Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Copycat042

Reward Points:166
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

"they are obliged to follow the majority's rules until they CAN."

1. obligated, or forced? there is a difference.

2. Why?

"health care is CHEAPER and better in the those other countries! "

1. is there any other choice in those countries?

2. If it is really cheaper, you would have no problem finding volunteers to "opt in".

" Why ANYONE would rather see fellow Americans go without health care, or go bankrupt because of an expensive illness is beyond me! "

You have the option of paying for the care of anyone you wish. I do not advocate for the highly regulated and monopolized US medical care model. I favor a free market model.

"We should be AMERICA, not individual Americans! A TEAM, which is what DEMOCRATIC socialism requires, and the Constitution expects."

Serious question:

What prevents those who agree with you from forming a private medical care system, paid for by and available only to members, in the "democratic socialism" model? You could vote on who pays the most dues, using any criteria you wish (wealth, income, race, etc.) with those dues paying for staff (members, of course) facilities, supplies, etc.

If it is really a more efficient and better model, no one would want to pay for the less efficient free market model. If it isn't better, and only works if there is no legal alternative, then you haven't destroyed a superior system, to test an inferior one.

(ignoring the emotional rant)

As for the roads, money was stolen from producers, not leeches, to pay for them. The roads could be built privately, paid for privately by people who actually produce things that others value, instead of voting for the wealth that others created.

1 point

>"It's possible in all other industrialized countries,...OF COURSE, the taxes are higher."

Then it isn't voluntary, is it?

Voluntary would (at least) be the ability to opt out of both the service and paying for it through taxes.

Do you believe that there are enough people who want to be in the system to sustain it, if you were allowed to opt out?

>"How come "tax" is a four letter word in America, and only 3 in most countries ?"

It isn't. It is a five letter word..."theft". ;)

1 point

Also, your sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense.

Then refute the logic. Give examples of where it has failed, without interference.

I'll give you a topic:

The Austrian business cycle theory.

1 point

Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product.


1 point

No, it is a libertarian think tank centered around classical liberal political and economic philosophy.

1 point

Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.

Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?

1 point

On Medicare, are you saying that over 90% of Canadians are incorrect for loving their free health-care system?

Whether you enjoy it or not, it is theft. :/

1 point

This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.

They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.

So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?

Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.

and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.

Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.

And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.

not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools.

copycat042(166) Clarified
1 point

One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.

Good info. Thanks. :)

2 points

First you make sure you have plenty of cash. Then drive down to the red-light district...

Displaying 7 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Is a completely voluntary system of "universal care" possible?
Winning Position: Down
Winning Position: Libertarianism vs Statism: An experiment

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here