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.
Of course. Michael Moore has made unbelievable amounts of money from his movies, yet he preaches liberalism as this way of life that I would pay money to see him live.
Thanks to some excellent propaganda, most Americans see Communism as a dark and enigmatic evil. The antithesis being capitalism, it would seem that democracy has elected capitalism as the better system.
Two
Moore's profession as a private documentary maker would probably be illegal under a communist regime.
Three
The various attempts at attaining communism have all been accompanied by dictatorship, something which Moore infers is abhorrent.
Four
More, as a horrendously fat man, is a walking caricature of capitalism.
Five
If Moore truly found Capitalism to be evil, he would not have charged people to watch his documentaries.
Thanks to some excellent propaganda, most Americans see Communism as a dark and enigmatic evil. The antithesis being capitalism, it would seem that democracy has elected capitalism as the better system.
It's never that simple. Capitalism redistributes wealth unevenly, meaning that the wealthy elected to keep it as the dominant system but the majority of poor through centuries of pushing are starting to get what they want: some sort of hybrid system.
Moore's profession as a private documentary maker would probably be illegal under a communist regime.
I believe he is an advocate of socialism. But in any case I don't care about Moore.
The various attempts at attaining communism have all been accompanied by dictatorship, something which Moore infers is abhorrent.
There have not been many attempts however, as compared to capitalism, and it doesn't help that the United States has frequently tried to destabilise these nations because they don't benefit us.
Further, communism is very new. Early capitalism caused rampant poverty, so many deaths from poor sanitation, and lack of worker safety. It also caused a sort of plutocracy, rule by robber barons who were only interested in wealth and power. How many millions died over those two centuries of early capitalism, due to starvation, disease, accidents, and poisons sold as foods all because of some wealthy men who loved the system all too much?
More, as a horrendously fat man, is a walking caricature of capitalism.
More is a caricature? I thought more was an adjective describing greater quantity.
If Moore truly found Capitalism to be evil, he would not have charged people to watch his documentaries.
Often it is the case that in a capitalist system you need to foot all kinds of bills and contracts in order to get yourself anywhere. Of course, he could have just bittorrented it. I expect that like with some of his other films, he will welcome those who download it for free.
Capitalism redistributes wealth unevenly, meaning that the wealthy elected to keep it as the dominant system but the majority of poor through centuries of pushing are starting to get what they want: some sort of hybrid system.
Such as?
I believe he is an advocate of socialism.
Yes, let the people who know nothing about production manage it.
There have not been many attempts however, as compared to capitalism,
They all share the fatal flaw; government controlling industry. It cannot be done. Famine and strife are all that will result.
Early capitalism caused rampant poverty, so many deaths from poor sanitation, and lack of worker safety.
Industrialism, really. Capitalism is older than the Bessemer converter or the rotative steam engine (surely the most important machine since the press). Unless there is some other period to which you refer?
How many millions died over those two centuries of early capitalism, due to starvation, disease, accidents, and poisons sold as foods all because of some wealthy men who loved the system all too much?
And how many people have been saved from the same fate by today's massive pharmaceutical and food industries? Granted, it's not ideal, but in every case I have examined, letting the government take charge of industry has led to disaster, and don't get me started on trade unions.
More is a caricature? I thought more was an adjective describing greater quantity.
Curses and damnation, a typo. Rather amusing pun though.
Often it is the case that in a capitalist system you need to foot all kinds of bills and contracts in order to get yourself anywhere.
True, but Moore could foot the bills without charging for this documentary, being a multi-millionaire.
I expect that like with some of his other films, he will welcome those who download it for free.
When you have cooked the chicken, it is amusing to watch the foxes devour the bones.
Depends on the nation. For some it means nationalised healthcare, schools, utilities, etc. For others it means stiff regulations on businesses. For others still it is communism with capitalist elements.
They all share the fatal flaw; government controlling industry. It cannot be done. Famine and strife are all that will result.
