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.
Currently poorer neighborhoods tend to have poor education, separating those neighborhoods further from any type of sustainable and affordable education for them isn't going to help improve their situation.
The education of children, a fundamental human right in my opinion, should not be turned into a competition to see who can make the most money out of it. As much as libertarians would love to, you can't put a price on the life and future of a human being. My life is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it is mine to live to its full potential. "Free market" philosophy has already visibly fucked the American's health care system, with hospitals competing to make profit instead of doing what they should be doing and fulfilling the Hippocratic oath, which, to a person like me who doesn't mind sharing what I have, is sick.
Well no, because your (I'm sorry if I have incorrectly assumed you are American) private customer system means that hospitals are encouraged to manipulate the healthcare of individuals in order to make a profit, by way of giving unnecessary and sometimes less effective (in the case of CAT scans vs MRI scans, more harmful) because they turn a better profit. To give you one situation, a friend of mine recently broke his finger when he was on a business trip in America, and instead of giving him the necessary and most effective medical treatment possible, they hooked him up to a heart monitor, so they could squeeze an extra few bucks out of him. When there is no financial incentive for hospitals to manipulate the health of their patients, the healthcare will be better.
I believe that the right to medical care is a basic human right, and trumps your right to not share your wealth (although I would rather there be no such thing as wealth).
I believe that the right to medical care is a basic human right, and trumps your right to not share your wealth
Its not "sharing" its stealing, I don't care how you want to put it, your getting the government to threaten others to give away their money and acting like its some charity. Forcing people to buy stuff for you and others is extortion and theft, I don't put a gun to your head and ask you to pay my bills so why should you do that to me?
This is not the case of blaming on free markets but of the haphazard third party payer. The profit motive is injured by the third party. Who foots the bill?
I believe that the right to medical care is a basic human right, and trumps your right to not share your wealth (although I would rather there be no such thing as wealth).
This is so retarded this doesn't even deserve a response.
It was the fault of the hospital who were motivated by profit instead of what's best for the patient, a situation propagated by the free market competition for profit.
This is so retarded this doesn't even deserve a response.
Saying something is retarded does not make it so. Tell me, why should the right to healthcare not be a right? And why should you be allowed better medical care if you have more money?
Wrong, the hospital is only abusing the third party payer. Why do you keep calling it a free market? There is no free market in America.
Healthcare is not a right, it is product and service that must be earned. The right you have is life, liberty and property. Some people have better medical care due to money just as the same reason why they have better homes and faster cars. They earned it unless it was coerced through government force.
Yes, yes, I know you don't have a completely free market, but you have the closest thing to it, apart from maybe China. Your healthcare system is not a free market, but your healthcare system is driven by free market philosophy, the old "why should I have to share things?" principle.
I prefer life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of the pursuit of happiness is healthcare. I don't understand why you think people deserve unequal standards of healthcare based on the economic class they happen to end up in. Saying people earned it is a logical fallacy known as the "just world hypothesis". In reality, unequal opportunity means people end up in their economic class through chance as well as their own efforts. If you could choose to be wealthy, everyone would be.
And while I share your contempt for the government, you must understand that I feel the same way about property. The only way you can create property is by claiming special rights over what was previously everyone's property (or no one's, same effect), thus requiring either consent from all people who have use of the land or whatever in question, or coercion from the person claiming special rights. And if you do get consent from all parties involved, you can't get consent from future generations of people, therefore to continue to claim special rights once the old consenting parties are dead is stealing. Therefore, redistributive taxing, or similar, is simply the redistribution of stolen property.
Yes, yes, I know you don't have a completely free market, but you have the closest thing to it, apart from maybe China.
This is conversation is over. China is far from a completely free market. China is one of the most centrally planned economy in the world except for some hot spots. Can't even read on.
China is probably the most capitalist country in the world right now. And because there are little to no regulations on businesses once they have been allowed to start by the government, they can do whatever they like, showing the world how unregulated business leads to shining great utopias of freedom, i.e, making children work, forcing masses into wage slavery, firing people for taking time off etc etc.
This is unbelievable, China has no regulation because it is communist, there are no businesses, only government production. So, if anything, government is guilty of those things you accuse of capitalism.
I can't believe I responded to this idiotic dispute.
That's a very poorly reasoned response. Yes, China is officially "communist", and socially, that is mostly true. But the label of communism is nothing more than the name of the ruling party. China is no more communist than North Korea is a democratic republic.
Since China's market reforms in 1992, the means of production is now almost entirely privatised. The problem is, they have no policies to prevent child labour, wage slavery, overworking, etc etc. Privatisation also tore the welfare system to shreds, which I'm sure sounds great to you.
So China has become a libertarian paradise, with poor people and children being forced to work for a pittance, and people dying all over the place in industrial accidents, workers not being allowed holidays etc etc.
Also, you offered no rebuttal to my argument about the creation of property, you simply ignored it.
If production in China is not government, it is not free market capitalism, it is then state capitalism. State capitalism is hardly an libertarian parardise. Therefore, the state is still in complete control of the economy.
As for property, it was igorned because it was a gumbled pile of mess.
Regulations are the pretense of knowledge where it restricts competition and innovative. Regulation is central planning, and plans always fail. Economic planning for millions is senseless. Only individuals plan.
As a society, we're not very interested in helping the poor. The counter-argument is the same that capitalist use for everything. Privatization will introduce competition and competition will make the schools better. That's a nice thought for someone living in the suburbs, staring out at their confluence of SUVs and gaited houses. When you have money, you have options. That's the story of America.
Given the choice of building a private school in the suburbs and building a private school in the ghetto, no one in their right mind is going to choose the ghetto. It's the same reason you don't see a lot of other businesses in the ghetto. You don't make an money selling to poor people. So, what happens with privatization is that the suburbs get truly amazing schools (of course they love it), while the ghetto struggles to keep the doors open. The ghetto only becomes a concern again when someone comes along and says that we're going to start busing the ghetto kids out to the suburbs.
And my word! We can't have that shit! So, then the suburb people find Jesus in their heart ---they can really hear the Lord speaking to them---- and the Lord says that they should donate some money to an inner-city school. Momentarily, we feign concern for ghetto kids, but ----really--- we're just trying to keep the cockroaches from scattering and laying their eggs elsewhere.
Actually, the reverse is true considering government per capita is more than private schools, plus those in the inner cities where there is no school competition but government schools have the worst job prospects. Look at every big city.
Increased public education hurts the private sector for they have to compete with a system that has unlimited funds and little accountability.
When the private sector loses customers, they have to increase prices and decrease quality in order to stay in business. People seem to act like the private schools of today would always exist even if we got rid of public education. that is far from the truth. When public education is gone there will be a demand for affordable education. That demand will be met by opportunistic businesses.
As well, a voucher program, proposed by Milton Friedman, would be far less expensive and would give the poor a choice, creating a competitive edge even with a "public service."
Even without vouchers, though, education is accessible in far more ways than just "going to school." The only reason why a college education is "needed" for a job is because so many people are getting college educations (and taking out loans in order to do so.) When education becomes more used, it is expected of the labor force to have more education.
However, if education became private, people would have their own ways of acquiring education while businesses would focus on finding labor based on quality instead of a random degree.