What do you think about democratic socialism? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


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!

What do you think about democratic socialism?
in Politics

By YeshuaRedeemedYeshuaRedeemed 362 Pts
What type of things do democratic socialists believe? If you are a democratic socialist, would you like to educate me?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlofRIAlofRI 179 Pts
    First, socialism is an economic system, not political. It isn't a good thing by itself, it isn't a good thing mixed with the wrong political system.
    Communism tried to use it to make "the people" think it made everything FOR the people: The people's army, the people's leader, the people's government. Hogwash.
    Capitalism isn't perfect either. It took control of our government in the 1800's and almost destroyed our democracy, if not for Teddy R. , it would have, likely.
    Democracy isn't perfect either, as we are finding out. It's being taken over again by runaway capitalism, using the "freedoms" of those with the money to buy their advantages from the government. This started with Reagan saying "..... government IS the problem!" No, taking the government OF, BY and FOR the people and giving it to those with the money to control it, is the problem! 
    Socialism (without communism or fascism) is like a co-op. We all put into it, we all reap the harvest, so to speak. We ALL put into road repair, garbage pickup, snow removal, Social Security, Medicare, First Responders. Basic socialism. As a bumper sticker reads: "Don't like socialism? Get off the highway."

    Our billionaire capitalists spread the word that socialism is "communist", because THEY don't want to put their share into the country, they want US to pay while THEY "reap the harvest" with minimum taxes. Taxes in the 50's for big businesses was around 90%. They STILL got rich. We, the workers, had trade unions to keep the "harvest" a bit more even. It's a shame, THEY tried to do what the capitalists do and grab too much power. Power democracy intended to stay with the people. 

    So, democracy, capitalism, socialism. NONE are perfect, ALL are susceptible to human GREED. We need the best of all three. A government of, by and for THE PEOPLE, and Romney famously said, "Corporations are people too", OK, but ONLY if they are an equal part WITH the people, part of the "socialistic co-op".
    Socialism can't take ownership away from people or businesses UNDER a democracy, capitalism can't "run away with all the money" if it's part of a democratic socialistic "co-op". Capitalism, when it takes control of the government leads to an oligarchy, as in Russia. It needs to be "reasonably" controlled by "the people's government" … under democracy rules. JFK said: "…. the rights of every man are threatened when the rights of ONE man are threatened." We can't threaten the rights of a person that owns a business, S/HE can't threaten the rights of U.S. to make a living by raising costs so high that we can't AFFORD to live … like the capitalist that charges $1500 for a $13.00 life saving pill, or makes his/her people work for lower wages so s/he can have a $20M bonus at the end of the year! Freedom is for EVERYBODY, not the few. As Ms. Disney said yesterday, "Jesus Christ isn't worth what these CEO's expect!" (Paraphrasing).
    Think Bernie Sanders wants to take control of your business?? FALLACY! He just wants to level the playing field. Share the freedom AND the burden. 
    I'm not likely to vote for Bernie. He's a bit TOO radical for me, but he has the right idea. We just need to take back control, then work together … FAIRLY.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 439 Pts
    edited March 9
    Democratic Socialism, like socialism itself, sound great on paper, but due to human greed, turns to complete trash. The problem with Democratic Socialism is when the government realizes their about to be overthrown because socialism is a flawed system, tend to go authoritarian. Look at Venezuela, they're "Democratic Socialist" yet their elections are either rigged or not allowed at all. 

    Does it mean capitalist nations are perfect? No. Not a single economic system is perfect, but looking at the comparison of socialist, communist and capitalist nations, there's a huge difference in terms of economy, human rights, HDI etc.
    Dee
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 9
    Democratic socialism is simply old good socialism with a new sauce and olives. There is not much to it beside appealing to the allegedly unfairly treated masses, so they support populists and help them usurp the throne.

    That it is a politically viable ideology in the US nowadays is a worrying development, but I somehow doubt it gains long-term traction, given how most Americans do not particularly like it when the government tries to run their lives.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteerpiloteer 272 Pts
    The United States is not very different than a democratic socialist society. DS(democratic socialism)heavily taxes big corporations, but it still allows them room to make moderate profits. DS taxes society to implement universal health care. DS tries to pass laws to make it easier for workers to unionize and form cooperative corporations. A co-op is when the workers each own an amount of the company they work for, so they have more say in how the company is run. DS tries to make higher education free, or cheaper for everyone. 

