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.
It's also worth noting, that most cops don't KNOW or CARE that the police force is organized socialism..
I'm wondering.. Are you saying that if the cops don't KNOW the entity they work for is socialism, then it's NOT socialism?? That if they don't EMBRACE socialism, then it's NOT socialism?
I disagree that a police force is a socialist construct. That would be like saying that government is a socialist construct.
Fascists had police, as do monarchies, capitalist republics, etc., ad nauseum. Notably, the most communal societies (the Mbuti, the !Kung) do not have police forces.
This is because enforcement of law and authority are intrinsic to ANY form of government or governmentally sanctioned economic system.
I think it is fallacious to conflate basic roles of government with any particular political, governmental, or economic model. The continuance of the relationship between any government and the citizens requires that the government engage (or appear to engage) in the following enterprises:
I disagree that a police force is a socialist construct. That would be like saying that government is a socialist construct.
Both should be socialist constructs, but neither is. Since we live in a socioeconomic hierarchy, such bodies should be there to protect the working class from exploitation from above. However, the police are essentially there to protect property (i.e. the basis of the legal system), so if you don't have any they aren't much use to you.
However, the police are essentially there to protect property (i.e. the basis of the legal system), so if you don't have any they aren't much use to you.
The fact is, however, that EVERYBODY has property, and it does not matter how much or how little property a person has, we all are intent on keeping it. Territoriality (like the drive to climb dominance hierarchies) is a 250 million year old drive that intrinsic to our neurobiological structure.
This means that the cops are of great use to everybody except those who want to climb the hierarchy by illegally encroaching on the territory of others (often violently.)
This is why I think you missed half the story. True private property is half of the basis of the legal system, but the other half is the safety of one's person. Cops do not only address property crime, but also violent crime. Unless they enforce laws against violence, they are doomed to fail at enforcing property laws.
To survive, a government must enforce (or at least attempt to enforce) its sole ownership of violence.
Can you clarify what you mean by this last statement? [To survive, a government must enforce (or at least attempt to enforce) its sole ownership of violence.]
Governments own violence, and use laws protect the violence franchise by making it illegal for citizens to commit violence.
This enables government to regulate violence in ways that support its ability to remain in power. Ideally this is to avert the prosperity-killing freedom-destroying chaos that would otherwise ensue. That loss of prosperity would remove any society's equivalent of heaven's mandate. It also protects the government from anti-government violence.
Machiavelli observed that it is a prince's primary duty to keep power, and once he loses it, he has failed as a prince because whoever follows may do worse by the nation.
Now, I think we have discussed before, you (and I) see issues with this encroaching into normal human behavior (particularly male behavior) which is important to be allowed to be expressed--and, in many ways, maintains a (relatively) civil order and self-empowerment with the ability to rise & fall in a more natural hierarchy rather than the artificial. Do you generally agree with this? Or, if not, can you explain your general position here?
you (and I) see issues with this encroaching into normal human behavior (particularly male behavior) which is important to be allowed to be expressed--and, in many ways, maintains a (relatively) civil order and self-empowerment with the ability to rise & fall in a more natural hierarchy rather than the artificial.
Hierarchies are inevitable in human societies because those drives are deep in our reptilian brain, so they are not going anywhere.
In modern industrialized and technologized societies we still have dominance hierarchies, but in the workplace and other venues, they have morphed into competence hierarchies. They are based on qualities that are more likely to contribute to the greater good: intelligence, ingenuity, social skills.
The rise of competency hierarchies has replaced (dominated) dominance hierarchies. Rather than physical dominance only, over time societies have added the dimension to the hierarchical behavior (through politics and free market economics.)
Attempts to subvert the mechanisms of the competence and dominance hierarchies are likely to interfere with the things that naturally regulate those mechanisms, without actually removing or stopping the mechanism.
When people attempt to engineer societal behaviors with the intention of making people more equal, those attempts to rig the game in favor of the people on the bottom of the hierarchy are not merely doomed to fail.
The most likely scenario is short circuiting the competence hierarchies, leading to a reversion to primarily physical dominance hierarchies.
“Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”
Is Marcus 'for that' though(?)--or, just stating what (he believes) the Government position would be. Personally, I think that is an extremely dangerous dynamic--and would (and does) cause many issues.
Government requires a monopoly on initiated force. That’s the observation. Fact said it’s because this monopoly is the government’s source of power. This monopoly certainly protects government power. But in a well-functioning, low corruption liberal society, that means protecting people and their rights. It is in a totalitarian society that force is the sole source of government power.
Whether fact’s statement illustrates a dangerous dynamic depends on context.
or, just stating what (he believes) the Government position would be.
I have no doubts this is the government position.
Personally, I think that is an extremely dangerous dynamic--and would (and does) cause many issues.
Absolutely true.
The problem is that Mao was correct to observe that "Power blooms out of the barrel of a gun." This makes violence or the threat of it the core of power, whether legitimate (to rule by law or enforce law) or illegitimate (to steal power and be above law.)
