CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
29
For the Motion Against the Motion
Debate Score:70
Arguments:87
Total Votes:94
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For the Motion (24)
 
 Against the Motion (22)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1722) pic



A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).


Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?


For the Motion

Side Score: 41
VS.

Against the Motion

Side Score: 29

1) Money is a social construct, it does not exist, it is imaginary, if you think money is actually something tangible then you are superstitious and you may as well believe in fairies. That being said it is inherently nonsensical right off the bat.

2) A true "free market" cannot exist so long as there are monopolies and governments, but if there where no governments there would be nothing to stop monopolies from forming, a true free market will almost inevitably result in monopolies and the only way to stop it is by specifically limiting the free market.

3) Governments don't always stop monopolies from forming, they often create them as well.

4)Without regulation, businesses and financial institutions are free to engage in corrupt practices, corrupt practices are unfair and thus limit your ability to compete freely in the free market, but WITH regulation, the market is not free anymore, so either way it's not a free market.

5) There is no such thing as a "free market" in a literal sense, I sometimes use words and phrases like "free market" in order to communicate, but there are different layers of nuance to certain things that would require too much explanation and lead to serious digression, so I am using simplified terminology when I talk to most people. When you have a "free market" you forfeit many of the systems that may be put in place to limit the powers of certain bodies in favour of a more free and open market environment, this allows corruption to take root and proliferate unchecked which destroys the free market. As soon as you create an institution to legislate or enforce any kind of regulation or limitation on enterprise you are limiting the free market, so a free market cannot technically exist and would not be particularly any better than any other market if it did.

Side: For the Motion
2 points

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered

Side: For the Motion
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

What makes you more qualified to decide what something is worth than the buyer and seller?

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
2 points

@marcusmoon

What makes you more qualified to decide what something is worth than the buyer and seller?

The underlying assumption in your statement is that it is necessary to subscribe to the "Free Market" (whatever that means) religious ideology.. I don't

As I've explained in previous posts, the entire modern Global system (all/overwhelming majority of the luxuries of modernity, as well as the dangers) is predicated on the fruits of Science and Tech. Now, I can only conclude that a person asking this question fails to understand just how precarious our situation is.

For example, there are only about 10,000 Physicists in the world (not all of which are great researchers--there is a standard distribution like in any other population). Without Physicists, we would have next to none of our modern inventions that we currently depend upon nor would we be able to push innovation forward. Therefore, the "basic" research and work of such people is extremely valuable (and there is currently hardly anyone equipped to do it). The standard/average Engineer learns enough Physics, Chem, ect. to harness what we have learned about Nature in a useful manner (however, the overwhelming bulk of this work in no way approaches the depth of understanding in Physics, Chem, ect. and they are highly limited in what they can do). If you just gathered up the one million people most eager, persistent, and qualified to do the sort of research that our modern world depends upon and removed them from the planet, we would be left with very few people (if any) capable of sustaining our current system (and one million is a very generous number). That is a huge problem, and one that is nearly never discussed (accept for in the Scientific community itself, which discusses this matter perpetually) simply because people are taught that their collective delusions in some way make sense, and are viable ideas to organize their lives around (when in reality they are non-sensical and self-destructive).

Also, others such as intensive laborers, many "Blue Collar" professions are imperative in order to keep society functioning and they are looked down upon (often are disincentivized) due to people's simple-minded prejudices (DarthSidious explained this point rather well, I would refer you to his posts). This is an inherently unstable structure as well as unjust (because the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work are not the ones benefiting from the system).

Basically, my argument is simply: the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model)

Your argument is basically, "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this, then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what you are suggesting/implying)

Edit: I would add, based on my reading of you current position, the 10,000 physicists number likely doesn't bother you one bit. What if it were 1,000? 500? There is an enormous problem having the information that society is based upon being that arcane. You must see that? Also, it is important to note, these few people in fields such as this are not at all treated like Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. but rather are largely treated very poorly. If someone wants to go into such a field at the moment it has to be in spite of the profound hardships they are bound to encounter (even if they are genius level like Alan Guth for example).