    Some cons to DS is it inhibits property rights. DS tries to limit or stop people from inheriting money from their wealthy parents. DS is collectivism, which is the opposite of individualism.
  • piloteerpiloteer 272 Pts
    edited March 9
    @piloteer

    Whoa. Holy Hell, I just realized I can reply to myself. 

    Pilot. I find fault in your use of the term "cons" when you describe collectivism. You need to prove that ideal is inherently bad for society. Although I consider you to be a great debater, and you're  super sexy, I must contest some of the statements you've made.
    cheesycheese
  • piloteerpiloteer 272 Pts
    @piloteer

    Well said Pilot. Well said indeed. Obviously you must be a supreme intellectual to be able to point out those inconsistencies in my argument. My assertions were obviously based on my opinion, but someone who may embrace the ideals of collectivism will only truly be able to justify those ideals with their own opinions as well. 
    cheesycheeseDeeAlofRIZombieguy1987
  • AlofRIAlofRI 179 Pts
    The USA is, currently, being controlled (governmentally), by a few billionaires. That control is getting stronger every day because Citizens United is allowing this: "The going price for public office has continued to escalate in recent years, further emphasizing the need for effective finance reform. Past events have shown how close we are to a "bought nation" ".
    Must be written by some weird social democrat, right??

    OMG! Those are the words of none other than Mitch McConnell a bit before Citizens United was passed! (And during the Obama Admin., of course).

    How anyone looking at the oligarchy of Russia, and seeing what this "bought nation" is headed for, can see democratic socialism, of, by and for the people, as worse than a government of, by and for the oligarchs, I can't imagine.

    Calling Venezuela a "democratic" anything is also beyond my imagination. It has been a dictatorship (that I have visited several times), for many years. Yes, they "allowed" capitalism … but try to vote against the dictator and see what happens.

    I was delayed in the airport in Caracas for a day due to an assassination attempt on "His Dictatorship". That was not to save his type of "democracy". He was returning from a visit to his friend in Cuba, I believe it was.

    Socialism has a bad name, BUT, it has been used by bad political systems. I don't want a socialistic country, I want a country in control of the people, and NOT just the few. The "democratic" part (and the Constitution), prevents the takeover of ones property, the control of the government by any entity except the people, capitalism MUST survive and BOTH socialism and capitalism controlled BY THE PEOPLE of the USA. Call it something else if it makes you feel better, but, we NEED a socialistic TYPE co-op supported by U.S. as well as business. Capitalism, uncontrolled, WILL lead to an oligarch as it did in the 1800's, as it did in Russia. THAT will lead to a "controlling capitalist", richest of the rich, "more powerful than a locomotive … LOOK, up in the sky!" It's HIS name on all the buildings ….. (of this bought nation)!
  • Democratic Socialism is one of the greatest deceptions in modern history.

    Democratic Socialism is nothing more than institutionalized theft that takes from the rich simply because they are rich and gives to the poor simply because they are poor. It is built on a moral philosophy of greed and entitlement. And, most importantly, it doesn't solve the problem it seeks to fix.

    Democratic Socialists and free market capitalists both want to achieve the same goals: health, wealth, and prosperity for their country.

    However, Democratic Socialism has proven to be unsuccessful at accomplishing this aim.

    The United States, a capitalist country, is the most propserous country in the world.

    It has the largest economy [1], and 88% of it's population was in the global upper-middle income class or higher, with 56% of the global upper class living in the United States [2].

    This is important because the United States, for the overwhelming majority of its existence, was a capitalist nation. It is living proof that capitalism is the best creator of wealth and prosperity.

    The United States also has the fastest emergency room care times [3] and among the fastest wait times to see a medical specialist [4]. 

    The United States is also responsible for all of the major technological advances that created the 21st century.

    The vaccuum cleaner, airplane, dish washer, washing machine, dryer, cell phone, smartphone, computer, internet, GPS, gas automobile, nuclear bomb, nuclear energy, solar panels, and more were invented in capitalist America
    [5] [6]

    Without a doubt, capitalism has done more to benefit the world than Social Democracy could ever dream of. In fact, GMO foods and farm tractors were also invented in America. [7] [8].

    This means capitalism also is responsible for revolutionizing the farming industry, allowing more food than ever before in human history to be farmed and sold globally.

