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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the liberal elite the real perpetrators of control?
Liberal elites are those who support the rights of the working class, yet they are themselves members of the upper class, yet somehow they know the needs of the people they claim to support and protect. Interesting
Support for the dumbing down policies of state/public education to be applied to the many, the working class, for whom they apparently support, yet send their own children to private schools, and oppose the privatization of school through vouchers.
Gun Control
Support who can and can't own guns except of course the beloved government police.
Contempt for the moral values of ordinary people
Believe that they are inherently smarter based on the moral values.
Equality
Everyone is equal, yet many liberal elite has been accused of not paying taxes or tax fraud.
Enthusiastic for more government
Believe in that more government is good, and businesses are bad.
Support for the dumbing down policies of state/public education to be applied to the many, the working class, for whom they apparently support, yet send their own children to private schools, and oppose the privatization of school through vouchers.
Education and science are inherently liberal disciplines. The conservative stance has generally been championing of the common man, using common sense, and other forms of anti-intellectualism.
Gun Control
Contempt for the moral values of ordinary people
Cherry picking issues can always make your stance appear supported when in fact it is marginal to the whole picture.
Everyone is equal, yet many liberal elite has been accused of not paying taxes or tax fraud.
Not really relevant to your issue. Equality means that everyone has or ought to have equal rights, based on the idea that we ought to be treated like we are all equals so as to stamp out social turmoil.
Believe in that more government is good, and businesses are bad.
More government = more control.
Of course, being a libertarian, you bought into the sleight of hand that business freedom equals individual freedom. So obviously to you, regulating businesses means suddenly we all are more regulated and less free... or something.
Education and science are inherently liberal disciplines. The conservative stance has generally been championing of the common man, using common sense, and other forms of anti-intellectualism.
Government spending on public education is simply outrageous, 600 million dollar school in LA, what is that? If Harvard was rebuilt today, it wouldn't even cost that much.
The 600 million dollar school in California is a perfect example liberal fiscal policy. Putting kids who can't or won't learn, with incompetent or over-worked teachers, in a fancy building the state can ill afford, will not improve the level of education. Liberal policy=throw more tax dollars at it. Californians, as a whole, deserve what they get from the morons they elect. Just like the rest of us.
Cherry picking issues can always make your stance appear supported when in fact it is marginal to the whole picture.
WTF. Liberals always cherry pick issues that best suit their ideology. Don't accuse conservatives or libertarians or yourself, communist any different.
So obviously to you, regulating businesses means suddenly we all are more regulated and less free... or something.
There you go. Now you are getting it. More government = more Control.
Government loves control by telling what people to do. It is a fetish.
Government spending on public education is simply outrageous, 600 million dollar school in LA, what is that? If Harvard was rebuilt today, it wouldn't even cost that much.
It's easy for you to criticise something when you have no clue what the actual costs are. All you have to do is say "600M! That's a big number! How outrageous is that number! It's so big!"
The 600 million dollar school in California is a perfect example liberal fiscal policy. Putting kids who can't or won't learn, with incompetent or over-worked teachers, in a fancy building the state can ill afford, will not improve the level of education. Liberal policy=throw more tax dollars at it. Californians, as a whole, deserve what they get from the morons they elect. Just like the rest of us.
Exactly my point.
WTF. Liberals always cherry pick issues that best suit their ideology. Don't accuse conservatives or libertarians or yourself, communist any different.
The big boys cherry pick, so you do it too.
Would be a bit interesting if you TRIED to have a debate using standards of honesty and integrity.
There you go. Now you are getting it. More government = more Control.
Government loves control by telling what people to do. It is a fetish.
Again, you bought into that old libertarian lie. What's next? Giving all our money to companies results in more evenly distributed wealth? No, I got one, in libertarian imagination-land, letting CEOs amass hundreds of millions of dollars actually RAISES the standards of living for people who live in boxes, don't you see?? Because... umm... oh look a commie!
It's easy for you to criticise something when you have no clue what the actual costs are. All you have to do is say "600M! That's a big number! How outrageous is that number! It's so big!"
In this California town, 600 million/4200 students = 142,000 per student
In my hometown, new high school built, 25 million/1200 students =20,833 per student.
That is why it is outrageous, and the 600 million dollar school was a elementary school.
you bought into the sleight of hand that business freedom equals individual freedom.
Our political freedom is derived from the economic freedom that was and is prevalent in Great Britain. The law protected landowners' rights. And in England land is king. So each landowner was his own master, thus we have political freedom.
Our political freedom is derived from the economic freedom that was and is prevalent in Great Britain. The law protected landowners' rights. And in England land is king. So each landowner was his own master, thus we have political freedom.
A perfect example of the sleight of hand I was referring to.
Simple sanity check:
To whom do anti-trust laws, minimum wage requirements, subsidy laws, etc. apply to?