Right. What did we learn from Free-Market economics? The exact counterpart fails to produce a healthy society. It took almost two centuries of social evolution to form our modern regulated (and much more fair) market system. It's no-doubt the same with communism, a social evolution is needed to fix its flaws.
Industrialism, really. Capitalism is older than the Bessemer converter or the rotative steam engine (surely the most important machine since the press). Unless there is some other period to which you refer?
True, but Industrialism and Capitalism were like fire and gunpowder.
And how many people have been saved from the same fate by today's massive pharmaceutical and food industries? Granted, it's not ideal, but in every case I have examined, letting the government take charge of industry has led to disaster, and don't get me started on trade unions.
I cannot speak for Britain, but institutes like the FDA and its preceding regulations were necessary for this industry to exist in a reliable, safe manner. Before this, we only had patent medicines, many of which were poisonous in some way, and all of which made false advertisements.
Curses and damnation, a typo. Rather amusing pun though.
I was hoping this rare, corrected mistake would cause your head to implode.
True, but Moore could foot the bills without charging for this documentary, being a multi-millionaire.
Depends on the nation. For some it means nationalised healthcare, schools, utilities, etc. For others it means stiff regulations on businesses. For others still it is communism with capitalist elements.
I have long believe that, capitalism being a device for securing and creating wealth, any means of improving it should be called capitalistic. Thus I consider true capitalism to be inherently regulated.
What did we learn from Free-Market economics? The exact counterpart fails to produce a healthy society.
Of course, but as aforesaid I am no proponent of such.
It took almost two centuries of social evolution to form our modern regulated (and much more fair) market system.
Ah, the smoke clears. All this time and I never thought to tell you what I considered proper capitalism to be. Whatever creates the best environment for building wealth, so long as the majority of that wealth is private. This is the most effective means of keeping a nation and its people prosperous, thus I call it capitalism. Fie upon the pedants.
It's no-doubt the same with communism, a social evolution is needed to fix its flaws.
No. Anything which allows the community to govern something important is doomed to fail. I have observed this to be true on many occasions.
True, but Industrialism and Capitalism were like fire and gunpowder.
Eh. The fools thought to prosper by eroding their workforce. A real real capitalist would understand that keeping subordinates happy is the key to power. and by extension wealth.
I cannot speak for Britain, but institutes like the FDA and its preceding regulations were necessary for this industry to exist in a reliable, safe manner. Before this, we only had patent medicines, many of which were poisonous in some way, and all of which made false advertisements.
I would call that a bastard form of capitalism. The education of consumers had not evolved to such a point as complimented the interests of quality. In plainer terms; growing pains on the road to a far more viable system of generating wealth.
I was hoping this rare, corrected mistake would cause your head to implode.
You may have observed that I was absent for some time. I apologise, but I was in a deep coma after detecting the mistake.
I have long believe that, capitalism being a device for securing and creating wealth, any means of improving it should be called capitalistic. Thus I consider true capitalism to be inherently regulated.
It's good that you clarified. This is an unorthodox belief.
Ah, the smoke clears. All this time and I never thought to tell you what I considered proper capitalism to be. Whatever creates the best environment for building wealth, so long as the majority of that wealth is private. This is the most effective means of keeping a nation and its people prosperous, thus I call it capitalism. Fie upon the pedants.
How do you aim to solve the problem of monopolies?
No. Anything which allows the community to govern something important is doomed to fail. I have observed this to be true on many occasions.
If this is what you argue, then you must acknowledge that capitalism ultimately will fail for the same reason.
Eh. The fools thought to prosper by eroding their workforce. A real real capitalist would understand that keeping subordinates happy is the key to power. and by extension wealth.
I argued this with someone else, and it seems no one can explain why if it is in the interests of capitalist industrialists to make their workers happy, those same industrialists failed to do so through the entire Industrial Revolution and in fact worked against the idea.
You may have observed that I was absent for some time. I apologise, but I was in a deep coma after detecting the mistake.