    If a country wants its citizens to succeed, then it should stick to a capitalist system, since capitalism helped invent many of the technologies that have fed the poor, made people's lives easier, and generated many of the products and comforts that are taken for granted today.

    References:
    [1] https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-in-the-world
    [2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/
    [3] http://www.governing.com/gov-data/health/hospital-emergency-room-wait-times-by-state.html
    [4] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a049f098dd041552c19372f/t/5b9748362b6a284df4b07e5c/1536641122894/wait+times+-+specialist+5.102.png?format=1000w
    [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_inventions
    [6] https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-first-smartphone-simon-launched-before-iphone-2015-6
    [7] https://www.lhf.org/learning-fields/power/
    [8] https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/herbert-w-boyer-and-stanley-n-cohen

    SilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987
    Slaying propaganda with the facts.
  • edited March 11
    Most countries calling themselves socialist countries, are not actually socialist. They are just capitalist countries, with high regulation.

    ---I chose to remove the rest of my post---



    Retired DebateIslander. I no longer come here actively, and many of the things that I may have posted in the past (Such as belief in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    @SilverishGoldNova

    Venezuela is also a capitalist country, just with incredibly high regulation and corrupt government. Chavez did not manage to completely demolish the concept of private ownership of means of production, he simply nationalised them to a strong degree.

    See all those advertisement posters on the photo above? This is capitalism at work. This is the only reason those people still have the ability to protest and to not starve to death immediately. Nations where there is a full-on socialism do not enjoy the luxury, they are too busy trying to survive by eating grass and such to be on the streets. Look at North Korea for comparison; it is a wasteland.

    People have not seen what actual socialism looks like for a while, because those socialist countries nowadays are very marginal and rarely pop up on the radar. I, for example, was born in a socialist country (USSR), and grew up in its semi-socialist successor (Belarus). That place is a wasteland which would make any Venezuelan cut their veins instantly, were they forced to live there. Belarussians are just much more broken people than Venezuelans, and they do not protest even when things are much more dire than Maduro's regime has created. That is socialism (and not even a full-scale one at that), and it is a dark place indeed.

    Venezuelans are getting away easy. They still have a chance to turn their history around. People in actual socialist nations do not have that luxury; those places are dead for good, or for many generations, at the very least. There will not be any change any time soon in Iran, or Belarus, or Cuba, or Zimbabwe. Those places are gone.
    SilverishGoldNovaZombieguy1987
  • Democratic Socialism, like socialism itself, sound great on paper, but due to human greed, turns to complete trash. The problem with Democratic Socialism is when the government realizes their about to be overthrown because socialism is a flawed system, tend to go authoritarian. Look at Venezuela, they're "Democratic Socialist" yet their elections are either rigged or not allowed at all. 

    Does it mean capitalist nations are perfect? No. Not a single economic system is perfect, but looking at the comparison of socialist, communist and capitalist nations, there's a huge difference in terms of economy, human rights, HDI etc.
    Why use Venezuela and discard Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Canada, Brazil??? 

    It's like using Somalia as an example of what Capitalism leads to... Isn't it a display of bad faith? I think there really is no need for that... Either arguments stand or they don't. And if they are to stand, they should stand against the best the other side has to offer, not the worst... My two cents...

    @YeshuaBought

    "Social-democracy" is really just another way of saying "Mixed-economy", it's a balance act... Some lean more to the right (US, UK), some lean more to the left (Germany, Canada)... And the scale leans according to political powers in place, like a pendulum... You can only go so far in each direction before the pendulum (social order) pushes in the opposite direction, and so on... The trick is not to push to strong on either side, or risk tipping the system off the table, and aim at letting the weight of the pendulum rest where it finds perfect balance (which may very well never happen...). 

    Venezuela is a great example of pushing to far to the left and crashing the system, and Somalia is a great example of pushing too far to the right and get the same result... 
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Democratic Socialism, like socialism itself, sound great on paper, but due to human greed, turns to complete trash. The problem with Democratic Socialism is when the government realizes their about to be overthrown because socialism is a flawed system, tend to go authoritarian. Look at Venezuela, they're "Democratic Socialist" yet their elections are either rigged or not allowed at all. 

    Does it mean capitalist nations are perfect? No. Not a single economic system is perfect, but looking at the comparison of socialist, communist and capitalist nations, there's a huge difference in terms of economy, human rights, HDI etc.
    Why use Venezuela and discard Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Canada, Brazil??? 

