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.
With the developed Western World, there is really nothing to be scared about. We've witnessed China's economic expansion through their implementation of a Free Market, letting go of Socialistic type system (while maintaining their totalitarian rule... so they're not perfect).
And when the Soviet Union collapsed things got better. Not as good as China, but that's because they didn't, exactly, adapt "free markets". Just less Socialism.
The BEST system would be militarism. Not because of morality or ethics or even something I prefer, but because historically it has resulted in the most progress. Imperial nations who's main goal is to expand military powers have created the most superb scientific and technological innovations. Even in ancient history the country's with the most advanced technology were the ones who were spreading their influence, murdering people in villages and taking their land. Skipping many years, the one thing the Soviet Union had going for them was their Imperial tendencies. Unfortunately for them, their major restrictions on private property and market freedom is what hurt their economies, causing them to implode. But Nazi Germany avoided that by allowing private property and knowing the major advantages of competition and entrepreneurship.
Militarism in the US have resulted in the Interstate system, internet, radio, gps, etc. So while I disagree with the premise behind militarism, I can see it as the BEST system for technological progress and innovation. However, I prefer a Free Market system (with or without militarism, it can go either way) because of its consumer based economics. The products and services provided are meant to match different target markets. This beats Democracy for Democracy only fits the needs of the majority, and even then, it only fits CERTAIN needs that the majority found most important. Free markets, on the other hand, provide the people with whatever they're shopping for. If only two people want a product, it may never come to light, but as long as there's a large enough amount of people, no matter how much the rest of the people may object to their wants, a market that stands to profit will provide that product. And even after that, organizations (profit or non) will try to accommodate all kinds of fetishes and etc.
How it is hard to tell if it is the best system. Hong Kong has been one of the freest economic system in the world since 1945, and it has created the some of the fastest wealth in the world along side America, and it is just a rock with no natural resources. Imagine if had natural resources and free political system.
The idea of militarism as the best system is just scary.
Militarism is omnipotent government in HYPER DRIVE. Those systems of militarism only leave destruction and poverty in its wake.
Militarism may have created superb scientific and technological innovation, but it by no means better for humanity. Military only creates things for destruction and death.
Military is not the reason for the interstate system, internet, radio or gps.
Government is semi-responsible for the developed of these luxuries only because of its monopolistic power, if the free market would have been instituted, there is no telling how different it would be either better or worse. I am going to guess for the better due to competition.
But would a free market provide 'public goods' that benefit all of society as opposed to just those individuals that can afford them? Would a free market run wild with market failure caused by the negative externalities (the social costs being greater than the private costs) the government isnt trying to correct? A demerit good has over consumption due possibly to information failure which means that individuals don't realise the impact of certain goods on themselves (Smoking). Surely the over consumption would be far greater, and therefore the market failure would be far greater, if there wasn't the indirect tax imposed by the government to try to correct this a bit. I do understand your point about Hong Kong however.
Public goods are the biggest economic fallacy in which only the government can provide access to these services or goods, government does nothing cheaper than the market.
As for negative externalities, property rights are the solution to correcting externalities, where one's property rights have been infringed. Mises explains how the system of private property removed the externalities from the use of the (former) commons. He further argues that subsequent externalities "could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership."
So, for example, no individual can sue a paper planet for pollution, only the government can do that, but it does, so it comes up with these stupid regulations.
I thought it was clear that externalities can't disappear but defining property rights would hold accountability to those polluters, and it would change.
Your view on militarism is refreshing. Its good to see other people who look to innovation and whatnot as being a primary concern for humanity. I've got similar views regarding the ethics of it, too.
Well in a 100% PURE free market you wouldn't have Government schools or even vouchers, you are right. But, I think it would be possible, because I think homeschooling would be effective in teaching poor young kids basic knowledge, and I think once they got to Hi-school they could work to pay their way, after that I don't doubt they could pay their way through universities with loans.
But you bring up a good point, I think I would favor a 99.9% free market over a 100% free market for this and other reasons...I would still generally call a 99.9% free market a "free market" though, which was what I was stating my support for. But on that point, I'm not completely sure I support 0.1% socialism still.
There is such a system, but it's very difficult to achieve. If you take it from Adam Smith, then he says that there should just be a free market system, due to the "invisible hand" that will sort things out. I personally don't know whether it would really work, but the one thing it does do well, is encourage people to work harder. People can't just sit around on unemployment benefits, waiting for the right opportunity to be placed infront of them (Granted, some people really can't find jobs, and do try hard to find them). But I have mixed views on whether it would work.
Sub-primes and the ratings agencies. 2008. If thats not an example of what damage a lack of regulation can do, i don't know what is. That is the danger. A free market would also have child labour may i add. It is govt. regulation that prevents that.
So, lending is not something the Government should control for a few resons.
1.) Consumers should be smart about who they trust with their money
2.) If banks and consumers bankrupt themselves by making and accepting bad loans it is their fault
3.) When people bankrupt themselves, other people who were previously sellling them stuff can't no more, causing them to temporarily lose their job...but this is an in-advertant consequence, which is nothing the Government should micro-manage.
Secondly a child is fully capible of choosing to work, because its not a intellectual choice, its a choice of preference like a choice between apples or ouranges (as long as they still go to school - and their I have little doubt parents wouldn't protect them from bad contracts). And dangerous child labor could be prevented by the enfourcement of common laws because that would make it risky to hire a child. Long hours could also be prevented by child abuse laws.
Consumers should be smart about who they trust with their money
Trust is a funny thing, someone can tell you one thing, and do something entirely different. I think you should realise that whilst lenders may understand the market and the outcome of their dealings, the people who are simply looking to survive in these dog-eat-dog times don't; they just don't want to be eaten.
If banks and consumers bankrupt themselves by making and accepting bad loans it is their fault
Yes, though whilst I'm not too familiar with economics, I'm sure there would be a wider effect of larger banks succumbing.
When people bankrupt themselves, other people who were previously sellling them stuff can't no more, causing them to temporarily lose their job...but this is an in-advertant consequence, which is nothing the Government should micro-manage.
This argument really only stands up when the market for whatever product your selling is small, or only mediocre. Things like loans, which are central to economic debates at the moment are not a small market. It is always, always growing, with home loans, car loans, etc. Worrying that Person A will becoming bankrupt is a non-issue, because theres Persons B through to ZZZ^99 who are also actively involved in loans, or will be in the future.
Secondly a child is fully capible of choosing to work, because its not a intellectual choice, its a choice of preference like a choice between apples or ouranges (as long as they still go to school - and their I have little doubt parents wouldn't protect them from bad contracts).
I don't know a single child who chooses to work. Most people 'choose' to work, where I am, around 15-18. They aren't children anymore. What Ludo was referring to, I believe is things that you see in developing nations, India, China, and dare I say many African nations. Children who 'choose' to work because choosing otherwise would mean a very, very impoverished family.
And dangerous child labor could be prevented by the enfourcement of common laws because that would make it risky to hire a child. Long hours could also be prevented by child abuse laws.
It could be the case, though some would argue that it is a form of government interfering with the workplace.
Finding a trustworthy bank isn't as complicated as you make it out to be. Added to that in some ways the market would help stop overly-risky lending, because private deposit insurance would not insure high risk banks, and consumers would want deposit insurance. See the problem with the modern structure is that with their deposits secure, consumers don't pay as much attention, and the FDIC insures everyone no matter what.
Also I refuse to believe the Government should micro manage things to prevent people from bankrupting themselves. And obviously no one chooses to work when they are young because it is illegal.