Also, Construction Workers and the like are often treated similarly awful even though our society absolutely depends upon their hard work and continued existence (which is largely taken for granted)

Side: For the Motion
2 points

It is not at all sensible to have uninvolved parties to determine how much others pay or are paid.

By contrast, the free market is a much more sensible system for anyone who values both freedom and fairness.

When trying to decide the "fair" price of a product or service, the free market does the best job because it leaves the decision regarding what is fair up to the buyers and sellers.

It does not matter that I think professional athletes are overpaid, because I do not ever purchase their services, nor am I an athlete. Likewise it does not matter if I think engineers are underpaid, because I do not purchase their services, nor am I an engineer. What matters is what the people purchasing their services want to pay, and what they are willing to work for.

In a free market, nobody is ever forced to buy or sell, so they get to decide what they want the price to be. If the buyer or seller wants the price to be higher or lower, each is free to negotiate for a more favorable price.

If they cannot agree, each is free to walk away from the deal and look for a different customer or vendor, or do without.

In this way over the course of thousands, or even millions of negotiations and transactions and the market uses crowd sourcing to determine the fair price. Most sensibly, in a free market, the only people who participate in this crowd sourcing process are INTRESTED PARTIES.

Side: Against the Motion
1 point

I agree with you, MF (no pun intended;-)), in principle. I like a well regulated free market system, regulated to protect the people, that is. I think it's kind of impossible to protect the people from their "distractions". I think many of the things you mention above come from peoples insecurity with the way the world is today ... insecure..., the rhythmic noise that is called music today makes people THINK about other things like, what the words are, how to move to it instead of thinking about politics and nuclear war, etc.

I'm an old "leg and fanny" man as opposed to a "boob(er)". Kim K's ass is definitely a "distraction", rather than a thing of beauty IMO. Today, distractions are a necessity. It doesn't require regulations to protect us from that free market.

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@AlofRi

I agree with you, MF (no pun intended;-)), in principle.

I think you are noting there are problems with an unfettered Market while maintaining a belief in the utility of a Market system and are reaching for examples that have been thus far provided in the popular culture (e.g. Sanders, Green Party, typical Social Democratic societies, ect.). Note, I am arguing for a very different form of "Constrained Market" system that would incentivize productive work over unproductive work/activity

I think it's kind of impossible to protect the people from their "distractions".

I partially agree. Note, many people's distractions also fall in line with what is currently incentivized/glorified/respected/honored in our society. Many people will always have trouble "breaking the mold" of societal norms (in my view) because there is good reason to believe that average range human intelligence or below is only intelligent enough to understand the rules of the society for which they were born into or otherwise are later introduced to and become acclimated with (although even this, the latter, falls into the higher range of average human intelligence compared to the former). Now, even with this dynamic, we can produce a highly healthy, rational, productive, intellectual, creative society if the framework is properly structured (e.g. think Star Trek).

Side: For the Motion
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

"Think Star Trek."

That's a nice thought. But to live in Star Trek's financial world we would first have to have a world alliance. That means one world government, the abolishment (likely) of borders, an agreement between the left and the right (good luck with that!), a world where the Putin's, Netanyahu's, Trump's and EU leaders all agree with the world alliance. "Incentivize productive work over non-productive work/activity." I agree, that would be wonderful. So would be bringing back the Unicorn. We are in a world economy where everyone competes, and only cooperates with one another when it is beneficial TO THEMSELVES.

In this country, we have one side that wants NO taxes, that wants NO regulation, that wants to keep and spend every cent they make, AS THEY want to spend it, and if you are unable to work, if you don't have the skills or knowledge, you can't afford the education to get them, you have a handicap, SCREW YOU! If you are ripped off because of no consumer protecting regulations, lose what money you have, SCREW YOU! MY money is MINE!

I agree Sanders is a bit over the top also, in the other direction, but, certainly more humane. Libertarians have great ideas, but totally impractical, as a whole. There is NO WAY, in this environment that your "Constrained Market System" will (can) work, so we must work with what we have. Until we have a "World Alliance", we can't get together enough to agree on your "better" system. Bring on the Star Wars era! Neither you or (especially) I will be here. We have to survive the NOW, we have to live with what we have NOW. It's great to dream.

