What Is A Political Belief You Hold? - 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 Is A Political Belief You Hold?
in Politics

By MacMac 28 Pts
Politics, in its purest form, is the regard for all things pertaining to living entities. What is a political belief you adhere to?
My agenda is to study the human mind.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    edited June 2
    I recently finally pinpointed my political beliefs to a labeled ideology: anarcho-capitalism. For years I was trying to reconcile my utmost respect for individual freedoms with the notion that a state is required to guarantee them, and I always saw a contradiction in this notion, in that the state by its very existence already violates people's individual freedoms. Recently I finally realised that the state not only is not required for individual rights and freedoms to be guaranteed, but, in fact, its absence is what is required for it.

    On the traditional political compass depicting capitalism vs socialism and authoritarianism vs liberalism, you could say that anarcho-capitalism is a point exactly at the bottom-right corner of the diagram, although most anarcho-capitalists agree that the compass in the first place is a bad space to project political views on.

    There is not too many of us in the world, although our rows are growing rapidly. A very solid "ancap" movement is rising in Brasil where people are becoming disillusioned by the government constantly failing them in every regard, and it is possible that Brasil will end up being the first modern country to try basing its political system on anarcho-capitalism. It would be very exciting to see where it leads!
    Zombieguy1987
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar ;

    I see. It is true that the very existence of governing order does innately violate certain exercises of autonomy. However, wouldn’t you say some individual freedoms should be prohibited, such as the freedom to rape, freedom to murder, freedom to rob, so on and so forth? If so, do you view then that governance is necessary to then find and enforce a harmony between what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to do so as to produce stable human interactions?

    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar Are you going to respond to my inquiry?
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    @Mac

    In the anarcho-capitalist system these issues are naturally addressed by the free market. For example, there is a strong demand to be protected from being murdered. As such, people will pay private security companies, private crime investigation companies and private courts to protect them from criminals - it can be organised similarly to how private insurance companies are organised, where the customers pay monthly fees, and the company takes care of them when needed.

    The key here is that every demand humans can possibly have, be it the demand for justice, the demand for security, the demand for food or any other demand, can be matched with supply by the market. The difference from the supply being provided by the government is that a) you only pay for the supply of those goods that you really need, and b) you can choose from multiple providers, as opposed to being stuck with having to deal with the state monopoly.

    It is not all fine and dandy, of course, and any system has issues, including anarcho-capitalism. But the more you think about the system, the more you realise just how resourceful the market can be and how seeming contradictions are naturally resolved on it. A lot of people upon hearing about a stateless free market-oriented society immediately think, "What if someone just starts buying everything up?", or "What if a warlord takes over and starts conquering everything?" But this actually cannot happen in such a system, for a variety of reasons, namely that no one wants such an outcome, and the market will provide mechanisms stopping the forces attempting to dismantle it from taking over.
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 307 Pts
    @MayCaesar:  I have to disagree with at least part of what you say. You only have to look at Russia to see that a "warlord" can take over a capitalistic state and turn it into an oligarchy. Money is power. We have the Koch Bros. here, with billions of dollars that BUY control of the government and even invent their own "party" with the hopes of taking it over. They just may do that, eventually. 

    The insanely wealthy work to change the country to fit their own desires. They move to take over education (At universities and corporate financed schools with a "controlled curriculum"), AND the thinking of those that will soon be working for them. Capitalism MUST be regulated BY the people, FOR the people, otherwise it develops the "warlords" that gradually "have their way with us" …. as in Russia. Cross the warlord, and "have an accident".

    Therefore, the political belief I hold:
    It's called "democracy". Government OF, BY and FOR the people. An old concept actually, started by the Greeks as "demokratia", or direct rule by the people in 507 BC. Long live democracy.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar ;

    Wouldn’t you say that market legal apparatuses would be flimsy and impractical since they’d follow means to make profit as opposed to objective reality?

    Also, where is the justice for people who may not be able to buy into such legal markets?

    Plaffelvohfen
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 687 Pts
    I see advantages and disadvantages in both right-wing and left-wing politics. If it came down to it I would have to say that I am slightly left of center.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    @AlofRI

    If you genuinely think that the government is on your side, then you have not been paying attention. Look at literally any regulation and its consequences, such as who benefited from it and who lost - and you will start understanding: those people are not your friends. There is no "government for the people", although obviously the government will beg to differ.