I'm afraid to tell you then, that you made two grammatical errors in this argument post. Please recover swiftly.
Democracy is not an economic system, thus cannot be interchangeable with capitalism. If he hates this system so much, then he could easily move to a country like N. Korea that regulates his precious media that has made him all of his money.
If he hates this system so much, then he could easily move to a country like N. Korea that regulates his precious media that has made him all of his money.
I was always under the impression that we already live in a system as nightmarish as North Korea's one. We just tend to not be aware of it publicly.
you can eat at a fast food restraunt and say that fast food is bad for your health. you can drink alcohol and also claim that drinking is bad for you. im pretty sure there are alcoholics who tell their children not to drink. or smokers who tell their children not to smoke. you can practice capitalism, but also recognise that it is evil and does horrible things to people. not to say i like or support michael moore
Of course you do. That's the purpose of libertarianism. What, you actually believe in the libertarian message of freedom which is carefully juxtaposed with demands for business regulations, no unions, and no minimum wages? You're so cute in your naivety.
I have said this hundred times as I have said that big bussiness is due to volumious regulations.
Big business creates voluminous regulation that is favourable to itself.
Second, since CEO's don't spatt off about the evil of capitalism in movies and call for socialism.
Why do you contiune to bring this up?
Partly because it's an important point which you ignore, and partly because if CEOs don't spat off about the evils of capitalism, as Moore does, then he must not be a big capitalist like a CEO, right?
Of course you do. That's the purpose of libertarianism. What, you actually believe in the libertarian message of freedom which is carefully juxtaposed with demands for business regulations, no unions, and no minimum wages? You're so cute in your naivety.
You are so cute in your delusions.
How many times do I have to refer your illiterate and incompetent mind to LP For a change, Read. Our stance would eliminate large corporations.
Big business creates voluminous regulation that is favourable to itself.
It is impossible for business to grow to large business status without the help of government. WHY? Because in a free market, there no barriers into entry because no business have any power to manipulate the market, but when government passes laws and regulations in favor of one company, big business emerges from the womb, and it is born with a government approved stamp. With regulations, government is simply choosing the winners and losers, which is corporatism.
How many times do I have to refer your illiterate and incompetent mind to LP For a change, Read. Our stance would eliminate large corporations.
What, you thought corrupt and deceptive politicians say aloud "We are evil and against liberty?"
Free Market was tried during the Industrial Revolution. It produced the first generation of Big Corporations. How? Unregulated businesses act unethically, buy favours (laws against corruption are known as regulation, you're against that, remember?), and absorb competitors (regulations seek to illegalise monopolies, but you're against that).
It is impossible for business to grow to large business status without the help of government.
Standard Oil? Seriously. Don't you ever crack open a history book? Guess how they became big. They created separate businesses with special discounts to themselves. They also acquired competitors, and when some competitors tried to fight them with free market competition, they were impeded by unethical business practices.
WHY? Because in a free market, there no barriers into entry because no business have any power to manipulate the market,
Businesses don't play by the rules. That's rule number one. Ignoring Economy of Scale which favours big business over its competitors, businesses will impede others in ways that have nothing to do with the market. Hai capito? It isn't hard to understand this simple fact. Standard Oil did this by sabotaging its competitors' trade routes, and by giving itself insider discounts on goods.
, but when government passes laws and regulations in favor of one company, big business emerges from the womb, and it is born with a government approved stamp.
What do you think is behind those laws and regulations which favour a company? A big business that wants to eliminate competitors, so it funds political campaigns. Your order is incorrect. Government doesn't just give out regulations to favour a company, it does so after a business funds them.
With regulations, government is simply choosing the winners and losers, which is corporatism.
You're either so mesmirised by the whole "it's my money! no taxes!" message of libertarianism, that you can't see when you're hoodwinked, or you're completely unable to spot a simple order of cause and effect.