A. A person living in a middle-class home who works under an employer.
B. The business that employs person A?
Therefore who is being restricted? Business B. Person A need not obey anti-trust laws, pay a minimum wage or face stiff penalties, apply for subsidisation, etc. These laws restrict the business, not the person.
Therefore, according to our little sanity check, what you said is erroneous.
But isn't it unjust to take away a proprietor's economic freedoms? Soon their political freedoms will be stolen as a result of their loss of economic freedom. It's happening in America as proprietors are becoming restricted and thus becoming pariahs. Our administration considers them the face of all evil.
Who wants to be a proprietor with all the government regulations?
Government regulations help big business due to economies of scale.
In the long run, regulations hurt small business because of the high cost of compliance whereas big business benefits because it eliminates its competitors.
Who wants to be a proprietor with all the government regulations?
Government regulations help big business due to economies of scale.
You know if you looked at the situation while factoring in time, you'd see that the regulations that help big business got there because small businesses grew big and bought out some people in the position to make write those laws.
That's how a free market works. Everyone starts equal, then some grow bigger, and then the big guys buy laws that impede their competition.
In the long run, regulations hurt small business because of the high cost of compliance whereas big business benefits because it eliminates its competitors.
Uh, no, not ALL regulations. Those regulations designed to impede competition because they were basically written by big business.
But hey, you're a libertarian, so big business is your friend. It must have been the commies who wrote those laws.
You know if you looked at the situation while factoring in time, you'd see that the regulations that help big business got there because small businesses grew big and bought out some people in the position to make write those laws.
Actually, that is free market, but perfect competition prevents big business.
Those regulations designed to impede competition because they were basically written by big business.
There is only one that I can think of. That is the antitrust laws exempt for insurance companies.
But hey, you're a libertarian, so big business is your friend. It must have been the commies who wrote those laws.
That is the most absurd thing that you have wrote yet.
Actually, that is free market, but perfect competition prevents big business.
Apparently not. See: Modern-day USA.
There is only one that I can think of. That is the antitrust laws exempt for insurance companies.
Never heard of anti-margarine laws? The anti-cannabis legislation? The whole of modern intellectual property laws? I'm sure there are more but these pop into my mind first.
That is the most absurd thing that you have wrote yet.
I like to repay absurdity with absurdity.
I am for perfect competition.
You mean textbook competition. The real world works differently. That's why free market fails because it naturally evolves into something different.
But isn't it unjust to take away a proprietor's economic freedoms?
No. Everybody must follow rules for the good of society.
Soon their political freedoms will be stolen as a result of their loss of economic freedom.
I read you as saying that soon they won't be able to buy political favours.
A business should not dabble in politics.
It's happening in America as proprietors are becoming restricted and thus becoming pariahs.
Being restricted isn't the same as being an outcast. You know that great depression we just went through, that ended in companies receiving a blank check from the government (at our expense) to correct their affairs? That was the result of a lack of restrictions on their behaviours a decade ago.
Restrictions keep these companies in line, and keep the workers safe.
Our administration considers them the face of all evil.
Actually, it doesn't, because they buy out our politicians each election. That's why social change happens at such a sluggish rate, too many political favours to keep for those companies.
You know that great depression we just went through, that ended in companies receiving a blank check from the government (at our expense) to correct their affairs?
Great Depression? Wow, you are drinking Obama's kool aid.
Buzzed, wrong, try again.
Since our economic system is based on a profit loss system, profits are private and losses are not social. So if companies fail as did GM, they fail and not bail them out.
Federal Government has been bailing out companies and government since the 70's.
Great Depression? Wow, you are drinking Obama's kool aid.
Not really, it's an obvious fact to anyone not invested in corporate freedom.
Since our economic system is based on a profit loss system, profits are private and losses are not social. So if companies fail as did GM, they fail and not bail them out.
I agree, let bad companies fail. Oh wait, we can't, because the companies became so big that if they fail, our country will have massive unemployment and an industry vacuum. I guess letting companies grow so big wasn't a good idea?
Federal Government has been bailing out companies and government since the 70's.
One more sign that capitalism and the market aren't the magical cureall that you think.
I agree, let bad companies fail. Oh wait, we can't, because the companies became so big that if they fail, our country will have massive unemployment and an industry vacuum. I guess letting companies grow so big wasn't a good idea?
So, when a small business fails, what does the government?
Oh, who gives fuck, you nobody?
Nobody lets companies grow so big, they grow big due to demand and government helps them go bigger by regulations.
So, when a small business fails, what does the government?
Oh, who gives fuck, you nobody?
Basically. That IS what you advocate.
Nobody lets companies grow so big, they grow big due to demand and government helps them go bigger by regulations.
