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.
I am especially concerned for the future of America indeed. Even though the rich were defeated this election, all their millions put into Mitt Romney poured down the drain, this country is still, for the most part, a corporate-controlled, somewhat fascist, oligarchy.
People are not free because of the disparity in wealth. The wealthy control almost everything, including our opinions. They can even go out of their way to make people believe that Labor Unions are the bad guys while they hide the information on how they raise their own pay and make themselves more comfortable while making everyone who works for them suffer.
Success should not be punished, ideally. But because of human nature, people who are successful in this country use their power and money to control free will and freedom of the Middle and Lower Class... which is evil and warrants punishment. The one-size-fit-all system of government punishment, regulation, may punish the innocent, which is not good, but I can also see why it may be the only way to punish the guilty, simply because the guilty among the wealthy are the ones with the power to avoid being punished in the first place.
In conclusion, yes, I am worried about the future of America, because we are barely different from Feudal Europe. We have an Upper Class that controls everything with their power, and then everyone else below them slavers away under their power, just trying to stay comfortable.
The only difference is that the Upper Class in America has the power to make people believe that this is not what is going on, when this is exactly what's going on.
That's all fine and good except that there's still one thing I do not understand. Except for 2008 (to the present) Our standard of living had been going up. That improvement is not due to poor people. It's due to rich people. I think a little appreciation is in order ;)
Ideally, redistribution of wealth. I know, I've heard the argument that, if you punish wealth, nobody will have incentive to try and become wealthy, but I'm not sure about that. I think it's important to get rid of the one-tax-fits-all glove in this scenario and instead punish only the wealthy that have literally ruined peoples lives and manipulated opinions and bribed government officials (or tried to).
And while that would be difficult to manage, I'd assume, what it would do is encourage entrepreneurs to actually use what freedom of market we have to do good and not evil. To prefer generosity over greed.
But at the same time, such an idea makes me wonder, 'what if they have so much money and power that they can't be tracked down anymore and punished, like John Rockefeller was?'
If such was the case, then I would generally agree with a one-size-fits-all solution in wealth redistribution. Which again brings up the argument of incentive to be successful. Well, greed doesn't have to be the incentive, no? Nowadays people create small businesses for two reasons: because they have a dream to create and serve people, or, because they want to eventually become the owners of giant companies and have huge sums of money they will never use.
If you take away the later incentive of the examples above, does that really eliminate people's incentive to create products and serve communities? Not at all.
In fact, it's my own earnest belief that the only reason the poor are lazy (the few that are truly lazy, that is; most are just trying to survive or be comfortable) is because they have no hope to ever become successful, or even average, simply because they were born into their respective class. And they have every reason and plenty of supporting evidence to believe this! As the rich constantly work to take away power from their workers so that they may make larger personal incomes.
But if you take away the power of the rich to do these things, to control and destroy lives, to manipulate politicians and people's opinions, and then give that redistributed wealth to the poor, what happens? Maybe some would say they would piss the money away, but I say nay. I say, if the poor had such hope, and had such leeway to actually enter the Middle Class, the vast majority of them would, because the way I see it, the only reason they turn to being the 'scum of the Earth' is because they have no other choice because of being born into a class created by the rich.
Which brings me to what I think would be the best solution provided that we cannot really punish only the rich that violate morality: tightly knit classes. Redistribute wealth so that the three classes are almost nonexistent, and at least, are extremely close together. The rich would still have plenty of luxury, the Middle Class would be content, not stressed, and the Lower Class would be easily comfortable. And nobody could go above or below these standards, thus, preventing people from having the freedom to eliminate the freedom's of others.
Because saving money from begging won't get him into the Middle Class.
In my experience, though, most of the time I give money to a panhandler, I will witness him or her immediately get up and walk to a nearby restaurant just so they can eat.
Whatever they do with it, it's just for the purpose of trying to survive or be comfortable, so whatever they do what it, I cannot judge them as they were born into miserable lives that they cannot be broken free from in our current system... unless they are lucky. Very lucky. Like that homeless man that became a singer because some random record producer was feeling generous (or was he feeling like mocking homeless people, and instead got lucky himself by finding one that could make him a fortune?).
I would say that logically, my story is more common an occurrence. Even when insane, people don't tend to enjoy suffering and prefer to, well you know, not suffer. To say that most of the homeless would turn down a meal is to say most homeless don't even adhere to basic instinctual logic, which I think it's a senseless, unlikely generalization.
Not that you necessarily made such a generalization.
The homeless I'm familiar with are regulars at different parts of the city. They are there for hours on end. I see them get money and they defend their spot fiercely. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they make more than enough money for 3 happy meals at Mickie Ds per day and have some left over for booze. If they didn't make enough money, they would find some other line of work ;)
That implies you believe they don't suffer as much as I think. The problem though is that, who the hell is going to hire a former beggar? Either nobody, or the beggar is going to have to get very lucky.
It's not that they make plenty of money, it's that they can't move up and get a better jobs. Because they're homeless, and businesses don't generally hire homeless people.
Being able to eat doesn't mean that they aren't at all suffering. If you were stripped of all things except food, I think you'd find yourself still pretty damned miserable.
Our perception of the level of suffering another individual is experiencing is subjective. For example, Nancy Pelosi may rather face a firing squad than be subjected to the TSA and flying coach across the country. She may perceive you as suffering if subjected to the same rules of flying. But you may be totally OK with it. BTW, I think that she really doesn't care too much, otherwise she would do something to get rid of the TSA.
Similarly, the homeless guy could be OK with his lot in life. It's not a lot but it's his lot. Otherwise he would do something about it. I mean, if it got to be really bad, he could just off himself. Life is really over rated ;)
Surely you jest. ಠ_ಠ They don't do anything about it because there's nothing that can be done about it, not because they aren't miserable. And killing yourself is not an alternative to living...
Did I say I was a prophet? No. Why ask the question when I never said I was? That is another stupid and dumb question of yours that your probably knew but asked but no you had to be stupid and ask it anyway.
