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.
Free markets and minds creates the greatest economic opportunity for everyone where voluntary exchange is at its maximum where producers produce and consumers consume, and it effectively limits crime without having to redirect resources to an over aggressive police state.
Free Markets? Yes, they are free in the beginning, but like anything else, some people are better at business than others. These people then become more and more powerful until a social pyramid forms and we are back to square one. This pyramid is just like the predatory pyramid in nature, after all, humans are part of nature.
Capitalism is about failure, etc. However, my previous statement stands, the money will always make it to the top of the predator food chain, leaving the other 90+ percent of the pyramid to live in shambles. Can these people make their may up the pyramid to the top by means of capitalism? Probably not as the ones at the top do not want their money taken away. It is the same as nature. However, if everyone had enough to survive, there would be enough to go around nicely. And I am not a Communist, I am someone with rational thoughts. :)
In a market society, consumption and production are the meaning of life. Everything is a commodity. Every human is inadvertently harnessed to serve the longevity of the system by the institutions of work and consumption.
People will not miss freedom once it is taken from them. A prostitute does not make a free decision to sell themselves, they do it because of the power exerted by others, but even freedom itself will be defined to serve the power interests. Advertisement and power affects everyone regardless of ideals of exchange.
The classical liberal Adam Smith said that a person who engages in repetitive labor as a means of survival will mostly become as stupid as a human being can be. As such, it is an awesome way of reducing crime.
The free market was a rather unorthodox notion back then. As the argument didn't go: "Here are the characteristics of a person and the good life, here is a system that enables and protects it", some clarification was probably necessary. Smith also expressed criticism of corporatism which is something I find lacking in contemporary economics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2012/jul/30/economic-policy-adam-smith (never mind the indirect, ideological contortions that at least pop up for me)
Smith would advocate direct action for both the emergence of free markets and positive human characteristics. And by all means, point out if misrepresented his ideas. I just feel as if Smith is ideologically contorted and his ideas cherry picked. (Perhaps also by leftists like Chomsky, in his understatement of the invisible hand.)
Freedom is an essential aspect of human nature as it pertains to all creatures.
I agree with that. I only implied that people might not distinguish, or might even mistakenly embrace, their non-freedoms if market-ideology gains too much prominence.
The free market alone, if useful, isn't at any rate the ultimate goal for society, and people should recognize the aspects of human nature they might find suppressed within it and address them. I think it is a process that a coherent classical liberal such as Smith would support and a process which, if left undone, undermines the classical liberal justification for a free market severely.
Anyone notice that there is tons of drugs, violence and rape in prisons? If you can't even stop crimes from occurring in prison, makes you think turning society into a prison via a police state will help?
If people have their needs met, then they do not need to steal food, clothing, money etc. This is also elevates the strain on their mental health because not meeting basic needs is stressful.
The way to earn the resource involves limiting other people's access to it with violently enforced authority. When people try their best to agree what belongs to whom, they are likely to make a deal that involves less violent enforcement by trying to satisfy the demands of every party.
In this case it doesn't matter if the party earned the resource, limiting their access is crime, which ought to be minimized if possible. The deal which is to the utility of it's participants is the least violent arrangement.
In a free market, it is impossible to limit access to resources with force, these resources are competed in the market where those who are most efficient succeed; therefore, this is the essence of competition.
Why would anyone limit access to resources when a market economy is based on consumer sovereignty.
In a rational deal between parties whose interests are tied to the resource at hand every party is a priori considered an equal partner in conversation. One has to make the rational case that they have earned a specific resource. When you apply that principle you get perhaps vague democracy.
In free markets, resources (that can't be considered to belong to anyone) are distributed to those with the means to defend them. Leverage over resources is maintained with the forceful enforcement of property: the language of force and not the language of reason.
I claim only the language of reason, which contains these specific a priori notions, can be an alternative to force. The fact that you're convincing others why they should agree with you already assumes you speak this language, and should be able to distinguish it to grasp my point.
Why would anyone limit access to resources when a market economy is based on consumer sovereignty.
If someone owns something, they may do whatever they want with it. Power is the ability to limit access or destroy resources at will. It doesn't imply that there is incentive to do so. That superfluous, luxurious ability nevertheless ought not be instituted without justification.
On the other hand, people for example have claimed ideas as property. How would this directly detrimental activity be stopped, when it has instituted itself in market societies across the world? I claim even this can't be the only test of legitimacy.
What claims would be rationally legitimate as opposed to just violent? What forms of force or power are legitimate (be they retaliation, something assumed a priori, something not assumed at all)? What specific greater principle of efficiency or justice would this arrangement adhere to that would otherwise not be achievable?