Big businesses form naturally from an unregulated market and unregulated business practices. They secure their assets by buying political favours. So it is a natural consequence of free market and lack of regulations that increasing regulations will emerge as businesses start to play politics for their favour. Soon we have laws like "margarine must be died pink" or "copying movies is highly illegal" that stem from decades of power struggles.
I have never advocated big business, that is your perceptive.
Big businesses form naturally from an unregulated market and unregulated business practices.
Big business forms due to demand. Business operates as a voluntarily exchange between two parties of good and services. McDonalds or Ford has every forced me into a exchange of their goods or services. They grew out of the demand by consumers and lack of multiple competitors. The entity that forces into service is the government, and if I don't pay for their services, I go to jail.
They secure their assets by buying political favours. it is a natural consequence of free market and lack of regulations that increasing regulations will emerge as businesses start to play politics for their favour.
Wrong, that is consequence of big business and big government working in collusion.
I have never advocated big business, that is your perceptive.
You advocate practices which lead to big business and fight policies that would be against their interests.
Big business forms due to demand. Business operates as a voluntarily exchange between two parties of good and services. McDonalds or Ford has every forced me into a exchange of their goods or services. They grew out of the demand by consumers and lack of multiple competitors. The entity that forces into service is the government, and if I don't pay for their services, I go to jail.
Why do you think big businesses have few or no competitors? They lobby (buy political favour) so that competition cannot exist. They become bigger because of this entanglement with government.
Wrong, that is consequence of big business and big government working in collusion.
No, government has no incentive to help businesses for personal gain. What happens is that big (or growing) businesses offer money to political campaigns, and endorse politicians, in addition to other tactics.
A perfect example are the big Intellectual Property owners. The internet is a form of competition to their business model. It's a disruptive technology.
What do these owners do? They buy favours from their governments so that now police inspect our hardware for stored songs and videos, and now people who copy songs and movies face lawsuits, and are especially vulnerable as these companies lobby for greater legal tools to acquire the personal habits of people they intend to sue. It doesn't end there, because technologies that can bypass digital restrictions are being made illegal, all for the sake of protecting the interests of these big companies.
The government would probably rather keep its nose out of this, but thanks to these extremely wealthy companies, and their lobbying, digital downloads are being treated like drug trafficking.
The government didn't step in early on and choose to make these companies bigger with regulations. It was at these companies' behests.
You advocate practices which lead to big business and fight policies that would be against their interests.
Wrong, Laissez-faire policies encourages the elimination of big business by allowing more competitive markets emerge in all industries instead of oligopolies or monopolies.
Wrong, Laissez-faire policies encourages the elimination of big business by allowing more competitive markets emerge in all industries instead of oligopolies or monopolies.
You're confusing the fact that a free market now would cut away regulations that favour current corporations and monopolies, encouraging new competition - with the simple fact that Laissez-faire/free market capitalism lead to those regulations in the first place. Free market capitalism must favour big businesses because they are better at satisfying demand, and those businesses will always use the easiest means to eliminate their competition, which usually means lobbying for regulations that favour them.
No. Everybody must follow rules for the good of society. So you're saying that if it is for the good of society that there be no black people, they should make a law ordering their extermination, and that they (blacks) should be compliant with it?
So you're saying that if it is for the good of society that there be no black people, they should make a law ordering their extermination, and that they (blacks) should be compliant with it?
You're trying to blacken my statement by tying it with a hypothetical genocidal policy that would never happen.
I was just trying to say that the "common good" isn't in everyone's best interest. Nietzsche's paradox of democracy: in a democratic society I have 2 masters: my will and the majority's will. There is no guarantee that they will ever coincide.
And, who gets to decide the common good, Mr. Machiavelli?
I was just trying to say that the "common good" isn't in everyone's best interest. Nietzsche's paradox of democracy: in a democratic society I have 2 masters: my will and the majority's will. There is no guarantee that they will ever coincide.
We can speculate about this all day but it doesn't change the simple and obvious fact that deregulating businesses makes them exploitative.
And, who gets to decide the common good, Mr. Machiavelli?
Obviously myself, since otherwise it'd just be some libertarian who holds a textbook as more authoritative than reality.
Niether does it change the fact that regulations decrease economic growth and performance. And those things benefit everyone.
An unregulated market is a liability. See the Great Depression and world-wide economic crises. A regulated market prevents these problems or safeguards for them, and provides a high standard of living.
It's a matter of keeping the wealthy and the opportunists accountable.
And the regulations is the reason why the Great Depression lasted for 12 years in America. If we let the market fix itself it would have been shorter.
Uh, no. The unregulated market is what caused the great depression. The regulations existed to safeguard against it happening again. Half a century later, those regulations were removed, and just a few years ago we suffered YET ANOTHER market collapse. It's almost as if the market's trying to tell us something.