The way you see it:
Government decides arbitrarily that it wants Monopoly B
Government passes laws in favour of Business B
The way it happens:
Business B wants to be a monopoly
Business B lobbies Government so that it regulates in favour of Business B
If you can't see the order of "tit for tat" in politics, then you have no business commenting upon it.
What, you thought corrupt and deceptive politicians say aloud "We are evil and against liberty?"
No!!! Apparently, only you did.
Free Market was tried during the Industrial Revolution.
First, the Industrial Revolution isn't as what you describe as a free market, and it was the most prosperous economic era ever for all classes. No time in history were all classes better off than under monarchies or some form of tyranny or working on the farm only a generation before.
Don't you ever crack open a history book?
Have you ever cracked opened a book not sponsored by government? Didn't think so. I have read more books than you have, but that is hearsay anyway.
The only books you read are Democratic Rhetoric Handbook Guide.
Guess how they became big. They created separate businesses with special discounts to themselves. They also acquired competitors, and when some competitors tried to fight them with free market competition, they were impeded by unethical business practices.
Where is the proof? All of this and no sources. Shocking.
Let me guess. You are going to get government sponsored sources by the Justice Department.
Businesses don't play by the rules.
When they get help by the government.
Ignoring Economy of Scale which favours big business over its competitors
Whose is ignoring economies of scale? I'm not. How is this relevant?
Economies of scales is the result of big business, not the cause.
It isn't hard to understand this simple fact.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this then? Is the socialist junk clouding your mind?
What do you think is behind those laws and regulations which favour a company? A big business that wants to eliminate competitors, so it funds political campaigns.
That is what been trying to tell you. But you come up a different rational.
Government doesn't just give out regulations to favour a company, it does so after a business funds them.
That is illegal. So, you are accusing them of bribery or racketeering. Business paying the government to favor a company is illegal. The other way around is not because the government doesn't follow its own rules. Again, it decides winners and losers based on who is in office.
You're either so mesmirised by the whole "it's my money! no taxes!" message of libertarianism, that you can't see when you're hoodwinked, or you're completely unable to spot a simple order of cause and effect.
You are "HOODWINKED" by the delusion that business is bad and evil and only cares about profit. What is wrong with pursing their own interests? Government is what gets in the way with economic policy.
Government is only concerned with power, and it is distributes powers at its will either by regulations or money.
The way it happens:
Business B wants to be a monopoly
Business B lobbies Government so that it regulates in favour of Business B
If you can't see the order of "tit for tat" in politics, then you have no business commenting upon it.
IF SO,
Explain why Obama gave money to this small company called Serious Materials instead of the big companies who apparently buy favors like Anderson, Pella and Marvin.
The way you buy into the libertarian message makes me think that you have selective scepticism. You're completely sceptical towards religion, politics, history, and so on, but when your party sells you a message with words like liberty and freedom, you bite into it without taking a second look.
First, the Industrial Revolution isn't as what you describe as a free market, and it was the most prosperous economic era ever for all classes. No time in history were all classes better off than under monarchies or some form of tyranny or working on the farm only a generation before.
It was a market. It wasn't regulated in any meaningful way (products weren't checked for filth or poison, no EPA, no labour standards, child labour okay, etc.).
You know I am an open-minded person. I always rethink my beliefs to check for consistency, and any new revelation of facts always makes me revise my arguments. I could take you seriously at your word, but then you say things like:
Have you ever cracked opened a book not sponsored by government? Didn't think so.
In other words you admit that your position cannot be falsified. This is because any contrary evidence to your position is part of a government conspiracy to conceal the truth. Crackpots do this. Open-minded people aren't afraid of the facts.
By the way, during the Industrial Revolution, epidemics were common, as was starvation and diseases like Tuberculosis ravaged as much as 70% of the population. So no, it wasn't an improvement for all classes.
Where is the proof? All of this and no sources. Shocking.
Let me guess. You are going to get government sponsored sources by the Justice Department.
Try reading about Standard Oil. Jesus freaking Christ you ignore anything that doesn't fit with your ideology.
Standard Oil is the literal text book case for monopoly and how they form, how they eventually become entangled with politics, and so on.
When they get help by the government.
I keep forgetting that with libertarians there is no coherent thought, just "gubberment touretts'."
No. Businesses with act in ways that are not regulated by the market, for example by impeding distribution ways with prejudice towards competitors, spreading fear and doubt about their competitors, conducting espionage against their competitors, and so on.
Whose is ignoring economies of scale? I'm not. How is this relevant?
Economies of scales is the result of big business, not the cause.
Let me guess. You don't actually know what economy of scale is. Simply put, it is the intrinsic advantage in efficiency that comes with becoming larger. Mass production has an intrinsically more efficient process than by-hand manufacture.
In other words, the bigger a business becomes, the harder it is for new competition to arise and confront it. The bigger business has an innate advantage in trade routes, machinery, inputs, and so-on.
That is illegal. So, you are accusing them of bribery or racketeering. Business paying the government to favor a company is illegal. The other way around is not because the government doesn't follow its own rules. Again, it decides winners and losers based on who is in office.
Lobbying and political fund raising are fancy words for bribery.
You are "HOODWINKED" by the delusion that business is bad and evil and only cares about profit. What is wrong with pursing their own interests? Government is what gets in the way with economic policy.
Business is defined by profit-seeking. I don't care how you spin this. A business's interest is profits. Everything they do in the political sphere is about their bottom line. That's how they work.
Government is only concerned with power, and it is distributes powers at its will either by regulations or money.
A government is concerned with maximising its authority. That is what it exists to do. That is where it ends.
IF SO,
Explain why Obama gave money to this small company called Serious Materials instead of the big companies who apparently buy favors like Anderson, Pella and Marvin.
Government is largely opaque on these matters, but you can bet that someone is benefiting politically by Serious Materials receiving money. It could be a political favour, it could be that Serious Materials received money due to a regulation that was chiefly created to benefit some other, larger business. It could be that Serious Materials is owned by proxy for another big business. I don't know, but this is how politics works.
First, regulations don't come at no cost. Regulations bring additional costs to businesses, so small businesses must comply to all relevant regulations where the additional costs will cripple their business model, so companies looking for an edge in the market, they send lobbyists to their friends in Congress to encourage them to pass laws that limit competition and grow into big business, and Congressmen are rewarded with large campaign contributions.
Second, in a free market, there are no barriers to entry into a market where no one company has the power to manipulate prices in the market. When government passes regulations, Congress is essentially handing picking winners and losers, and the losers are typically small businesses.
First, regulations don't come at no cost. Regulations bring additional costs to businesses, so small businesses must comply to all relevant regulations where the additional costs will cripple their business model, so companies looking for an edge in the market, they send lobbyists to their friends in Congress to encourage them to pass laws that limit competition and grow into big business, and Congressmen are rewarded with large campaign contributions.
So then you do understand the order of tit for tat in politics. I have big news for you: Free Market doesn't prevent lobbying. Oops, I guess that just means in a few decades all sorts of new regulations will be added to the market by the new big businesses that formed under the new Free Market.
Second, in a free market, there are no barriers to entry into a market where no one company has the power to manipulate prices in the market. When government passes regulations, Congress is essentially handing picking winners and losers, and the losers are typically small businesses.
If you'd stop salivating at party rhetoric for a moment, you just answered for yourself why a Free Market cannot work. Businesses lobby congress, it passes barriers to entry for regulation, and the market is no longer a free market. You lose.
I have big news for you: Free Market doesn't prevent lobbying.
Wait, NEWSFLASH already happened.
Free Market actually already did prevent lobbying because lobbying exploded in 1970's due to big government that exploded into epic expansion, which it programs of giving out free handouts such as welfare, and medicare. Before 1970, there was some lobbying but very little because then the government wasn't giving out larges amounts of our money.