Government out of control is a real danger. So is mob violence.
Threading the compromise that solves both problems is the challenge that every government has to attempt, and most fail to one degree or other.
In the ordinary course of events, I'd agree with you.. But, things is upside down.
It used to be that right wingers thought Medicare was socialism, and that Medicare for all is socialism gone wild, and it's a government takeover of health care.
But, according to your definition, Medicare for all is nothing more than a government service.. And, IF that's so, WHY do Republicans fight it so much??
Medicare for all is nothing more than a government service.. And, IF that's so, WHY do Republicans fight it so much??
Just because something is not socialist or fascist, does not imply that it is not a horrible idea.
With Medicare and Social Security, the problem is that they are Ponzi schemes. They cannot pay for themselves because they are mathematically corrupt.
A more important reason is the acknowledgment that government does EVERYTHING poorly, inefficiently, and ineffectively.
There are a few things that are intrinsically and inextricably the province of government (roads, law enforcement, courts, military, borders) but we should keep government out of every other important thing so that it wil not screw it up.
There are a few things that are intrinsically and inextricably the province of government (roads, law enforcement, courts, military, borders)
It may be worth while to note the reason these things are the province of government. If law enforcement, the military, etc were for profit endeavors, we would have a massive problem. Humans’ profit seeking nature causes some of these government roles to become endeavors of profit, in which case we label them corrupt. (Roads may not be inextricable from government so long as well defined regulations are in place).
It’s not that government does all things poorly, it’s that government can only do well (relatively) what the market cannot. Those things are very limited.
Oh? Is it the government that stops you? Or the impassible security you enjoy as coward behind a keyboard?
You and your boyfriend are the two most despicable characters on this site and you both hold this character flaw (among others) in common. You present yourself as a coward in every sense of the word.
If law enforcement, the military, etc were for profit endeavors, we would have a massive problem. Humans’ profit seeking nature causes some of these government roles to become endeavors of profit, in which case we label them corrupt.
I agree. We are having a real problem with privatized prisons using prisoners as slave or quasi-slave labor on separate profit oriented enterprises.
Kanye West is right about the labor as punishment clause being abused, and indicating a need for an Amendment to close that slavery loophole.
I’m curious about the facts of the labor and private prison situation. I’ve never found a primary source on the matter, just YouTube videos that make claims without sources and show images of people in regular non-labor prisons.
I've never heard about private prisons using inmates as slave labor, nor do I believe it.. In most prisons, work is a privilege. Yes, they don't make much, but they didn't make much in state run prisons either.. Plus, the courts wouldn't put up with it, and they'd surly know.. Jail house lawyer would make that issue VERY public..
What bothers me about private prisons, is their commodity is HUMAN BEINGS.. Empty beds mean less profit.. I don't want people sent to prison because it solves a stock holder problem.. I want 'em sent to prison because they cause a PUBLIC problem..
But, according to your definition, Medicare for all is nothing more than a government service.. And, IF that's so, WHY do Republicans fight it so much??
Because if they taxed every last American at 100%, they still couldn't get anywhere near funding it. Lib media agrees.
The $40 trillion question Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez couldn't answer
The government does not own the means of production that fund the police
Hello Crappy:
What the cops PRODUCE is law enforcement.. The MEANS to that production is cop cars, guns, badges, jails and prisons - ALL of which are owned by the government..
The MEANS to that production is cop cars, guns, badges, jails and prisons - ALL of which are owned by the government..
The Federal Government doesn't own these things. That's why they have resisted both Trump and Obama because of local authority. They are not paid for by the federal government.
Six states and NYC sue Trump admin over requiring 'sanctuary cities' to work with feds
Lawsuits were filed in Manhattan federal court on behalf of New York state and city, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia.
Oh good Con. Now let's demonize our "socialist" police and watch them be picked off by psychopathic libs and wonder why they have their finger on the trigger.
Which government functions are not socialist in your opinion?
The ones where they protect your private property, you massive retard. If the government were socialist then I doubt considerably that the private sector would fund the campaign system.
You call me a retard for asking someone’s opinion, and then you state something very close to my opinion. Does that make you want to change your opinion?
You call me a retard for asking someone’s opinion, and then you state something very close to my opinion. Does that make you want to change your opinion?
Yes, but I won't. Because although we may almost agree on one thing, our attitude towards it is still entirely different.
No buddy. Here's the thing: you don't get to determine the reason I called you a retard. You would understand that were you not afflicted with a debilitating narcissistic personality disorder.
It's REALLY funny, but dark, how conservatives take a statement about a small number of problem cops, and change the meaning to mean EVERY cop. MOST cops are, to use some famous words, "very fine people". That's the same way they take the word "socialism" and make it sound like EVERYTHING is bad about it. The liberals in America only want the GOOD parts of it, just like we only want the GOOD cops! When the bad is taken out of ANYTHING, the good is what remains.