    Because, the Nrodic nations aren't democratic socialists. They're social democracy, which are two different economic systems

    It's like using Somalia as an example of what Capitalism leads to... Isn't it a display of bad faith? I think there really is no need for that... Either arguments stand or they don't. And if they are to stand, they should stand against the best the other side has to offer, not the worst... My two cents...

    @YeshuaBought

    "Social-democracy" is really just another way of saying "Mixed-economy", it's a balance act... Some lean more to the right (US, UK), some lean more to the left (Germany, Canada)... And the scale leans according to political powers in place, like a pendulum... You can only go so far in each direction before the pendulum (social order) pushes in the opposite direction, and so on... The trick is not to push to strong on either side, or risk tipping the system off the table, and aim at letting the weight of the pendulum rest where it finds perfect balance (which may very well never happen...). 

    Venezuela is a great example of pushing to far to the left and crashing the system, and Somalia is a great example of pushing too far to the right and get the same result... 

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 12
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The countries you mentioned feature thriving free market economies. They are not socialist, and their governments have to regularly rebuke the claims from some prominent people of the contrary.

    I am also not sure why people keep bringing Somalia up as an example of where capitalism leads. Up until 1991 it was called "Somali Democratic Republic" and was a socialist state mimicking the Soviet system. When the Soviet Union collapsed and stopped providing its satellite allies with aid, Somalia followed and descended into anarchy.

    Somalia is one of the prime examples of where socialism leads. Using it as a demonstration of what happens when there is too much capitalism makes little sense, as the opposite was/is the case.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    "I am also not sure why people keep bringing Somalia up as an example of where capitalism leads."
    Probably for the same reasons people keep bringing Venezuela as an example of social-democracy instead of a democratic socialist state. 

    That said I disagree on your take on Somalia, Somalia is a good example of anarcho-capitalism... No taxes, no regulations, no government to speak of, some extreme right-libertarian might see this as heaven... Meh... 

    I will agree though, that technically if we want to go text book on this, it's true that "democratic-socialists" and "social-democrats" are different animals, related but not the same... Democratic-socialists hold a definitive "post-capitalism" philosophy, where "social-democrats" do not. (@Zombieguy1987 apologies...)

    I tripped on this one, an easy one to forget I'll plead, but at least I know there was a wire to trip on, so many do not even know... This notion that both are interchangeable breeds ignorance and it's a problem...  More arguments in favor of Education for all I guess... ;)
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 12
    @Plaffelvohfen

    When analysing the situation in Somalia, it is first important to talk about how it got to that state. And it got to it as a result of decades of socialist policies. Socialism always ruins nations, and Somalia is not an exception.

    Capitalism, even anarcho-capitalism, is not just "no taxes, no regulations, no government". Capitalism is an economical system based on mutually consensual economical exchanges. This is not the case in Somalia, where every exchange is dictated by the rules installed by the local gang. Regulations there are extreme, and the failure to abide by them leads to consequences far worse than being sued. The fact that those regulations are imposed not by the official government, but by the actual government, does not change what that system is. The taxes the enterpreneurs have to pay can easily be over 100% of their profit, depending on the appetite of the current local boss.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    "mutually consensual economical exchanges"

    I sometimes question what "mutual consensus" means in practice nowadays though...

    What does "mutual consensus" really means if one is manipulated to sign something without really understanding the small prints purposefully crafted to confuse the non-initiated about what it really is that he's agreeing with?? I can see that Somalian gangster pleading to the corrupt judge that he was just engaging in a "mutually consensual economical exchanges" with this poor gentleman in the corner, the same way I can see a corporate lawyer pleading the same but in a corrupted system...  Maybe, the question then is how to prevent corruption, whether in individuals or in the system itself? 
    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • searsear 104 Pts

    What do you think about democratic socialism?

    There are ideological rationalizations for or against.
    I'll dodge that for a note of pragmatism.

    Healthcare is reportedly about 1/3 of a nation's budget. It's obviously best for that $1/3 to be spent as efficiently as possible.
    We don't have to re-invent the wheel here.
    We already KNOW there are other nations, some in Western Europe whose per capita healthcare costs are lower, and whose healthcare outcomes are as good or better.

     THUS !

    In the U.S. we spend more on healthcare, and get less. Republicans justify this not on $economic grounds, but for political ideology. For they dismiss the more economically efficient healthcare schemes as "democratic socialism".
    Republicans seem to think political labels are more important than $1/3 of the U.S. economy.

    I think Barry Goldwater would understand this.
    I can't even guess the current Republican ideations beyond the obvious: favoring more expensive healthcare is the outcome of adverse political motive.
    It's not that they think paying more for healthcare is better. Instead
    Republicans think paying less for healthcare is worse.   
    PlaffelvohfenPropagandaSlayer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 12
    @Plaffelvohfen

    One who does not read the small prints shoots themselves in the foot by their own choice. One who enters a deal with the Somalian gangster, on the other hand, does not have a choice in the first place.
    I personally never sign anything that I am not confident in. But I cannot get others to behave the same way if they do not want to. Unlike authoritarian governments, I do not try to force anything on anyone, and I only deal with those who agree with my terms.
    That said, the market offers some level of protection against especially nasty versions of small prints: competition. Those who trick people into terms they did not expect are unlikely to remain competitive against those who do not.

    Corruption definitely needs to be prevented, but it is hard to do once it becomes a lifestyle of the nation. Lee Kuan Yew managed to eradicate corruption in Singapore with an iron fist, but I do not think Somalia has a person of that class. And eradication corruption by authoritarian means has its own downsides, as after that authoritarianism has to be constantly maintained, and in the long term it may be a failed system.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar
     One who enters a deal with the Somalian gangster, on the other hand, does not have a choice in the first place.
    True, but I contend that the system itself makes it so we do not have a choice in the first place either... We are coerced into the system in many ways, which limits the notion of "mutual consensus" IMO...

    I'll grant though that this is probably true of most systems if not all... 

    I guess that my core contention with Capitalism "as is", is that I'm under the impression that it promotes apathy toward other human beings... 


    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The implementation of capitalism as is has many flaws, mainly because of how much the government restricts it. When people are not free to perform fully consensual exchanges due to all the regulations, permit requirements and so on, then the exchanges become dehumanised.

    For example, I wanted to open a local reselling business recently, and one of its main features would be the extreme "customers first" ideology - mind you, not because I care about the people so much (even though I do), but because I see it as the best way to make money.
    But when trying to do so, I encountered such a wall of regulations, permits, hidden fees and taxes and so on, that I quickly gave up on the idea. 

    For capitalism to work as intended, people must be truly free to trade whatever they want, without the governmental supervision. And that is not the case anywhere in the world. In some places, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau and certain prefectures in Switzerland, it is close to being such, but the majority of the world, including our North American continent, do not have such luxury.

    There is nothing wrong with apathy towards other human beings over the course of trade exchanges, when both sides benefit from them. I do not think feelings have place in the economy. What is wrong, in my opinion, is apathy towards the exchanges themselves - and that is exactly what regulatory systems create, as people are too tired of fighting with the bureaucracy to really be excited about enterpreneurship. It becomes a game of dull conformity and survival, rather than a game of ideas and innovations.
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "And that is not the case anywhere in the world." MC

    India is famously free of burdensome government regulations of business.

    "For capitalism to work as intended, people must be truly free to trade whatever they want, without the governmental supervision." MC

    As a prospective businessman you may say so.

     BUT !!

    It's a two-edged sword. As a consumer you may prefer the benefits of building codes, fire codes, kitchen / restaurant hygiene standards, etc.
    You're criticizing the system you benefit from. But having your cake and eating it too? You like the safety, but protest the government regulations which provide it?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    @sear

    The standards develop by themselves as the market competition grows and the customers grow to want more from life. Poisoning your customers regularly is not going to keep you in business for long.

    As for India, it is a communal caste society, and completely different things are going on there. Lack of regulations is merely a necessary condition for a thriving market; it is not a sufficient condition. The laws do not mean much when the society has its own self-enforced rules preventing consensual exchanges.

    The practice of forced weddings is still widespread in India. I am mentioning this just so you realise how backwards that society is. They have far bigger problems than the corrupt government over there.
    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "The standards develop by themselves as the market competition grows and the customers grow to want more from life. Poisoning your customers regularly is not going to keep you in business for long." MC

    I gather most U.S. laws arise to address a perceived problem. And here we are.
  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @AlofRI

    What is your definition of fairly?

    "I'm not likely to vote for Bernie. He's a bit TOO radical for me, but he has the right idea. We just need to take back control, then work together … FAIRLY."

    The illegal aliens, or immigrants coming into the country illegally, and then having the sanctuary cities, pander to them by giving them sanctuary, in a country based on laws?

    Those illegal aliens, or immigrants are acting in an unfair manner, and have unfairly killed United States citizens.

    So basically those sanctuary cities have taken control of their cities from the United States by giving those illegal aliens sanctuary then right?

    When a city gives sanctuary to the illegal immigrants, how is that working together with the lawful citizens who are living in those same sanctuary cities? 

    And those businesses, who have been utilizing the illegal aliens to do work for them under the table, have taken control over the IRCA law, by using the illegal aliens to do work for them right? 

    When a business uses illegal immigrants in the above way, how is that working together, within the framing of the IRCA law, that former POTUS Reagan signed into law in 1986? 

    It would appear that those same businesses and sanctuary cities, are operating under their own ideological stances, now wouldn't it? 
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • searsear 104 Pts

    What do you think about democratic socialism?

    What do you think of utilitarianism?

    utilitarianism (y¡-tîl´î-târ´ê-e-nîz´em) noun
       The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. *

    note:
    To understand this topic, it helps to understand wealth distribution among various human cultures. Though capitalism may not be a form of governance per se, it's a powerful influence on the cultures that practice it. Notable if not unique to capitalism: vast wealth disparity. "democratic socialism" obliquely addresses that.

     * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    Democratic Socialism, is a Nationwide waste of time.

    If Democratic Socialism only benefits the individual democratic socialist followers/ constituents, then it's an ideology that only benefits the democratic socialist followers/ constituents?


  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @AlofRI

    What is your definition of fairly?

    "I'm not likely to vote for Bernie. He's a bit TOO radical for me, but he has the right idea. We just need to take back control, then work together … FAIRLY."

    The illegal aliens, or immigrants coming into the country illegally, and then having the sanctuary cities, pander to them by giving them sanctuary, in a country based on laws?

    Those illegal aliens, or immigrants are acting in an unfair manner, and have unfairly killed United States citizens.

    So basically those sanctuary cities have taken control of their cities from the United States by giving those illegal aliens sanctuary then right?

    When a city gives sanctuary to the illegal immigrants, how is that working together with the lawful citizens who are living in those same sanctuary cities? 

    And those businesses, who have been utilizing the illegal aliens to do work for them under the table, have taken control over the IRCA law, by using the illegal aliens to do work for them right? 

    When a business uses illegal immigrants in the above way, how is that working together, within the framing of the IRCA law, that former POTUS Reagan signed into law in 1986? 

    It would appear that those same businesses and sanctuary cities, are operating under their own ideological stances, now wouldn't it? 

    @AIofRI

    Was this your response to the above points of view? 

    "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally." Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984

    "There were far more coming across the border then, and a smaller percentage of women and children. Today's "invasion" is a farce, a piece of propaganda that has been repeated over and over until it has become "fact" … if one believes it … at Hermann Goering said it would. Reagan ALSO completely supported the Brady Bill on gun control. He wouldn't, likely, give much support to this Party of Trump. 
    The GOP no longer exists. In it's place is the POT … with a LOT of bad stuff in it."

    Zombieguy1987
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Democratic Socialism, is a Nationwide waste of time." TD

    Does "Democratic Socialism" exist in Scandinavia? The happiness quotients measured there are the highest in the world. Do you consider happiness "a Nationwide waste of time."

    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @sear

    Are you a current resident in Scandinavia? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    @sear

    There are many ways to respond to a perceived problem, and banning the means by which this problem can be perpetuated is not necessarily the best - or a good at all - way to do so.

    For example, if the problem is murder rates, then banning forks and knives in order to lower it might not be a very good idea. Yet banning things is the natural response from the government to anything. The government is always run by control freaks, and the more things they can ban, the more power over the people they gain.

    Systematic problems are not solved by bans. Systematic problems are solved by shifts in the societal mentality. And those shifts take a lot of time to happen, and they tend to happen naturally as the society evolves, and legal intervention is likely to only slow them down.

    Democratic socialists think that every problem must be manually tackled, ignoring any other considerations, people's rights and freedoms, etc. This authoritarian approach has never worked in history, and will never work, because humans are individuals, not cattle. We do not like being herded by shepherds "for our own good".
    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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