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 would want a free market capitalism system throughout the world with very little government. However, it is impossible to convince the likes of liberals that government is the problem and not the solution.
Yes these things are impossible without government. But government is a necessary evil. I think what the person you are disputing is saying that the necessary evil shouldn't have too much power to become a malicious evil.
But streets and highways are only privatized around the world including Hong Kong and the U.S. Higways
Schools are already non-profit already, and they have higher graduation rates than public schools.
Privacy and free speech is the responsibility of government to protect. That is no doubt. This is irrelevant to my previous post.
Government police is a government monopoly that is ineffective and unreliable. Stateless Police
Courts ruled by government often becomes unfair for the poor. Courts
Clean Water is already being done by private companies as well as ambulance and airports. Gov
you're complaining about a boogie man who exists only in your mind.
That is just a ridiculous and insidiously claim without cause.
Here is mine. You are just afraid of a more free and responsible society without the benevolent and paternalistic father figure watching over your every step of the way, just so you don't fuck up.
Why don't you actually study some of the reasons why government is or isn't good instead of rambling about an opinion that has no rational basis whatsoever.
For example, read an economics book. If you did, you would know that GDP=C+I+G+NX where C stands for consumers, I stands for investment, G stands for government spending and NX stands for net exports. You would also know that G is around 18% of the GDP of a country. Therefore, according to all expert economists, spending by government should increase GDP, which determines the wealth in a country.
Another example, read a history book. If you did, you would know that James Madison believed that a bigger government would actually increase individual freedoms in a society.
At least post something of value that could support your beliefs instead of constantly blaming "liberals" for all the problems in the world.
I just have a question, what happens when the government runs out of money?
And by the way making absolute assertions such as "all expert econimists" is very dangerous because they can be disproven much more easily than saying many expert economists.
Thanks for the insight on the GDP Indicator. Maybe you should should yourself. In reality,iIt is GDP=C+I+G+(X-M). X=Exports and M=Imports. Also, C stands for private consumption, which means the final purchase of goods and services in the economy by individuals constitutes consumption, which means business sales.
Therefore, I am 100% positive that I have read more economic books than you have, Dave93.
Furthermore, when Government spending becomes increasingly larger than Consumption, the consumption dwindles down because the government owns a larger portion of the GDP, which means no new wealth is being created.
HINT... GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE WEALTH, NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL.
Another example, read a history book. If you did, you would know that James Madison believed that a bigger government would actually increase individual freedoms in a society.
Without any evidence, this statement is easily refutable.
What history books have you been reading?
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
"All men having power ought to be mistrusted."
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
----James Madison
At least post something that you actually have knowledge in because going on a mindless rant about economics and history is senseless.
Supporting Evidence:
James Madison
(www.constitution.org)
If you were knowledgeable about economics, you would have known that NX stands for net exports, which is exports minus imports, yet you actually argue that my version of the formula isn't reality.
Let's make it clear that I disputed you because you said that government should have minimal affairs in the market (less spending), and I argue that government should have some control over the economy (more spending). Now, what does the GDP formula say? It says that the overall living standard (which can be calculated directly from GDP) is determined by a combination of consumer spending, investment, net exports, and government spending. This is basic addition, as shown in the GDP formula.
Furthermore, when Government spending becomes increasingly larger than Consumption, the consumption dwindles down because the government owns a larger portion of the GDP, which means no new wealth is being created.
What is the basis for this? The government spends money on public works such as building roads and infrastructure. What does this do? this increases jobs and therefore the amount of wealth available to consumers in order to spend on goods produced by the firms, therefore increasing the consumer spending central to GDP growth.
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CREATE WEALTH, NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL
Tell that to the millions of people who have been pushed out of poverty by forcing capitalists to give up some of their business rights.
If you were knowledgeable about economics, you would have known that NX stands for net exports, which is exports minus imports, yet you actually argue that my version of the formula isn't reality.
With the NX, that was my mistake. I misread it.
I argue that government should have some control over the economy (more spending).
Let's make it clear that I disputing because the government should have no intervention in the market except the military.
Government officials have a vested interest in ensuring a citizenry that accepts the official version of things and a citizenry that is compliant, obedient and supportive of the government. Therefore, over a period of many years, people's mindset are molded to encourage them as adults to let off steam by carping about the foibles and inefficiencies of politicians and bureaucrats but never to challenge; thus the ever expanding role of government in people's lives.
It says that the overall living standard (which can be calculated directly from GDP) is determined by a combination of consumer spending, investment, net exports, and government spending. This is basic addition, as shown in the GDP formula.
Wrong. GDP has nothing to do with standard of living. The standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate.
GDP is the measure of a country's overall economic output in portion. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year whether public or private.
this increases jobs and therefore the amount of wealth available to consumers in order to spend on goods produced by the firms, therefore increasing the consumer spending central to GDP growth.
Only by taking from others under taxation and spending. That is socialism.