    Lincoln, who coined the famous phrase, as one of his first acts, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, essentially allowing judges to throw people in jail without due process. Not the individual I would quote.


    @Mac ;

    That is the key of the market system: everyone seeks personal profit, hence the outcome benefits everyone. The legal apparatuses are not likely to be flimsy when they face harsh competition and have to be at the top of the game to stay in business.
    I have been currently waiting for over 2 months for IRS to let me know how much I owe them; they are still digging through the documents. If, on the other hand, IRS had 20 competitors, then such response time would bankrupt them pretty quickly.

    Justice leads to stability, which is vital for high market performance. As such, everyone is interested in people having justice served, even those people who cannot pay for it. I expect a lot of charity to be done in this regard, both on the individual and the corporate part.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    edited June 5
    @MayCaesar

    Actually, why would defendants have to participate at all? There's no universal law across the land since there are only markets so couldn't an accused person just opt out of the privatized process? Private entities and markets are voluntary, after all. [I edited this comment for purposes of brevity.]

    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar Also, why and how would there be private IRS's?
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    @Mac

    The accused person does not have to participate in the process, but not doing so would strongly damage his/her public image and restrict his/her economical opportunities - which in a free market society is very damaging. And if the person really committed something horrible, such as murder, then they would still be taken into custody by a private correction system. Anarcho-capitalism does not mean everyone is immune from the consequences of their actions, it simply means that the consequences are not enforced by the state.
    Everything is voluntary and consensual, but when one person violates someone else's consent, the response violating that person's consent can be warranted. The famous "Don't tread on me" flag depicts this message perfectly: respect other people's consent, and your consent will be respected; act against other people's consent, and the action will be taken to prevent you from continuously doing so.

    As for IRS, obviously there would be no private IRS, since there would be no taxes - but I just used it to illustrate how incredibly inefficient the state is. And it cannot be any other way around: what incentive is there for the state to improve its mechanisms? People have to interact with IRS no matter their preferences, and even if IRS still used stone tablets for keeping records, people would have to interact with them.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 307 Pts
    @MayCaesar: Literally any regulation has consequences, I can agree with that. MY government, that I have been paying attention to since America WAS great, make regulations to keep people safe, (Osha regulations, for example), to keep capitalists from cheating people (as in false advertising and shoddy products), to keep banks from stealing our money (Or swindling us as happened in 2005-06), to keep foreign countries from showering us with unsafe products and toxins, to keep our water and air "Crystal clear" (as Trump, the deregulator, lied yesterday), to keep unscrupulous food and drug capitalists from putting dangerous drugs and food with dangerous pesticides on the market, to prevent unsafe cars and toys, etc. 

    If you think a government that does that is NOT on your side, you haven't been paying attention.

    In the last 3 years, those "nasty regulations" that protected our air and water, beaches and fisheries, National Parks …. and many people … have been discontinued, scrapped, squashed. 

    Holy crap! You're right … THIS DE-regulating government DOESN'T care about U.S. (Or anyone but themselves, the anti-regulation capitalists)!
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    If the accused person doesn’t have to participate in the private process, what would enforce them to go to a private correction system? If all institutions and entities are private, nothing can truly enforce obedience by an accused person, unless you want to advocate for private entities being able to forcibly acquire people. If that’s the case, what is to stop private entities from doing this without an objective warrant? Couldn’t all private entities forge mercenary states and then forcibly acquire people as slaves and thus contradict, to the highest degree, what you strive for?


    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @ZeusAres42
    What, in specific terminology, does being 'left of center' mean for you?
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar To go on another point as well, where would the means to generate and maintain a universal currency value arise in this stateless society? If these would be private institutions, couldn't then they generate different currency types or values and thus render the general economy unstable and inconsistent? How would they get their necessary funding?
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar
    Are you going to continue this discussion?
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • MacMac 28 Pts
    @MayCaesar
    I hope this isn't the end of the conversation as we were starting to get into some core aspects that are vital to your ideology.
    My agenda is to study the human mind.
  • I adhere to conservatism.
    Zombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    @AlofRI You are incredibly naive if you think that your safety is a big concern for someone getting hefty paychecks for sitting in the Congress daily. You are not looking at what those laws actually do to you, you only look at their intentions. The attempts to tame evil "drug capitalists" led to some medications costing dozens thousands dollars, because the government made sure that only several monopolies are allowed to approve and distribute drugs. Even more so, many drugs are simply unavailable, because the FDA takes decades to approve them - even though private companies have researched them in enough depth for everyone to know that they are safe and effective.