The liberals in America only want the GOOD parts of it, just like we only want the GOOD cops!
Well put.
Capitalist societies have cops, roads, and property confiscation (taxes) and yet nobody characterizes these things in a socialist society as "capitalist".
There are some things that ALL governments do that interface with economic sphere and private property. The thing that defines socialism, per se, is scope and degree. The same thing goes for fascism.
It's REALLY funny, but dark, how conservatives take a statement about a small number of problem cops, and change the meaning to mean EVERY cop. MOST cops are, to use some famous words, "very fine people". That's the same way they take the word "socialism" and make it sound like EVERYTHING is bad about it. The liberals in America only want the GOOD parts of it, just like we only want the GOOD cops! When the bad is taken out of ANYTHING, the good is what remains.
More PSYCHO BABBLE from the CONFUSED SOCIALIST GRANDPAW !
Those on the Left refuse to look at what actually causes all the broken families, all the crime, all the drug use, the racism, etc. etc.
They simply make ludicrous statements of how it takes a village to raise a child. They think that case workers can pick up the pieces of broken lives.
The Left hates words such as morals, accountability, responsibility, etc.
They have thrown up their arms to any thought of fixing the core problems in society, and simply expect tax payers to fund never ending social programs to band-aide the growing problems.
That case worker is not going to keep an abandoned teen from joining that gang. He is searching for some semblance of a family.
A cold Socialist Government can never heal a broken heart. It takes a mother and father to raise a well adjusted child.
That's a very true statement, for the most part. The hypocritical things about it are: At the border, Trump causes broken families; The facts that so many "villages" south of the border are filled with "broken lives" and conservatives don't give a DAMN, and "they simply expect tax payers to fund" …. the WALL that prevents their escape WITH these children with broken lives; Case workers can't keep these "abandoned teens" from joining gangs, THEY didn't instill the hatred in them, THEY didn't take away the only "semblance of a family" they had left; "It takes a mother and father to raise a well adjusted child" …. kinda like that "well adjusted child" in the White House who was taught how advantageous it can be to cheat on your taxes from he age of 2?? A "cold socialist government" had nothing to do with THAT. After all, THESE children are already BORN, AND they're from another country (and a slightly different color … let's not forget! How come THIS "cold government" and its supporters only care about white American kids that have "mothers and fathers" wealthy enough "to raise a well adjusted child" (and even wealthy enough to corrupt and readjust a child), but don't care "to heal" those not that fortunate? To be a Christian you can't "pick and choose" the children you want to help, you have to help "the children". There are MANY good Christians. I won't be one because several reasons, ONE being this type of hypocrisy that is getting WORSE. I respect Jesus, as alleged, more so than many Christians. One can't pick the color and nationality (or religion) of a child and hold them above others.
How can a person be so blind to turn upside down every issue in our nation? Do you spend every waking minute of your life watching Liberal biased fake news?
You refuse to answer the simple questions that show your brainwashing.
Let me try one more time....
What do we do with the children of parents who commit crimes such as breaking and entering, stealing, etc. etc.
WE SEPARATE THEM UNTIL THE CRIMINAL GETS OUT OF JAIL!
That's what loving compassionate people do when a child is being raised by criminals!
It's against the law to break into our nation. These people are putting their children in severe danger and risk. They have no problem taking a chance of being separated from their children.
They are bad parents!
But when it comes to the politics of demonizing Conservatives, you hypocrites spew absolute nonsense. Talk about low end voters.
That's a very true statement, for the most part. The hypocritical things about it are: At the border, Trump causes broken families; The facts that so many "villages" south of the border are filled with "broken lives" and conservatives don't give a DAMN, and "they simply expect tax payers to fund" …. the WALL that prevents their escape WITH these children with broken lives; Case workers can't keep these "abandoned teens" from joining gangs, THEY didn't instill the hatred in them, THEY didn't take away the only "semblance of a family" they had left; "It takes a mother and father to raise a well adjusted child" …. kinda like that "well adjusted child" in the White House who was taught how advantageous it can be to cheat on your taxes from he age of 2?? A "cold socialist government" had nothing to do with THAT. After all, THESE children are already BORN, AND they're from another country (and a slightly different color … let's not forget! How come THIS "cold government" and its supporters only care about white American kids that have "mothers and fathers" wealthy enough "to raise a well adjusted child" (and even wealthy enough to corrupt and readjust a child), but don't care "to heal" those not that fortunate? To be a Christian you can't "pick and choose" the children you want to help, you have to help "the children". There are MANY good Christians. I won't be one because several reasons, ONE being this type of hypocrisy that is getting WORSE. I respect Jesus, as alleged, more so than many Christians. One can't pick the color and nationality (or religion) of a child and hold them above others.
Grandpaw really goes into PSYCHO BABBLE here ROTFFLMMFAO