Side: For the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@AlofRi

Today, distractions are a necessity.

I do not agree with this statement/sentiment at all. In fact, it is essentially the opposite of my position

Side: For the Motion
1 point

Well in a FREE MARKET prices for goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market in which supply and demand and are free from intervention by government, price fixing, ( excluding oil ) or monopolies.

As Maggie Thatcher once said;- ''you can't buck the market''.

Most successful companies spend a lot of dosh on market research to ensure that they have what people want, and not what they think people should want.

In the past deviation from the principles of an open market has resulted in economic stagnation, stunted growth and a smothering of innovation and innovative design.

This was obvious in the comparison between the old communist East Germany and the go ahead FREE MARKET economy of West Germany whose, (for one instance), Automobile Industry was, and still is the envy of the world.

I ran my own business for over 30 years and whilst recognizing the necessity to listen to all shades of opinion, I always found it amusing that those who knocked the status quo seldom, if ever were able to present a well thought out and detailed viable alternative.

So far I haven't read any proposals which would even come close to replacing the FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

Maybe talented entertainers and sports stars are overpaid, but only while they're popular with a fickle public.

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Antrim

In the past deviation from the principles of an open market has resulted in economic stagnation, stunted growth and a smothering of innovation and innovative design.

There has never been a real world implementation of a "Free Market" that is unfettered from forms of Government regulation. Rather, the degrees of regulation and in what areas vary.

One place where private companies have benefited tremendously from "leaching" off of public tax payers is in Medical, Pharmaceuticals, and Tech. research that is largely funded by the public, and then privatized once something is of significance is found (later to public continued expense as they still need to purchase the products--i.e. the public took the overwhelming bulk of the risks, while the private companies reaped the overwhelming bulk of the rewards). Note, this is orthogonal to my larger/main point however, I just wanted to raise the issue due to you tacitly invoking it in your response. What are your thoughts here?

Side: For the Motion
1 point

Antrim,

I always found it amusing that those who knocked the status quo seldom, if ever were able to present a well thought out and detailed viable alternative.

So far I haven't read any proposals which would even come close to replacing the FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

Totally true.

Side: Against the Motion
0 points

Hello x,

The market IS kinda funny. But I can’t imagine any other way to set prices.

excon

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@excon

The market IS kinda funny. But I can’t imagine any other way to set prices

Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect. (I can elaborate on this if you like, I began to address it in my previous posts)

Side: For the Motion
1 point

Excon,

We agree again!

The market IS kinda funny. But I can’t imagine any other way to set prices.

Yep, it leaves the decision up to the buyer and seller, and both have veto power, so it is ultimately fair.

I mean really, why should I have any say in what your services are worth, unless I am hiring you?

Side: Against the Motion
-1 points

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it

Here's the thing. You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational. Hence, when you make capricious claims about the system every civilised society has used for centuries, you are required to support them.

Conversely, what you have done in this thread (and indeed what you do generally) is present an arbitrary claim which you have not attempted to support with any line of reasoning. You have simply claimed that a free market system is not sensible, and then attempted to "evidence" it with the further arbitrary claim that society is stupid.

The one thing which cannot be missed in your writing, even when you are on your best behaviour, is that you have a serious narcissistic personality disorder. For some reason you believe that merely by writing something down you make it true. When challenged, you believe either insulting the other person or disguising your own bullshit behind a wall of convoluted language validates the original claim. I am afraid this is not the way debate works, buddy.

Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer

Stupid.