    If this kind of "safety" is appealing to you, then you can celebrate the achievements of our great rulers of the last century, I guess.

    @Mac Private entities function based on the principle of voluntarism. If someone violates this principle, then the private entities will respond in kind. A criminal might refuse to participate in the private process, but the criminal will still be liable for the damage they have caused, and them not being able to defend themselves in the private court will simply make the job of the accusers easier - and the verdict will still be enforced.

    I do not really operate in the "left-right" terms, so that question is better addressed to someone else.

    Universal currency is not needed for a society to function, and multiple different currencies is how naturally the economy should operate. Obviously the currencies will be, to some extent, convertible into each other, at the rates defined by the market forces. I do not think they will make the economy unstable and inconsistent; if anything, they will make it incredibly resistant to crises, as the downfall of one currency does not have to affect other currencies. "Bank runs" in a multi-currency system are unlikely to deal much damage to the economy, for example.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • i follow Libertarianism
  • TKDBTKDB 292 Pts
    I'm pro unborn baby.

    Pro father's rights.

    Pro mother's rights.

    Pro law abiding.

    Pro U.S. citizens.

    And pro kids, children, and family.

    IE, I'm an independent. 


  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Every time I hear someone say that they revere and favor democracy, the following comes immediately to mind:

    Alexander Fraser Tytler > Quotes > Quotable Quote

    Alexander Fraser Tytler

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”


    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

    This is why the Founding Fathers did not set the United States up as a pure democracy but rather as a Constitutional Republic. This is also why people who foolishly rail against the Electoral College unknowingly expose their ignorance regarding representative government. Democracy sounds good until you understand that it can be used to empower the largest class of voters even if they happen to be uneducated, short-sighted, greedy and envious.

    The 10th Amendment to the Constitution strictly limits the size and scope of the federal government. Our government has ignored the 10th for over 100 years now to the detriment of the citizenry. My political belief is that we need to hit the reset button, start respecting and obeying the Constitution again, get government out of the everyday lives of the people and let free market capitalism do what it does best; generate wealth. 


  • AlofRIAlofRI 307 Pts
    I have no problem with an Electoral College, it's what's been DONE to it by politicians that is bad. It was NOT intended to be advantageous to any particular party. THIS EC HAS to be discarded because there is NO WAY conservatives will straighten it out (and likely, not liberals either). There is no way todays SCOTUS will correct it. It should be dumped and re-set-up in a democratic way, with geometric shapes (as near as possible), NOT favoring a party, but, favoring the PEOPLE, as it was intended. 

    I see a LOT of people complaining about democracy, but no one offering a better system. It is not perfect, but, it's the best anyone has come up with. Better to work with what's good for the masses, than with what's good for those that come to power!

    "Demokratia" or "direct rule BY the people" Greece, 500 BC. It's been around far more than 200 years, needs work, but, still the best. Nationalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc., NONE of which are good "for the people". Fighting AGAINST, rather than working FOR and WITH democracy is to end up with an authoritarian, controlling government of, by and for, the few.
    CYDdharta
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2031 Pts
    As Ben Franklin used to say, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner". Rule of the majority is a horrible concept to follow, and such things as national referendums should not take place in a civilized society. When 60% people can force the other 40% to live on their terms, then you do not have liberalism; you have dictatorship, however decentralized it is.

    Constitutional republic is a far better model than democracy, and to various extents it is implemented in virtually all modern developed countries. There is always a set of rules aimed at preventing people from forcing their ideas on everyone else. A proper constitutional republic can handle the situation where 99% people want to force the remaining 1% to part with their property - by siding with the 1%. It can handle the situation where the whole nation wants one person to suffer - by protecting that one person from everyone else.

    Democracy does not do any of that. Democracy is the rule of a horde of drunken boys wanting more free alcohol.

    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