CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
7
For Against
Debate Score:21
Arguments:17
Total Votes:25
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (10)
 
 Against (6)

Debate Creator

Ludo(15) pic



There is no such thing as a 'free market'. If there was, would it be the best system?

For

Side Score: 14
VS.

Against

Side Score: 7
2 points

Hard to tell if it would be the best system.

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.

So best or not, I am for a Free Market.

Side: For

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.

Side: For
Ludo(15) Disputed
0 points

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.

Side: Against
0 points

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.

Side: For
1 point

YES. YES, because it would give people limitless freedom, and great prosperiety (if they were willing to earn it).

Side: For
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Would it be impossible for some to earn it? If not, how/why?

Side: Against
steve789(207) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: For
1 point

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.

Side: For
1 point

A totally free market is dangerous. In my opinion, mixed markets are the best option.

Side: Against
steve789(207) Disputed
1 point

Exactly what is so dangerous about letting people have freedom, eh?

Side: For
Ludo(15) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: For