The overwhelming majority of musicians, actors and athletes are much, much poorer than engineers. What you are actually doing is selectively picking out the most successful musicians, actors and athletes in the entire world and trying to compare them with ordinary people. Clearly, only a halfwit would do something like this in the first place, let alone draw a blanket conclusion from his own false comparison. The most successful engineers in the world are actually richer than their thespian counterparts. Have a look for yourself:-

https://interestingengineering.com/20-richest-engineers-world

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
3 points

@Nomenclature

Firstly, I would like to point out the extreme contradiction wherein you have positioned yourself "Against the Motion" while you have went out of your way elsewhere on CD to state that you are a Social Democrat (which you wrongly labeled as "Democratic Socialist") who believes in a form of "Inverse Capitalism". To quote you:

" I'm a democratic socialist, or kind of an inverse capitalist. I believe we should nationalise the banks and hike tax rates on the top income bracket, then use the profit to eliminate homelessness, provide free basic healthcare and education. I describe myself as an inverse capitalist because I would still retain the profit incentive, but instead of 90 percent of the profit a person's labour produces being stolen by someone else who does absolutely nothing to earn it, I would flip it around, give the worker 90 percent and the economic parasite 10 percent. I bet you that pretty quickly those parasites are going to want to become workers and contribute something more than inherited capital to society."

This is the antithesis of a "Free Market" system, and is one possible arrangement of a "Regulated Market" system (as I have already addressed in my previous posts)..

Side: For the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
3 points

@Nomenclature

Here's the thing. You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.

I'm not claiming to be. It is a simple fact that our society is based upon harnessing the knowledge of Science & Mathematics to useful ends (and our species strength revolves around creativity & intellectualism), not Kim Kardashian's ass (or equivalency). Therefore, the former is objectively far more important than the ladder

Side: For the Motion
2 points

When challenged, you believe either insulting the other person or disguising your own bullshit behind a wall of convoluted language validates the original claim.

Bwahahahahahahaha! Wait. Wait...

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Side: For the Motion
2 points

Clearly, only a halfwit would do something like this in the first place, let alone draw a blanket conclusion from his own false comparison

Like claiming brown Americans are Nazis because you think America is like Europe and that brown people don't debate?

Side: For the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
1 point

@Nomenclature

Well, you have missed the point entirely and most of what you said is bullsh't. I'm tempted to just leave it there, but I'll indulge your attempt..

The overwhelming majority of musicians, actors and athletes are much, much poorer than engineers.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:

A. http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries//page/1

B. http://www.cbafaq.com/minimums.htm

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:

A. www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2017/

B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

The incentive structure of our current system is very clear and self-destructive. The system never should have been set up in such a way and (in any time period) should be altered. However, in our current age, the situation is now dire and we cannot afford to be "sleep-walking" as a species any longer, or I fear we are nearing the end of the road (if a fundamental shift/course corrections are not made in the next roughly 1-3 centuries)

Side: For the Motion
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
2 points

MathFan,

The incentive structure of our current system is very clear and self-destructive.

This assumes that the primary incentive is money. Honestly, I don't think that is true for everybody.

More to the point, it may be to society's benefit that the people who do some of our most important jobs are not primarily motivated by money.

Scientists: I have known a few researchers and scientists. The ones I knew only cared about earning enough for basic security and comfort (buy a modest house, raise kids, have an emergency fund in savings, etc..) The money they really cared about was funding/grants for their research projects. What really motivated them was wanting to know, the thrill of learning and discovery.

Teachers: I was a teacher for many years. Many of my students loved me, and felt real gratitude for what I taught them, and helped them accomplish. I made fair money--enough to live a comfortable and secure life, and I had good benefits, even by pre-Obamacare standards. But best of all I was able to do important things in the lives of people who became important to me. Near as I can tell, teaching is the only job that pays with love. Most of my colleagues felt the same about the job as I did. I never worked as hard at any job as I did at teaching, despite that other jobs paid more.

Police: My brother is a cop. He loves it. More to the point, he believes in the importance of what he does, and he wants to protect people and enable them to live their lives in peace and safety. He does not do it for the money. Consider the havoc that can be caused by people with that sort of power and authority who are motivated primarily by money.

Military: I grew up a Navy brat, and have known military people all my life. Almost all of them serve, not for the compensation, but to protect and preserve our country because they love and believe in America.

