- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Evolution was disproven in the spirit war...The difference between humans and animals is obviously that humans think and socialize. Its because people have the spirit, and it makes them conscious and seeing. Therefore humans coming from apes is impossible. Its impossible for apes to have developed DNA within the time frame that evolution says they did too.
You obviously have no faith in total freedom, and I am not going to change your mind. About the mining towns though, that mustv'e been an adaptation to the time. And people mustv'e went there for the mining jobs, and then if they didn't like them, they couldv'e caught a road out of there. With the railroads, I heard the companies bought up all the land for cheap or something...chrony capitalism. As for the other monopolies...they were only consired that for their scale and lack of immediate competition. As for the 'pay inequity,' the dollar amount workers are paid doesn't matter because prices will be lower with competition if pay is lower, which will cancel everything out. Because the only thing that matters is buying power...unless you are saying that the inequities were caused by monopolistic powers that companies held.
You evidently do not know much about history. Most people were not paid adequately, if paid at all; wage theft (if there were wages) was also very common. I never read that any wages were stolen in any of the history books that I have read. Can you prove this? And why would that be? because they didn't enforce labor contracts...? I doubt it. Low pay compared to today is what you expect; the economy was developing. How about how people were payed in 1600? Its not because they were 'underpayed'
People worked in mines or in dangerous factories not for the money, they worked there because they had no other choice and they needed to feed their families. There was no choice in the matter, really. It was work for nothing or starve for sure. Often times there were co-ops where the wages of all the mining companies in the region paid the same wages, so you really had no "choice." The "liberty" remained in the hands of the stronger party--the employer. Yes you work because you have to live, duh. Why do you work? And there was supposed be another choice besides working to live? And, as far as no choice on what mining company they worked for. Nonsense, they chose to leave the city and go out to work at a mining town in the mining industry. Industies typically pay some base amount right?
Exactly, corporations are not people. People are people. This argument is exactly like saying, "the government is a person because people work for it." No, I didn't say a corporation was a person, I said that it was a group of people which mutually own a thing and coordinate together to run it.
Most CEOs will tell you that their corporate non-human entity does not exist to create jobs. "Job creation" is something they say when its election time, or the people are asking them to pay taxes. If corporations really existed to provide jobs, today, with the horrible wealth distribution we have, EVERYONE would have a job that paid well. That is an ad-hominem against CEOs. And um, corporations like to create jobs because that means they expanding, selling more stuff and making more money.
No. Not at all. When a corporation dominated an industry, its pricing was arbitrarily high. Look at the Central Pacific railroad's history. Prove it
Kids shouldn't be working to support themselves. Their parents should be paid enough to support their kids while they go to school and get an education. I cannot believe there are people like you who are against that now! That was such a basic thing for a long time in this country! Tnat was an impossibility in that time because our economy was not developed enough.
Actually living standards were lower because the wealth distribution was horrible, and corporations had so much power that they were able to do things without any regulation, which means things were not done safely. I just tol you the reason for that gap in income distribution. And things were inherently dangerous.
History has never worked that way. When everyday people have money, there is demand in the markets because people buy things, and then the suppliers have to hire people to meet the demand. That's how it works in history. That's how we got out of the great depression. The great depression was created by deregulation and supply-side economic hypothesis, like you're talking about.
Not to be a jerk, but could you use two asterisks before and after what you quote of mine so it's bold? Italics was hard to differentiate your writing from mine. Whatever.
It is not slavery, but the Government owns us since we must pay to live. Taxation = pay period...I live and I pay and that is just how it is because the Government me and everything I produce. If you spend some time in an anarchaic society in Africa where you are absolutely free, you will understand exactly what I am saying.
All you supposed intellectuals here lack something totally vital to good intellect and that is common sense. Your going through a web of thought in your head and weaving crazy theories to answer simple questions. I have nothing more to say in this debate... Not everything is relative, some things are definite and common sense. If one says its OK to be gay because "don't judge," then they say its OK to commit any biblical sin because "don't judge," right? But anybody with common sense knows that the Bible is does not say its just fine to sin. And therefore, no one who honestly interprets the bible can say its just fine for people to be gay.
Sometimes, in order to be intellectual you have to simply use common sense. Common sense says some things are certain. That is all I will say, and this argument is closed because you apparently believe in absolute moral relativity or something, and I have already made my points about moral absoluteness, and there is nothing more I can say.