattle itself? Maybe you're "farming" because you don't want to be cattle... isn't that a freedom?
... I don't know why I'm giving this time, it's just as stupid as saying "The sky is a venomous, soul-eating spirit that works for Scope to give you bad breath... and Scope is the anti-christ!". If you really look at this idea you would see right through it.
Isn't the ruling class just as enslaved as the "cattle"?
Sure. Personally, I think both great CEOs and Chinese factory workers are slaves - slaves of money and the system which was built around money. There's just one thing...
tries to keep it as low as possible, so the price the consumer pays isn't too high, and covered in that end price is the business's profit...??
Hehe, that's a very cute thing you are saying... You make it sound like big companies are trying to keep the price low for the good of the consumers, and taking a fair share for themselves, proportional to the impressive job they do.