There are lots of jobs like these, that are critically important, but pay relatively poorly. As a result, they attract and keep only those people who are dedicated in a way that cannot be bought with money. I think our society benefits from a system that discourages people from filling our most important roles for mercenary reasons.

Side: Against the Motion
-1 points

Well, you have missed the point entirely and most of what you said is bullsh't. I'm tempted to just leave it there, but I'll indulge your attempt..

Lol. God, you're just so stupid. It has taken you ten hours to even think up a reply. I was done with this conversation by the end of this morning you intellectual halfwit. I didn't miss your point. I decimated your point. I exposed an error in your analysis so fundamental that it has taken you literally all day to even acknowledge it. Moreover, the brobdingnagian blockade of text you have eventually fired back at me illustrates your complete inability to present a quality argument.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example

NBA

NFL

This is just retarded. It is just utterly, utterly retarded. It's like you haven't even read the post you are replying to. The NBA is the highest paid basketball league in the entire world and the NFL is the highest paid American football league in the entire world. In most countries people don't even play American football. As unbelievable as it actually is, you are selectively cherry-picking the highest paid athletes in the highest paid sports you can find, AFTER I have just criticised you for doing exactly this. Furthermore, only the very best athletes ever have a professional career in the first place, which is not the case with engineers.

If you think I'm wading any further through your gigantic lake of stupid, narcissistic, delusional denials you are very much mistaken.

You made a fundamental mistake in comparing highly successful actors, musicians and athletes with averagely successful engineers, while entirely ignoring the 95 percent of actors, musicians and athletes who never make anywhere near as much money as an average engineer. You did this not because I "missed the point", but because you are cretinous and stupid.

Side: Against the Motion
-1 points

Yeah that's right, retard. Downvote me because you're upset that you're an imbecile. The highest paid basketball players in the British league earn £30,000 a season:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/basketball/2334843/A-Life-in-Sport-Steve-Bucknall.html

Compare that with the £40,000 - £65,000 earned per year by engineers:-

https://targetcareers.co.uk/career-sectors/engineering/88-how-much-will-i-earn-in-engineering

You're a stupid little idiot with a big mouth. Fact.

Side: Against the Motion
1 point

capricious claims about the system every civilised society has used for centuries

First of all, define civilised, second of all, that statement is blatantly wrong because a free market has probably never existed in the whole history of the universe. What you are referring to is just the monetary system in general, and even the monetary system is not universal in "civilised" societies, whatever you define as "civilised"

You have simply claimed that a free market system is not sensible, and then attempted to "evidence" it with the further arbitrary claim that society is stupid.

So he is making the "arbitrary" claim that society is valuing arbitrary things over logical and productive things and you complain about his supposed arbitrary claim while failing to look around you and see the obvious truth that society is full of arbitrary things and the market system rewards you for appealing to the arbitrary stupidity of the masses? Why the fuck aren't you more concerned about the "arbitrary" things that are infecting the entire human race than his supposedly "arbitrary" conclusions which anyone with more intelligence than a dusty old ATARI in your uncles addic can recognise as valid just by taking one look at society. If a super advanced super intelligent being from another dimension took a look at earth what do you think would piss him off more?

A) people making minor grammatical errors and saying that society is stupid on the internet.

B) The fact that the average primitive homo ape creature seems to be more interested in arbitrary things and entertainment than in using their cognitive capacities to their full potential or making improvements and that they believe more in social constructs and superstitious notions than in reason and evidence.

convoluted language

People often say that when they are too stupid to even know what the fuck someone is talking about.

What you are actually doing is selectively picking out the most successful musicians, actors and athletes

If you look at who is the most "successful" and who is actually the most talented, skilled etc. then you will notice a problem if you have any brains at all. He is "selectively picking the most successful" specifically to point out how fucking stupid and pathetic they are. The thing is, the "most successful" musicians create nothing but mindless repetitive drivel, the "most successful" athletes are really nothing special in many cases when it comes to their actual athleticism etc...

