Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism - DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism

Opening Argument

Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism

Laissez Faire Capitalism- Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation privileges, tariffs, and subsidies (basically no regulations)
Democratic Socialism- Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management or democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist or decentralized socialist planned economy. 

I am in favor of Democratic socialism
passedbillkmelkevolution17LibertineStates
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 


Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • The government should not be involved wars which don’t involve the US or companies in the US and not in the US.
    qipwbdeoDrCerealPogueAmpersand
  • @passedbill
    I do not get how that is relevant 
  • MikeMike 80 Pts

    “Laissez Faire Capitalism” is alive and well throughout the global society. Relative to “Laissez Faire,” we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level (aka freedom from government). The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). If one wants to establish a corporate entity, one needs a legal system; hence, government (aka a bureaucracy), whether the form of governance is a free-republic, socialistic, fascism, etc.     

    As more levels of bureaucracy increases, maintains dynamic channels of resistance in conflict with those channels seeking freedom. This natural dynamic flow between resistance and freedom is known as the physical constructal law (the latest discovered law in thermodynamics dealing with the unification principle of evolution). The evening satellite image of the Korean peninsula illustrates the economics of government “planned economy” of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade dealing with those dynamic channels of freedom and resistance within South Korea’s bureaucracy. It is clear what a little freedom and private ownership can do between the empirical forces of darkness and light on the Korean peninsula.

    DrCerealkmelkevolution17Pogue
  • The government should not be involved with companies.
    DrCerealPogue
  • Mike said:

    “Laissez Faire Capitalism” is alive and well throughout the global society. Relative to “Laissez Faire,” we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level (aka freedom from government). The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). If one wants to establish a corporate entity, one needs a legal system; hence, government (aka a bureaucracy), whether the form of governance is a free-republic, socialistic, fascism, etc.     

    As more levels of bureaucracy increases, maintains dynamic channels of resistance in conflict with those channels seeking freedom. This natural dynamic flow between resistance and freedom is known as the physical constructal law (the latest discovered law in thermodynamics dealing with the unification principle of evolution). The evening satellite image of the Korean peninsula illustrates the economics of government “planned economy” of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade dealing with those dynamic channels of freedom and resistance within South Korea’s bureaucracy. It is clear what a little freedom and private ownership can do between the empirical forces of darkness and light on the Korean peninsula.

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."
    Pogue
  • MikeMike 80 Pts
    Ampersand said:

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."

    When did I say “government intervention” was bad? Again I compared, “the economics of government planned economy of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade within South Korea’s bureaucracy.”

    For evolution to happen, the dynamic channels of resistance are just as important as those dynamic channels of freedom. Government bureaucracy represents those channels of resistance, where private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade represents those channels of freedom. This constants struggle between resistance and freedom is the key to advance the standard of living for a civil society.   

    In a “government planned economy of trade (North Korea)” there is only one channel, that is, the channel of government tyranny, there are no exceptions, no evolution.  

    On the other hand, “Laissez Fair” (aka total freedom one channel) seems to only exist at the garage sale level, again, no evolution.

    Now let’s look at two economic systems covered in this post:

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    Let’s consider two forms of governance:

    Democracy: is a government base on mob-rule. Tough luck if you’re in the minority.  

    Republic: a representative government base on the rule of law.

    South Korea is a republic, where North Korea is a democratic republic; the key word is “democratic.” According to Madison in Federalist Paper #10:  “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” If we get into the weeds of North Korea’s current political ideology, it seems their democracy morphed into fascism.  

    So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic, like the configuration of the US governance. From this form of governance, within a short period of 200 years brought global change like no other in recorded history through advances in technology, food production, and medicine; a social empirical data point offers a compelling example of what can happen when our unalienable rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.  

  • Mike said:
    Ampersand said:

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."

    When did I say “government intervention” was bad? Again I compared, “the economics of government planned economy of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade within South Korea’s bureaucracy.”

    For evolution to happen, the dynamic channels of resistance are just as important as those dynamic channels of freedom. Government bureaucracy represents those channels of resistance, where private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade represents those channels of freedom. This constants struggle between resistance and freedom is the key to advance the standard of living for a civil society.   

    In a “government planned economy of trade (North Korea)” there is only one channel, that is, the channel of government tyranny, there are no exceptions, no evolution.  

    On the other hand, “Laissez Fair” (aka total freedom one channel) seems to only exist at the garage sale level, again, no evolution.

    Now let’s look at two economic systems covered in this post:

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    Let’s consider two forms of governance:

    Democracy: is a government base on mob-rule. Tough luck if you’re in the minority.  