I didn't say the free market isn't what caused the depression. I'm saying that the restrictions on the free market slowed down its recovery. The free market has its problems but it is the only one that works.
I didn't say the free market isn't what caused the depression. I'm saying that the restrictions on the free market slowed down its recovery. The free market has its problems but it is the only one that works.
It doesn't work. That's what TWO great depressions following a lack of regulations indicates. Are you waiting for the third financial crisis? A fourth? What'll it take to sink in to you that an unregulated market is prone to bubbles which make it unstable and is therefore not something you'd want to invest a nation's wealth and prosperity in?
What are you trying to say? "Sure the market collapses ever few decades but that's better than losing some money into regulations that create a safety net."
I'm pretty sure that the subprime mortgage crisis and housing bubble were caused by the government encouraging banks to loan money to people who had no means to pay for them in the long run. The banks wouldn't have done so without government interference.
I'm pretty sure that the subprime mortgage crisis and housing bubble were caused by the government encouraging banks to loan money to people who had no means to pay for them in the long run. The banks wouldn't have done so without government interference.
This statement makes no sense to me. A couple decades ago regulations which would have prevented this kind of bubble or at least made it less likely to emerge were removed by a president. How could a lack of regulations be government encouragement?
Offering incentives is a regulation. Offering incentives causes bubbles. The free market can fix the bubbles if it's allowed to, unless there is some reason why it keeps getting bigger.
Ok then bubbles happen no matter what. Also the government increased tariffs after the crash, which is pretty anti freetrade and the economy went up in flames.
No, they happen when loopholes exist, and especially during lax regulations.
Also the government increased tariffs after the crash, which is pretty anti freetrade and the economy went up in flames.
Increased tariffs stimulates local businesses by making their goods relatively cheaper compared to foreign goods.
How many monopolies were actually bad for people?
Pretty much all of them, in one way or another. Microsoft's near-monopoly on operating system deployment has made the personal computer experience stagnant. The oil oligarchy has made our attempts to transition to cleaner fuels very slow. The entertainment industry's monopoly control over our media has created a lucrative business selling bland television shows, music and movies.
Absolutely, the liberal elite believe they know what is best for the common man,so much so that they will go to great lengths to go against the will of the people,even the founders because of their minority beliefs.Their actions in the courts and in legislation proves this point.
Amending the constitution was put into place so the PEOPLE could change if they so seemed fit to do so. The liberal elite try and change the constitution through the courts because they believe they know better than the people and they could not do so through amending the constitution because they are in the minority.
Liberal elites force their control through the courts and legislation and work around the constitution or totally against it.
Liberal Elites always use the Necessary and Proper Clause along with the Commerce Clause to justify their government expansion where government can pass any law that it sees fit as long as it is Necessary and Proper. That is BS.
Right, because the leader of the democratic party, Obama, was raised by his grandmother and the product of an interacial marriage which would have been illegal only a decade prior to his birth. The leader of the democratic party's granmother had no health insurance and could not afford to send Obama to great schools so Obama had to work hard, get straight A's, and "pull himself up by his bootstraps."
That sure sounds elitist to me...
And the owners of Koch, the two 9th richest men in the world who inhereted Koch oil company from their father and who have funded all of the "grass roots" tea party bs from busses to signs, they are totally the common man ._.
No you're an idiot because you actually believe there is a such thing as "liberal elite" as if they are meeting in dark rooms and planning the demise of America. You are a conspiracy nut when it comes to politics, and you completely ignore all facts in favor of fevered right wing propaganda consistantly. It's sort of sad.
All of them put together, including Oprah, make maybe a tenth of what the people funding the tea party make. And none of them start fake grass root campaigns or try to get their candidates in office. You live in lala land.
First, Oprah is worth more than 2.5 billion dollars.
However, this debate is not about money, yet you continue down that path. It is about control. You accuse the Republicans that they are controllers, yet the liberal side is just as controlling if not more. Liberals have an imperious intelligence superiority where they believe that they are always right, and those who disagree are inherently always wrong.
So, in order for yourself to feel better, you use insult tactics such as you live in lala land despite the fact that you unquestionably listen and adore the likes of the liberal elite without question of which as mention before, Keith Oberlmann, Nancy Grace, Chris Matthews, Oprah Winprah, Anderson Copper, and Rachel Maddows.
2. The point is, you use "liberal elite" as if it exists. My point is it doesn't, and if anyone can be accused of undo control over public opinion it is the right... death panels, Obama wasn't born here, Constitutional rights being taken away, black panthers on the rise, Acorn helping a pimp, etc etc. These are all right wing, completely made up conspiracies paid for and financed by those who benefit the most from things like deregulation. They lie to you, you believe them, you act and vote in ways against your own self-interest because of these lies.
If it is about control, and you are against being controlled, stop spewing your right wing ideology.