Wrong, food, water and shelter all require human action, these things don't just appear out of nowhere and not free, even the act of stealing takes human action, so if the thieves are willing to engage in human action, why not productive means?
Free markets reduce crime through the act of productive means.
For years the United States was the country for which one can be rich and own whatever he wants. One who has that economic freedom will tend not to commit crime.
But this economic freedom requires a system of classes. So, for one to be rich, there must be poor. So, even with economic freedom there will be crime. It is definitely not going to reduce crime.
More police isn't either. Police is kind of like really bad insecticide. If you have insect invasion, spaying them with insecticide is temporarily useful. But it will not prevent the insects from coming back.
The common misperception is that there is a fix pie where only some will succeed and others won't, that is not true, economics shows that more than one pie is made with economic freedom. How do you think America got this far, poverty comes from government intervention.
More jobs equals less crime. Now this won't eliminate crime altogether nothing will do that but it will avoid the economic desperation which leads many to commit crimes
This seems like a loaded question as the extremes of either could create more crime. It's like saying "What prevents crimes more effectively, telephone poles or socks?"
You want to prevent crime, prevent poverty and disenfranchisement of the population. If "economic freedom" means totally free market and "Police State" means the US then I would have to say "economic freedom" will lead to more crime. This is because I personally believe that totally free markets lead to poverty and disenfranchisement of most of the population.
Charity is wealth redistribution, yet it is voluntary. People voluntarily giving money is a sign of compassion. Plus, if not charity, there is family as well.
Income inequality is prevalent in every country with the largest gaps in centrally planned economies.
Sure, mixed markets have, yet they have proven over time put people back into poverty.
Charity is wealth redistribution, yet it is voluntary. People voluntarily giving money is a sign of compassion. Plus, if not charity, there is family as well.
My argument was simply that wealth redistribution is not a bad thing in and of itself.
Income inequality is prevalent in every country with the largest gaps in centrally planned economies.
Yes. Those countries, including the US, need better wealth redistribution.
Sure, mixed markets have, yet they have proven over time put people back into poverty.
Income equality is impossible as centrally planned economies demonstrate. It is inevitable.
I think your would have a hard time proving it's inevitable. A government could make and enforce a tax code that says the richest 10% can only make double what the poorest 10% makes. I'm not saying that's a good idea, I'm only saying large income inequality is not inevitable.
Likewise, you have just as impossible task of proving it is not inevitable.
That stupid policy wouldn't work because it would send really bad signals to the allocation of resources as well as human action. There would probably be shift towards less production and more middle class falling into poverty as a result.
Likewise, you have just as impossible task of proving it is not inevitable.
I did offer an argument as to why your inevitability was false. Even though it was an extreme example, you could scale it back to the point where the tax is just progressive enough to prevent mixed market collapse.
Lets say taxes were so progressive that individual incomes (not businesses) were effectively capped at $10M. I don't think there would be much less production because $10M is still a huge incentive to 99.99% of the people and the people who want more than $10M would still produce because they just like the power and the "game" not the individual dollars rattling around in their bank account.
In countries which are run as a succesful Police State crime is normally very low, although in a corrupt Police State the opposite is usually true. Myself i'd rather have freedom than any Police State.
Well, crime rate has nothing to do with economics, but here are some facts:
• During the cold war, there was a lower crime rate in the Soviet Union than the US because laws were enforced better. People were not tried in fair courts, either. Anybody who broke a law was sent to a Gulag.
• North Korea, probably the most authoritarian state in the world, has virtually no crime. Anybody suspected of a crime is sent to a concentration camp.
• China and Iran also have lower crime rates than the US.
Well managed will be more efficient than place full of armed rednecks. Police states has economy as well. Japan has much lower crime rate than most of countries on the world, highest lifespan on the world and all that without giving automatic weapon to any random people.
UK has incredibly complex surveillance system , people and most of police has no weapon and it's definitely safer place to live than US.
Your "Pseudo Freedom" costs 33 people lives every day.
In the total population of women, .4% in the United States are raped while in Britain, .9% are raped. The assault rate in America is 1.2% in America and 2.8% in Britain. These came from UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute).
If you ignore individual statistics and look at total crimes America is still 82% higher than the UK, making the UK safer. We also have to bear in mind that these statistics are based on reported crimes there is always the possibility that Women in the UK are more likely to report an assault than American Women
True, America may have more crime, but we have higher amounts of crime because of our larger population, differences in culture, etc. But I don't think more UK women would report an assault than American women, the percentage would be about the same. However, the UK has seen higher gang violence and crimes with a gun after the government banned guns.