If it where not for the fact that you can make money specifically by appealing to the stupidity of the average person then none of the "most successful" in the entertainment industry would be handed so much just for repeating the word "baby" 4382789572983593822985 times with autotune to mask any semblance of manliness or humanity that may be left in macklemore, Lil wayne or Justin Beiber's body or chasing a ball down a field like a fucking dog while dressed in tights and an oversized padded bra..

Side: For the Motion
2 points

First of all, define civilised

Lol This is exactly the first thought I had when reading Nom's statement

Side: For the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@DarthSidious

If a super advanced super intelligent being from another dimension took a look at earth what do you think would piss him off more?

A) people making minor grammatical errors and saying that society is stupid on the internet.

B) The fact that the average primitive homo ape creature seems to be more interested in arbitrary things and entertainment than in using their cognitive capacities to their full potential or making improvements and that they believe more in social constructs and superstitious notions than in reason and evidence.

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now. Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.

Side: For the Motion
1 point

Nom,

You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.

Thank you. Well put.

You succinctly articulated the basic truth that underlies the free market: that individuals decide for themselves what is the rational price to charge or pay for a good or service.

I never would have expected you to make a statement that supports the free market.

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Marcusmoon

Nomenclature: You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.

Marcusmoon: Thank you. Well put.

No, actually it is not well put.

Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)

Side: For the Motion
-1 points

The case of pharmaceutical companies profiteering and exploiting their more vulnerable clients is no more than unethical business practices by a few unscrupulous companies who would undoubtedly argue that their excessive profits are necessary to continue their highly expensive research and development of new drugs.

Side: Against the Motion
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Antrim

I'm more pointing out that the overwhelming bulk of new Science/Medical/Tech "basic" research is occurring at University systems that receive much of their funding through the Government (public tax money) and then once something fruitful comes out of this massive Public investment, private companies are able to use the results of the research to their advantage and privatize products (and such) that would not have been possible if not for the Public funding

Now, in a "Free Market" system, the Private company would be the one taking all of the risks (with the inevitable high financial investment/burden that doesn't pan out) as well as the rewards (if anything manifested out of the research) which is not at all what is occurring at the moment (under our current system). Right now, they essentially get the reward without having to take the risks

Side: For the Motion
Antrim(1287) Clarified
0 points

Again I must back off on this one as I'm totally unaware of the instances of '' massive public investment in private sector, profit orientated concerns to which you refer.

I would be surprised, if not astounded if the funding you allege is occurring does not come with terms and conditions.

The European Parliament has passed numerous laws on the illegal state funding of private sector corporations and impose brutally severe penalties on both the governments and companies involved in such unlawful practices.

Side: For the Motion
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

Antrim,

The case of pharmaceutical companies profiteering and exploiting their more vulnerable clients is no more than unethical business practices by a few unscrupulous companies

The reason pharmaceutical companies can "profiteer" is because of the DISRUPTION and RESTRICTION of the free market.

Consider this example:

How much is your eyesight worth to you? If you were told you were going to lose your eyesight, and there was no cure, what would you be willing to pay to keep from going blind?

$50/day?

$500/day?

$5000/day?

What if you were told there was a pill that would delay the blindness?

How much would you pay for each additional day of sight?

That would depend on how much value YOU place on your sight. You would never be forced to pay more than a fair price, because fair is determined by what you are willing to pay and what the company is willing to take in exchange for the pill.

If there was only one company that sold the pill, they could set the price at the highest price you would be willing and able to pay. You would never be forced to pay more than how much you value your ability to see. They would never be forced to sell for less than they thought their product was worth.

If there were two companies that made the pill, they would compete in a free market. That would bring the price down, as they compete for your money.

Two things throw a wrench into the pharmaceutical free market in American society.

- 1 - Government regulations interfere unduly with the process of bringing products to market, add extra costs to product development and testing, and limit competition between companies by prohibiting the purchase of many medications from vendors outside the US.

- 2 - Insurance companies act as a buffer between the pharmaceutical companies and the patients. Patients cannot shop around because the pharmaceutical companies have already negotiated their rates with the insurance companies. As a result, the pharmaceutical companies collude with the insurance companies in hiding the prices of the medications as "proprietary information."

Side: For the Motion