Tell that to the millions of people who have been pushed out of poverty by forcing capitalists to give up some of their business rights.
This is almost laughable.
Why?
*Government consumes wealth and redistributes wealth, it can't create wealth. And unless wealth is created, there is nothing to consume or redistribute. That's why -- even when government is doing something we all agree must be done or most of us want to have it do -- government is a parasite. All it has is what it takes from the producers of wealth. Government doesn't produce anything.
Mandatory post-12th grade education (or equivalent to 12th grade - third session or whatever in UK and others) for everyone. This does not have to be a University, but dumb people are the main problem in the world.
And within this education, mandatory separation of any faith-based curriculum beyond the study of religion as a branch of human behavior.
This would solve so many problems, 99% of terrorists are just idiots who don't know any better. Most poverty is due to lack of education. I saw a documentary on Africans dying of dysentery because they were not bright enough to at least boil the stupid water before drinking it (it doesn't kill all disease, but as any child who goes to school knows, it kills a lot of them). It goes on and on.
I completely agree. Education should not be something that is taken advantage of by self-interested for-profit institutions that act more like companies than centers of learning. It should be a right for all human beings, no matter their social class or wealth. The only thing that should matter is academic success based on hard work and a willingness to learn
Primary and secondary education isn't taken advantage of by self interested for profit institutions. All private primary and secondary schools are non-profit. The only for profit education is post secondary schooling such as University of Phoenix, and nobody takes those seriously because of its diploma mill mentality.
Did I say that primary and secondary education are for-profit institutions? no. I was agreeing to iamdavidh's comment about mandatory post-12th grade education, which is at the university level. Why do universities charge up to 40000 to 50000 dollars nowadays? It's because they want to make a profit.
Before your so-called way-too-powerful government came along, the universities got together and made deals to lower the student scholarships that were given. This is exactly the same as what the trusts in the robber-baron era did to earn more money while providing less required services and wages to their consumers and workers. It was only when government came along and outlawed this practice that competition was reestablished and conditions were better for the students going to college. Answer this then: how would free university education be so bad in society?
Why do universities charge up to 40000 to 50000 dollars nowadays? It's because they want to make a profit.
First, it is expensive to operate a university regardless whether public or private. Second, most universities are non-profit or public except a few.
Harvard, Yale, and other private schools are all non-profit while University of Michigan and Florida are public, and lastly, University of Phoenix is for profit. Thus, non profit and for profit are not subsidized by the government. Therefore, the full burden of the cost is on the student whereas public universities are subsidized by the state, which is paid for by taxpayers, whom many never go to an university.
Harvard and out of state Michigan charges more because of its insanely good credible as non profit even though Phoenix is for profit. So, not allowing for profit institutions for post secondary school is ridiculous because it is cheaper yet not as highly regarded.
This is exactly the same as what the trusts in the robber-baron era did to earn more money while providing less required services and wages to their consumers and workers. It was only when government came along and outlawed this practice that competition was reestablished and conditions were better for the students going to college
See above and compare. For profit is cheaper, yet not as credible and respectable.
How would free university education be so bad in society?
Ask someone who lives in France? It is free.
However, since most people don't go to college because truthfully, not all people are meant for college, so for those who do go, they are getting a free ride at the expense of those who don't go due to the subsidization from the government.
Actually Harvard is a case of socialism. Because their students are so successful and give so much back to the University, any who make it in (which is extraordinarily difficult) but cannot afford it, are offered a free ride or close to free based on income. This actually helps them in the long run, because they can afford to offer their education to the brightest, not just the brightest and richest ie better students = more graduates donating later to Harvard.
I think this could be considered a real-case study of how offering education even to those who cannot afford it is smart in the long run.
I believe the same could be said for the world on a larger scale. It pays off in the long run, after an initial investment, to educate everyone - even those who could not get into a school like Harvard.
When I say some form of further education, I don't just mean a University. I also mean apprenticeships and this sort of thing.
Actually Harvard is a case of socialism. Because their students are so successful and give so much back to the University, any who make it in (which is extraordinarily difficult) but cannot afford it, are offered a free ride or close to free based on income
Come on, please provide evidence with such a claim.
And it's been pretty common knowledge for some time, their different post graduate schools offer similar programs, like their law school. Obviously it varies year to year based on graduate student donations, but like this year, even students whose parents make in the low six figures are offered greater assistance (which is pretty high up in the "middle income" range) provided the student has, you know straight A's, high SAT's and everything else Harvard requires.
I would change education to make it actually educate people. The system that is in place rewards the unintelligent. It fact it thrives on the very existence of those that cannot think for themselves. The current method brainwashes one to comply to all things accepted by society and has hampered the improvement of it.
One should have knowledge of varies fields and be able to handle simple task. To be Paris Hilton in the "Simple Life" is unacceptable. No one that graduates from high school should be at this level of stupidity. Rich or poor, they should be able to handle a simple task.