Depends on we're in the country you live if you live in an Aria with a lot of rednecks the cops might be rednecks if you don't then the cops are not simple as that.
You are an idiot. UK uses complex camera system. People knows that they will not hide if they do something wrong. Same it was with those riots. Rioters thought that they had ran away but two weeks later they heard a door bell and there was a police...
They just follow criminals camera by camera and they usually find them.
There's too many cameras to be watched in real time, so no one can spy on you.
You sound like the neo-cons when they talk about the patriot act, with that whole "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid" kind of thinking.
The average British subject is caught on camera 300 times a day, real free.
Again, the whole "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be concerned" argument. It doesn't matter if its real time, you are caught on government cameras around 300 times a day and the state is allowed to access the films at any time and use various programs to track down anyone's location, actions and information. If none of that sounds a bit wrong to you, then there are bigger issues.
Nobody is looking at them and majority of those cameras runs in 12 hour loops.
Taping phones is illegal without court order, 300 only in London City Center. There's all together 1.4 million cameras in UK
In US 30 million cameras, you can be taped without court order. You may'd be tracked without court order, You can be arrested without court order, you may'd be legally tortured.
so don't shit there something about freedoms.. US is like third world country.
I am not saying the United States is free, nor is Europe, I'm just pointing out that you think the government have cameras everywhere is somehow less invasive then listening to phone calls is asinine.
You've miss understood those camera numbers, majority of CCTVs (close circuit TVs) are private cameras owned by shops, pubs, taxi drivers and so on. They are not connected to any "network" and without court order they are inaccessible.
Ah, without a court order, well that changes everything. Because when the government asks the courts for the order I'm sure the court will... oh wait, the government runs the courts.
In the UK Judges are appointed by Queen but it's only a formality she has no effect on the selection procedure.
Government makes laws but if the law is a BS or limits courts, High Court has a right will cancel it.
Government does not funds courts courts is funded same way as Government, from taxes and if Gov tries to make changes in courts funding by changing the law, court will cancel the change.
Selection procedure takes more than 10 years and has many many stages.
In the UK Judges are appointed by Queen but it's only a formality she has no effect on the selection procedure.
Government makes laws but if the law is a BS or limits courts, High Court has a right will cancel it.
Government does not funds courts courts is funded same way as Government, from taxes and if Gov tries to make changes in courts funding by changing the law, court will cancel the change.
Selection procedure takes more than 10 years and has many many stages.
In the UK Judges are appointed by Queen but it's only a formality she has no effect on the selection procedure.
The Queen having anything to do with judges is wrong, and still, how handles the selection procedure? Oh yeah, the government.
Government makes laws but if the law is a BS or limits courts, High Court has a right will cancel it.
Again, courts are run by the government, the high court is no different.
Government does not funds courts courts is funded same way as Government, from taxes and if Gov tries to make changes in courts funding by changing the law, court will cancel the change.
Anything funded by taxes is government, any law making body is government and any court that is allowed to legally assign punishments is government. This is common knowledge.
This is why are courts called independent.
Because most people in the UK can't tell the difference.
Queen does only the public formal appointing, the ritual, nothing more. Courts is independent on Government. You are one of those screwed constipation freaks... "they're" watching you :D
They are not independent of the government, they go by the governments laws, with the governments judges and are funded by the taxes the government collect.
You are on of those idiotic "the government cares about me, so the Patriot Act and surveillance cameras are for my benefit"
Obviously because I think you should be allowed to own a gun and not have the government tap your phone and film you, I must be a paranoid moron. Great logic...
If drugs get legalized, crime rates would drop. However, the reason for this is that the police state governs the drug makers operations, reducing violence by monopolizing it, and therefore giving power to those organizations. People have defined economic freedom and negative liberty such that they are compatible with and arguably require a police state. Something I would consider the metaphysical hustle of the century.
Not in the context of anarcho-capitalism. The private agency best able to provide the free market gains eventual dominance trough consumer choice. Other agencies would be unable to compete against the one that covers the majority of people. When one agency protects the land, a de facto libertarian state is born.
1) The cost of buying it within full property protection.
2) The cost of seizing it.
Note that "seize value" doesn't increase when scarcity is introduced. Self-regulating mechanisms aren't there. Value 1 may be higher than 2 due to scarcity. Trying to monopolize will be artificially beneficial in this case.
Merging, collaborating and monopolizing provides the best and cheapest product. The strongest agency collective benefits from the ability to impose seize value that others can't protect against. They can set artificially low prices in lower price brackets or buy weaker agencies at seize value.
