CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:12
Arguments:8
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Capitalism, Socialism, or somewhere in the middle? (8)

Debate Creator

Izzieism(19) pic



Capitalism, Socialism, or somewhere in the middle?

Is socialism the answer to our economic woes?
Is capitalism?
Does the answer lay somewhere in a balance? 
What is socialism?
What is capitalism?
What is money? 
Add New Argument
2 points

Capitalism, Socialism, or somewhere in the middle?

Hello I:

Those really aren't the available choices.

Capitalism is the default - NOT because we chose it, but because people naturally trade with each other. What makes us civilized is that we make BARGAINS.. Capitalism is simply the MONITIZATION of bargaining.. Is there a monetary aspect to a bargain you make with your children?? You betcha.

Now, as a nation we CAN decide HOW we're going to manage certain problems. We can leave it to private industry or government can take it on... We TRIED private police forces like the Pinkertons, but that DIDN'T work. So, we decided that EVERYBODY should pay for services that EVERYBODY receives.. And, you GET those services even if you didn't or couldn't pay. The military, police and fire protection are some of those.

People have different names for that.. No matter.. You can call it whatever you want.. It doesn't change WHO writes the checks, and WHO receives the services..

excon

Izzieism(19) Disputed
1 point

Hello Excon: :)

I would agree that those aren't the choices. In my experience both terms have been used to describe a wide range of different ideas and prescriptions to the problems we face as a society.

I would argue that Capitalism is not the default. Even here in America we see HEAVY government regulation and spending. That is not a product of capitalism; which essentially states that government should have no hand in trade.

Bargaining is only the default in situations were people are on some equal playing field enforced by the social structure. Bargaining for most of human history tended to be based on either strength, cost, or utility. But say if civilization A believes that they would benefit from destroying civilization B or enslaving them. They would do it. Without a set of belief systems and a social structure to enforce peaceful cooperation we often devolve into tribalistic warfare of one form or another. Humans have the most amazing ability to rationalize why they should see "others" rather than "members". From politics, to religion, and even diets.

A good example of this is found in the flea markets. I have often found that the price offered to me is 5 to 10 dollars cheaper than the price offered to my white companions. With no overseeing structure ensuring a continuity in pricing and the social structure pushing the belief that because they are white they must have more money, these shop owners find no qualms with their obvious discrimination.

Now as for doing things as a nation. This is the biggest folly in socialism that i can find. The socialist of today and yesteryear are constantly telling us government control is good. When i look though i find the opposite affect. Their is an obvious trend of government regulation and a rise in cost and expense in daily life. Their has been an increase not a decrease of people at the bottom. Its why you find the most income inequality in democratic areas. Whether by good intentions or bad you find that most problems become exacerbated with government involvement in industry. Housing, medical, education. Hell, even the "need" for a car has been artificially created by government.

As for the idea that people have different names for social services, eh... maybe. My problem is more the delivery than the spirit. Under "Government Socialism", the type pushed by both the DSA and the Democratic party, aims to push for a government ran industries rather than government led.

This is most relevant in the current debate on education. The left wants more taxes to pay for our antiquated and swollen public educational monopoly system. The right is suggesting instead that we provide vouchers to parents so that they may instead choose between private schools in their area. They argue that through a voucher system parents will have a choice in the school that their kids go to. That through a voucher system parents will be able to demand better results and bankrupt (or essentially fire) any school that they deem unfit by pulling their kids out and sending them to another school.

They argue that it would put an end to the redlining we see take place in public education. This current system that produces ever dying schools and forces the poor into the worst schools merely cause they live in a low tax area that cant afford better schools, teachers, or facilities. Also many current private schools are operating at half the cost per student than their public counterparts, for better educational results.

Ben Shapiro even expressed the idea that we offer parents 50% of what they do not use as an incentive to be more economically minded about their choices. The difference in these prescription come from the differences between capitalism and government socialism. Where as the capitalist thinks that the individual can make much better and more dynamic choices that the government or some bourgeoisie in some government seat or administration. Meanwhile the government socialists believe that either they or a governing body on some council can do better than the common man. they believe that the one size fits all prescription offered is better than the choices an individual would make.

As for me I would say that the answer lies in the middle for now. Start a voucher program for the parents who see a benefit and continue the public for those that see a benefit there.

Finally, who writes the checks does matter, I hear many "socialists" say that government writes the checks. Uhhh,no, government does not produce anything and is therefore incapable of writing any checks. Government money is the money of the proletariat, not the money of whatever crooked politician (bush, Clinton, bush, Obama) seeks to lay claim to it.

No anytime government asks for money to run something a business could do, i am highly suspect.

Every Marxist government the left has ever praised has always failed. In every one you can find a strong government control over industry. In every one you find bourgeoisie at the top, while the pros get squished under an even stronger boot.

I THINK Marx would back me up here. After all he too pointed out that government was a tool of the bourgeoisie. Not its bane, but its friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx'stheoryofthestate

In conclusion, for me the answer is found in the crossroads between the x line of capitalism and the y line of socialism.

P.S. Are you saying that cops are uncorruptible because they are paid for by the state? or that they offer better service because they are paid for and answer only to the state?

Sandy Springs, Georgia: The City that Outsourced Everything
Bronto(2003) Disputed
1 point

we decided that EVERYBODY should pay for services that EVERYBODY receives.. And, you GET those services even if you didn't or couldn't pay. The military, police and fire protection are some of those.

How many illegal aliens do you think can flood the nation before the system is overwhelmed? Looks like the Democrats want to find out. Is your seatbelt on?

Spanner(1) Disputed
0 points

How many illegal aliens do you think can flood the nation before the system is overwhelmed?

Doesn't seem to be a problem for Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Belgium, UK, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Holland, Austria, UAE, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland or Israel.

These countries seem to be running universal healthcare quite easily without causing an alien immigrant apocalypse. I think you are possibly -- and by that I mean definitely -- using any angle you possibly can to attack immigrants.

1 point

Back to the way we WERE doing it! A combination of BOTH (with improvements, which is what our Congress SHOULD be doing, instead of undermining our democracy!), while REGULATING capitalism AND the environment so NEITHER gets away from U.S.!

Regulations are NOT to keep capitalism from GROWING, they are to keep capitalism from TAKING ADVANTAGE of U.S.! Charging $1500 for a $15, life saving drug, for instance! ignoring workplace safety, polluting our air & water! "Buying" our elections!

Back to the way we WERE doing it ... with improvements, moving forward, not backward!

2 points

This is how i feel about the current state of things. If you were given ultimate power in this matter what would you change?

2 points

Obviously, we're not going do much with this "President", that's the first thing we have to change. A majority in Congress helps, but it's not enough. A stronger requirement on history in schools might help. It took years, from the "Contract with America" to now to twist minds with division and hatred, it's going to take years to change it back.

Citizens United is the second biggest problem. Money in politics is NEVER a good thing, and it will effectively stop any control over "runaway capitalism". Teddy R. stopped it once, we need another T.R.. Wish I knew one!