Businesses lobby congress, it passes barriers to entry for regulation, and the market is no longer a free market.
Precisely, that is what I said. Then it is a regulated market. Free markets prevent lobby because lobbyists go to Washington to help write the bills, why on Earth would they go if Congress was actually regulating them. They go to Washington to help themselves. TWO examples, Mattel toy company help write the bill that forces all toy companies to inspect all toys so no mercury is in the toy. It cripples small business in attempt to monopolize the market, so the idiots on Washington will later scream anti trust.
Butter companies helped write the bill that prevented the sale of margarine when first introduced.
Free Market actually already did prevent lobbying because
Because...?
-Under a free market (read: no regulations) it is impossible for wealthy people to fund campaigns?
-Lack of regulation makes it impossible or completely unlikely that wealthy men will lobby congress for their interests?
lobbying exploded in 1970's due to big government that exploded into epic expansion, which it programs of giving out free handouts such as welfare, and medicare. Before 1970, there was some lobbying but very little because then the government wasn't giving out larges amounts of our money.
Not really pertinent. Do I really need to explain why? You see, the entire premise of your advocacy of Free Market economics is that it is incorruptible by lobbying (read:bribing) political favours. If the free market allows lobbying then that means it must change from a free market into a regulated market. Much like how if a creature can reproduce with variation and inherited traits, it must evolve to become different from its ancestors.
Free market stasis (I.E. its ability to remain an objective, unregulated means to reward competition) requires that lobbying cannot happen, it also requires that all businesses play by the rules (I.E. they use tactics that work with the market, instead of subterfuge like making shadow deals with companies run by relatives, or propaganda, etc.). Once this is violated, the free market evolves into something new.
So it doesn't matter if there are spikes in lobbying patterns, all that matters is whether lobbying and unethical business practices are possible in a free market (they are).
Free markets prevent lobby because lobbyists go to Washington to help write the bills,
War is peace?
If lobbyists help write the bills, then it is no longer a free market. If the free market allows this, they the free market facilitates its own change into a regulated market.
Butter companies helped write the bill that prevented the sale of margarine when first introduced.
A natural consequence of free market: no regulations on lobbying, so a wealthy business will undermine and rewrite the rules. Now it is no longer a free market.
So you are saying that regulation has crippled small buisnesses being as they could not then afford to cater to the law. That makes more sense. However, I fail to see how big buisness wouldn't happen without a government in a free market enterprise. I'd assume it'd be more rampant, being as the more successful a company becomes, the more likely that company is to collude or monopolize local and eventually larger markets.
So you are saying that regulation has crippled small buisnesses being as they could not then afford to cater to the law.
Precisely. Good, I am glad.
However, I fail to see how big buisness wouldn't happen without a government in a free market enterprise.
Well, imagine that we both are corn farmers competing in a local farmers market along with other farmers.
Now, we are competing fairly competitively until lets say that I am looking for a edge in the local market. How would I do that? Well, in a completely free market, nor I or you or others have any power to manipulate prices, so it is impossible to dominate the market. The elasticity of demand would always force prices down even if one of us became popular.
But, lets say now that I have a friend in the local government as a councilman. I can first, convince him that if he helps me with a government tax exempt bailout or free money to pay for a new or another tractor or more corn, I will contribute and help him finance his campaign come time election season. Now, I have an advantage because now I have a extra tractor or more corn, which will reduce my operating costs, so I can lower my prices because of government help. Then over time, as long as he is still in the local government, since I have a inside man, I can try to convince him and others on the board on the importance of regulations like safety measures, and all sorts of other costs increases, which will cripple your business and flourish mine because the earlier favor lower my costs, and now with the regulations, I am back to what I was, but you are struggling.
If we really wanted to make some money, we would purchase, or claim, all local recources for our product then form a merger. At that point, there is no competition, and we can raise prices respective to the elasticity of our product. If our product is something crutial, like a primary product of food, clothing, or shelter, we could raise those prices pretty far. And then we expand.