    Republic: a representative government base on the rule of law.

    South Korea is a republic, where North Korea is a democratic republic; the key word is “democratic.” According to Madison in Federalist Paper #10:  “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” If we get into the weeds of North Korea’s current political ideology, it seems their democracy morphed into fascism.  

    So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic, like the configuration of the US governance. From this form of governance, within a short period of 200 years brought global change like no other in recorded history through advances in technology, food production, and medicine; a social empirical data point offers a compelling example of what can happen when our unalienable rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.  

    As I read this, you are making a mish-mash of statements with no cohesive point and even contradicting yourself.

    To deal with them one at a time, the topic under discussion is Laissez-faire versus Democratic Socialism. You gave the comparison of South Korea and North Korea. In fact neither of them would be classified as democratic socialist countries or laissez-faire countries so any point made with them is moot. If need be I can also give explanations for why North Korea isn't democratic, etc.

    Your view of public bodies as bodies of resistance and private bodies as bodies of freedom is both nebulous (You give no indication of what you mean by freedom in this context) and wrong if you're using the definition to anything like the normal usage. Take the hundreds of millions of people across the globe working in sweatshop conditions for private industry - do they experience this freedom associated with their privately funded work? W

    You then give definitions for socialism and capitalism but make absolutely no point with them.

    With democracy and republic, this is where things get really messy. lets take democracy for example. You:

    A) Make no reference to democracy as it's generally understood
    B) Link to the wikipedia page on direct democracy, a very rarely used form of democracy that constitutes about 0.01% of the democracy that will happen in a country (occasional referendums and that's it. This usage is of course not what anyone in this thread is talking about 
    C) Offer your own simplistic explanation of democracy, again being vague enough to have no real relevance
    D) Quote from Madison where what he is referring to is clearly not applicable to what we are talking about or having the same meaning as contemporary democracy: "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens...". We are not talking about small tribes or organisations here. We are talking about nations of millions of people.

    You then call North Korea democratic even though it meets none of the critera of a democracy established by ordinary definition or any of the several odd scattershot definitions you have provided.

    Your final conclusion is vague and rather off topic:

    "So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic..."

    Firstly, Capitalism within a free republic is not mutually exclusive with liaise faire capitalism. What you are advocating could encompass a wide range of economic policies and attempting to match this to the US's history is incredibly simplistic to the extend it doesn't work. Over its history the US has carried our gross violations of human liberties (slavery) and wandered in economic policy from protectionism to free market ideology. Also the USA is not the world's largest producer of food, nor does it have the best healthcare and in terms of general technological advance I'd have to say the industrial revolution has it beat hands down and that was largely centred in the UK.

  • MikeMike 80 Pts
    @Ampersand
    Thank you for sharing your philosophy.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 207 Pts
    @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
  • MikeMike 80 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
    Well then, thank you for the critique.

    Next time I’ll try to do better presenting well established terms and definitions in line with historical events. There are a number of good books you can read to help clear up the myth over democracy, socialism and other forms of statism. Too much government, no matter what its form or how well intended, is not the solution only becomes the problem.  When one becomes familiar with the new discoveries surrounding the physical constructal law (the science that generates patterns), one will learn that individual’s moral virtue flowing together within a moral code of conduct is the key to a civil society not government. For the ruling-class maintains the same moral standing from its society, and if morality is on a decline, no government will work as the ruling-class morphs into tyranny.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 207 Pts
    Mike said:
    Ampersand said:
    @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
    Well then, thank you for the critique.

    Next time I’ll try to do better presenting well established terms and definitions in line with historical events. There are a number of good books you can read to help clear up the myth over democracy, socialism and other forms of statism. Too much government, no matter what its form or how well intended, is not the solution only becomes the problem.  When one becomes familiar with the new discoveries surrounding the physical constructal law (the science that generates patterns), one will learn that individual’s moral virtue flowing together within a moral code of conduct is the key to a civil society not government. For the ruling-class maintains the same moral standing from its society, and if morality is on a decline, no government will work as the ruling-class morphs into tyranny.
    Yes, it would help a great deal if you could do that because as explained in my previous post you are using contradictory terms - making your own argument incoherent. By not using the well established terms and definitions and instead focusing on niche variations that you represented as those terms or your own personal made up examples your argument didn't have any relevance

    I don't have much personal interest in your philosophy or see its relevance to this debate so if you would like to continue discussing it I suggest you start a thread to discuss it.

    Also your claim about "too much government" being a problem is a tautology.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch