Why do you think socialism will work for America after multiple countries have failed under it? - 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!

Why do you think socialism will work for America after multiple countries have failed under it?
in Politics

By halem11halem11 2 Pts
Bernie Sanders is just power hungry change my mind. 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I think you are conflating the democratic socialism that Bernie wants with the hard socialism of countries like the USSR and Venezuela. They are completely different, in basically every way.

    Bernie isn't looking to abolish the free market, all he wants is to provide a social safety net to those at the bottom, so that should they encounter misfortune which is no fault of their own, they will not be cast aside by a ruthless Darwinian capitalistic system.

    Hedging success has been demonstrated to produce failed societies. Hedging misfortune however, has been demonstrated to work, as this is already the norm in most Scandinavian and European countries.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    Old good question... Why do people support totalitarian ideologies, only to have their lives ruined when they are implemented? I have never quite understood this, although I have developed an interesting theory of a self-sabotaging mechanism in our psychology that makes us create problems to give our lives meaning. When things become a little too good and stable, we start looking for ways to shake things up; you can see it on a large, societal, scale, but you can also see it in our individual lives. How many people who seemed to have it all suddenly started making decisions that seemingly make no sense, losing everything subsequently and starting from scratch? It is the same here.

    While I do not think that history really develops in cycles, there is definitely a pattern of societies going up and down, with the overall upwards direction, but strong regular turnarounds.

    Sanders' victory in the election would be a bad sign for all freedom lovers: socialism winning in America of all places spells dark times ahead for the world. At the same time, perhaps we need hard periods every now and then, lest we grow too complacent and forget the importance of liberty.
  • @MayCaesar
    self-sabotaging mechanism in our psychology that makes us create problems to give our lives meaning
    That is a very interesting thought deserving consideration...  :+1: 

    As for the rest, I don't know that "totalitarian ideology" can be said of social-democracy without drowning the word totalitarian into meaninglessness... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Plaffelvohfen

    People can sometimes vote for laws coming from a totalitarian ideology; does not really make the ideology any less totalitarian, does it? I personally do not see myself as much freer when, instead of a vertical power system, a popular vote decides that I must live by rules violating my basic human rights.

    It is the same as, for example, Christianity is a totalitarian ideology, but Christian democracies are possible. Totalitarianism comes in many shapes and forms and sometimes is introduced gradually, including via a popular vote. Totalitarianism is also a spectrum, and an overall free society can have specific totalitarian aspects (such as Qatar largely being a pretty free nation, especially by the Middle-Eastern standards, but they have some harsh policies with regards to criticising the government and Islam).
  • @MayCaesar Can you explain to me why our current neo-liberal system shouldn't be considered totalitarian when compared to the proposed policies of social democracy?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    You probably should not be asking an anarcho-capitalist this question; by my standards, any system that has the entity called "government" is totalitarian. ;)

    That said, I prefer totalitarianism in which I, more or less, own what I earn to one in which the government has a free way with my property and basic human rights. I have already lived in that one; did not like it much. Belarus is pretty much a perfect social democracy, at its final stage of evolution, and I would not want the US to become like Belarus. Venezuela also had everything happen as a result of the popular vote, but I have never been there and cannot provide a first-hand report.
  • @MayCaesar If you want freedom, why would you support the system that makes slavery not only acceptable, but makes it a moral prerogative?

    Belarus and Venezuela are not social democracies. When people talk about social democracy they are talking about what they do in Norway, which quite frankly, has freer markets and is doing much better than the US, no minimum wage, and takes education seriously.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    I was not aware I was supporting a system making slavery acceptable; care to elaborate?

    Belarus and Venezuela are democratic socialist countries; I do not know what "social democracy" means, as the term seems to be a tautology to me. "Better than the US" is also a quality judgement, one I do not necessarily agree with.
  • @MayCaesar I really shouldn't have to elaborate because I know we have talked about this before.

    Instead I am just going to ask some questions and see where they lead.

    In an ancap society, how do people make there money or get the things they need to live?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    However they want, as long as it does not involve coercion. The expected way is to either get money from charity, or by means of voluntary exchanges (including service exchanges) between individuals.

    For that matter, I do not know if money even will exist there. Multiple currencies the value of which is based on their trustworthiness appear to be more likely than a single centralised currency.
  • @MayCaesar Alright so voluntary exchange seems to be the primary means of wealth creation. I think you will agree that this means that those that create the most value, will get the most wealth then. What is the total distribution of wealth going to look lie in a society where value added is the primary driver? Asked another way, would we expect everyone to be able to add the same amount of value or different amounts, and as a result of this what would we expect the income distribution to look like?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    In general, yes, that would be the case. I do not know what the distribution of wealth is going to be; this is not something I am particularly concerned about. I do not sleep any worse by knowing that someone is far richer than me, and someone else is far poorer than me. I imagine that there will be a very strong wealth inequality, when the most effective wealth producers are not restricted by the system from producing and keeping it - and that is not a bad thing by any stretch of imagination.

    As for your second question, obviously different people will add different value to others' lives. For that matter, not always will people adding the same value get the same value in return, as what they get depends on their negotiating skills and the ability to influence others positively.
  • @MayCaesar If there are people who are massively rich, and others who are very poor,  what does that mean will happen over time as a result of some people having much more wealth than others in terms of resource ownership? Will the rich get richer or poorer?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Richer, probably. And since people get rich by giving value to others, those they interact with will become richer as well.

    As for "very poor", I do not think such people would exist in large numbers on a free market, given how easy it is to make money on it, as well as to give money for charity as a result.
  • @MayCaesar So if we were to model the wealth of individuals, we would find that it should be exponential. However this comes with a caveat, because the amount of resources available is finite.

    Would we therefore expect all resources to gradually move into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and what does this imply for those who do not have access to those resources?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Not really exponential, considering that people change and die, and their heirs are not always as good at multiplying wealth as they are.

    No, this is not how wealth works; economics is not a zero sum game. While resources in principle are finite, in practice we will never approach exhausting them. For the entirety of human history societies have been becoming wealthier and wealthier, and will continue to become wealthier for millions years to come.

    Everyone has access to resources they need; easements are an inherent feature of basic property rights. What people do not necessarily have access to is products others have developed, but resources are always there.
  • @MayCaesar If there is massive wealth disparity between people, then those that do form dynasties where wealth is preserved across multiple generations, then wouldn't these families have a greater long term potential over families that didn't form dynasties, essentially allowing them to usurp the wealth of other wealthy families, even without violence? (i.e one family leaves a heir, who another rich family takes advantage of)
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    Possibly, but what does it matter? Once again, the fact that someone is much richer than me does not keep me awake at night. What is important to me is how wealth can be generated, not who the richest person/family on the planet is. And the wealth is ultimately generated by creating something of value to others. I am not particularly concerned with other people throwing chests full of gold at each other.
  • @MayCaesar If they are getting richer much faster than you, how long until you don't own anything, and any wealth that you might want to generate is generated by them?

    If they have more wealth, they can sell at a loss to get rid of the competition. Why would they not do that?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I do not understand the question. How does them getting richer deprive me of things I own?

    They are free to sell at a loss, and I am happy with it: I am getting a cheaper product. Granted, I do not think they will be able to do that, as that assumes that the competition is fairly weak to begin with, which is unlikely to be the case on a free market.
  • @MayCaesar You aren't getting a cheaper product, you are getting pushed out of business due to being out competed.

    Think about it this way: There are two stores, one sells products for less than the other. Who will get the most business?

    For the record, this happens in real life all the time. It is how Walmart makes so much money. They set up a store and then squash all the local competition by lowering prices. When they all shut down, they raise prices again to make up the difference.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I am a customer, so I am getting a cheaper product. If I were a competitor being pushed out of business with no ability to compete, then, first, I only would have myself to blame for not being able to offer something special to my customers, and second, I would just switch to a different type of products.

    What you are describing cannot work, because, once all competition is purged and they push up prices again, the competition comes back. It is not a sustainable strategy at dominating the market.
    You are also welcome to point out a single case where Walmart actually has purged all competition. Because every Walmart I have ever visited had countless smaller stores selling similar products in quite close proximity. Despite countless regulations lobbied in its favor suppressing competition artificially and raising the market entry barriers.

    For that matter, there is even a thriving black market in North Korea, the most unfavorable country in the world for business. People find a way to set up shops almost literally in hell, and you are wondering how they are going to do it on a completely free market? Come on now.
  • @MayCaesar What happens when there are no other products to switch to? How is the competitions supposed to return once the hegemonic business has purchased their land and assets?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 540 Pts
    Socialism and advocacy for same is evidence of historical ignorance, educational brainwashing by America's socialist-progressive elites, the foolish-naive, the greedy and the irresponsible i.e. an overwhelming majority of American youth comprising the Millennial and Gen-Z population...these are death to America's Constitutional Republic.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    There are billions products circulating right now, and an infinity more of new products that one can create. The situation in which there are no other products to switch to is impossible.

    Again, there is the concept of easements. If someone literally purchases all land in a large area, and someone else wants to open a shop in a way that makes it accessible to people in that area, then a private arbitration dispute will ensue and the judges will try to find something that works for both parties.

    That is unlikely to happen though, as that is not an optimal strategy for the land owner. If I want to open a shop on your land, it makes more sense for you to allow me to do so under, say, the condition that I pay you 20% of my profit, than to push me out and stick with your regular profit.
    Which is why you currently see countless partnerships between companies. Walmart in particular barely sells its own production and mostly relies on its partners supplying it with goods.
  • @MayCaesar How strange... starting to sound like taxes now isn't it?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot ;

    How so? Voluntary deal between two business owners has what in common with extortion of money under threat of violence?
  • @MayCaesar Think about it, suppose a hegemonic business owned all the land, resources, and everything else in a given region. That means they control all of that and they get to set the rules in that region. So if they decide they want to collect a payment from everyone living there so they are allowed to live there, and receive protection and services they can do that.

    If you were one of these owners, and someone didn't pay up, what would you do to that person?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    You really should come to our anarcho-capitalist sub on reddit and read some discussions there. Questions like this are discussed quite often in different forms, such as: "Suppose someone builds a private city and institutes a private government, laws, taxation, police, etc. there. Is this allowed?" The answers are quite complicated and do not fit in several sentences.

    To your question, owning all the land and resources in a region does not mean you fully control everything that happens there and get to set any rules you want. You cannot, for example, torture trespassers, or demand that everyone who passes your land pays you a huge toll. There are many different concepts involved, easements being the most obvious one, that prevent people from becoming tyrants.
  • @MayCaesar And who or what enforces these restrictions?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    An example I like to use when answering this type of questions is credit score. In principle, nobody prohibits you from, say, taking a credit card, maxing it and never paying the bank anything - there is no law in most jurisdictions outlawing such behavior. However, if you do so, your credit score will plummet, and other banks will be very hesitant dealing with you, and the costs  of those deals for you will skyrocket.
    Something similar already takes place in private arbitration verdicts between modern corporations, and it is how in essence the free market restrictions work as well. If you break a restriction that private arbitration deems valid, then your reputation will plummet, and people will be wary of dealing with you. As such, breaking conventional restrictions is a pretty bad long-term strategy on the market.

    Now, if you go completely rogue and, say, start robbing malls, then most likely you will have to deal with private security that will use violence against you, which will be justified in the court as needed to protect private assets. This is how it worked in Ancient Rome, before, I think, Augustus introduced state-funded police.
  • @MayCaesar Ok, so would it be acceptable then for a landowner to arrest and/or forcibly evict one of their tenants who wasn't paying for their services then using their own private militia?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    Depending on the contract the landowner and the tenant signed, arrest and forced eviction could be a proper reaction, as well as an arbitration lawsuit in case the tenant owes a lot of money to the landowner.

    The landowner cannot, however, for example, send bounty hunters after the tenant that will beat him/her up and force money out of him/her. This is a free market, not an animal kingdom market.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 1565 Pts
    edited March 13
    @MayCaesar Why can't someone hire a bunch a thugs to go beat up someone who isn't holding up their end of the bargain? How would anyone know if this happened, since by nature of such an organization being private, there would be no trace of injustice.

    To live in any country you agree to their terms under their laws that usually includes paying taxes and being arrested if you are breaking that law. Is there any difference between that system and the systems that would come to exist under anarcapitalism, given that a wealthy land owner would have these same rules apply to his hegemony?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    The victim can go to the closest private investigator, for example, tell them what happened and show the traces of beating - people in the area likely have heard something and can confirm the story.
    Now, if the landowner can manage to get away with it by hiding all evidence, then sure, there is nothing that can be done. But that is the case in any system: there are no all-knowing systems in which you are on the radar 24/7.

    Your agreement is not asked for upon your birth, and yet the terms are forced on you. On a free market, nothing can be forced on you without your consent, and, to the question above about private cities, one of the common objections to people being able to run their cities like nations is that people born there have not signed any contracts and, hence, are not subject to those laws.
    People who have their own house, for that matter, are not subject to any other laws and rules, unless they have bought their house from some sort of association that sets certain rules. Nobody can buy land around your house and force new rules on you.

    The government also owns far more land than it manages to maintain; this is something that on a free market governed by homesteading rules cannot be the case. Nobody can buy the land the size of the US, unless they somehow manage to maintain all this land and satisfy all the other requirements such as easements, which is absolutely unfeasible in practice.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MayCaesar Where are you going to find a PI who has the balls to go against your organization? Just by taking this person's offer they would they not put themselves in mortal danger?

    You keep saying that there has to be a contract, but for a large privately owned city that is completely infeasible unless the contract is something that you must agree to to even be there, and is written in such a way that just by entering you agree to it. Why would the contract be anything accept: "If you enter my land you play by my rules, and this includes giving a portion of what you pay for everything to me"
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    There are PIs funded by conglomerates of corporations, and some of them are quite likely to reside in my little town; unless my organisation is some sort of world dominion, I am not untouchable.

    If a large privately owned city cannot establish a system of contracts, then it cannot issue and enforce any laws, obviously. That is just one of the many problems with the concept of private-instituted government.
    Verbal contracts do not have any legal power. Assumed contracts can in some cases, but what is assumed by default is strongly limited and cannot constitute any meaningful system of laws.
  • @MayCaesar I'm not asking if they can, I'm asking why they should. remember, they are effectively in charge of the local police, every business, and every home in their region. If they want to exercise some power within that region, what is to stop them?

    If such a hegemonic corporation got to the size of a city, county, or state, would they not be the primary authority on all matters within that state?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    You do not have to ask what would stop them in a hypothetical scenario; you can look at how such situations are actually handled by the free market nowadays. Corporations have a network of private investigators and arbitration courts which they pay for handling both cases concerning these corporations directly and indirectly. Everyone benefits from the situation on the market being peaceful and predictable, so when someone starts acting up, they have a huge incentive to take action against them.
    In this case, suppose a few individuals complained about being beaten up for not paying rent. Every competitor of the business will be quite interested in this; they would launch a private investigation that would uncover a lot of things the owner does not want others to see. If the owner is pragmatic, they will pay huge compensations to their victims, stop the practice and publicly apologise. If not and the case goes in court and succeeds, then the reputation damage to the owner will be tremendous. The owner has a very strong incentive not to employ such barbaric practices.

    Well, if a corporation somehow got to the size of a large state, then there is little that can be done to enforce anything there short of a war. That is the case nowadays as well with actual states: North Korea can do whatever it wants, and barely anything helps deal with the situation.
    However, how such a corporation can arise on a free market with a lot of competition, I do not see. Corporations also have the scaling problem, where at a certain point the operation expenses start growing far more rapidly than the profit. In the modern world typically corporations get some form of exclusive privileges from the government to offset this, but on a free market with no government such privileges will not be accessible.
  • I think that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density (because it relies on simplifying assumptions about human behavior which are unfortunately wrong). 

    Anarcho-capitalist books tend to read like Marxist books — dense and full of provocative ideas that sound good in theory, but are presented as "this is the way it would work" when it has never actually been tried. The Market for Liberty makes blanket statements such as "in a laissez-faire society, only gold would be accepted as the standard of monetary value" (how do they know?); competing educational systems would "forever end squabbles over curriculum" (how?); eliminating medical licensing would "end the doctor shortage and drastically reduce the cost of medical care" because "anyone could practice medicine in any area in which he was competent, regardless of the number of years he spent in college" but we needn't worry about quacks performing surgery because "reputable physicians would probably form medical organizations which would only sanction competent doctors, thereby providing consumers with a guide" (and no quack would falsely claim endorsement, they aren't that shady); and we needn't worry about private defense agencies becoming like warring Mafia gangs because "a defense company which committed aggression...would be left with no customers, associates, or employees except for undesirables." Not very reassuring. The book brings up many objections in a straw man manner and dismisses them without serious discussion, and uses "always", "never", and "will probably" far too much...

    Competing private courts enforcing competing polycentric bodies of law, as envisioned by David Friedman, presents an especially confusing mess. The implications of this are best left to the reader to imagine....
    Happy_Killbot
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar No one benefits from a stable market. For example, the recession (and possibly depression) we are entering right now is going to net me quite a lot of money, but in the mean time it is going to cause a lot of pain and suffering.

    The business owner isn't going to get caught, he did nothing wrong and there will be no evidence. All the PI will find is that a bunch of thugs broke in and broke things and stole stuff. F***, the business owner will most likely use the opportunity to make himself look like the good guy by "fighting off" the bad people (who he hired and everyone knows but no one can prove)

    Jeff Bezos makes more money in a year than 11 US states. Technically, if he wanted to he could already purchase a sizable territory if he wanted. If you are not sure how a company would get that big, just look at any of the businesses that are already that big.

    If they had the option to profit from the services that we currently pay for through taxes, they could have a much larger market share, and the power that comes with it.

    Is there anything stopping a hegemonic corporation from getting to the size of a traditional city, state, or province and in doing so accept all the traditional roles of government, including providing laws, infrastructure, and services that would be in every way a direct parallel with existing governments, including at times abuses of power, possibly even military capability, which is paid for by charging the people who live there for those services?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The difference is, these ideas have been field-tested countless times. There is nothing particularly radical about them; private courts and police already work on the corporation scale in the developed world, for example, and competing educational systems have been implemented in certain African countries and have significantly boosted their education level - South Korea is also an interesting case of a fairly competitive education market, albeit ridden with subsidies since recently.

    For that matter, this country was founded on ideas that, by modern standards, are considered very extremely libertarian - and we have done quite well. I do not know a single case of attempted Marxism that has brought anything but endless misery, however.

    I will not pretend that there are no valid questions to ask about the system; no system is perfect, and one of the reasons I like discussions such as this is because people from the other side of the issue often ask me questions that, even if I know an answer to, still get me thinking and modifying my views. However, the notion that the libertarian, or even anarcho-capitalist, views are somehow extreme and impractical - in light of the last few centuries of rapid liberalisation of societies - is not something I can agree with.

    I also do not know why you assume that libertarians only consider some idealised version of humans. We realise very well how flawed humans are; this is the primary reason we support individual freedoms and do not want to see any coercion in the society. Again, there is plenty of debate we "internally" have about these issues; this is not some sort of a Marxist echo-chamber where people agree virtually on everything.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Large companies that have a lot of resources invested in various venues do not benefit from things that hurt the market as a whole, and those are the companies having the power to affect the market the most.

    If the owner does not get caught, well, good for him. Even assuming he can somehow hide beating thousands tenants from the court, the tenants will complain about it, and everyone in the area will know to stay away from that housing complex - and the owner will lose a lot of money.
    This is not what happens in practice. In practice private investigators hired by corporations are very efficient, more so than the public ones in general.

    Purchasing a territory on a free market does not mean much, if you do not actually build something on that territory. Who are you going to purchase it from anyway? Nobody owns a chunk of forest, so nobody can sell it to you. If you manage to come over, chop some wood and build something, then you get it just like that: you do not pay anything. But you cannot stake your claim on a territory that is not developed in any way; that goes against the homesteading principles.

    There is a lot stopping a corporation from growing this much, and I already elaborated on some of the issues: logistics, maintenance costs, etc. There are other issues as well, less direct ones, such as nobody wanting to do anything with an abusive hegemonic corporation. And if this corporation is not abusive and people are happy living on its territory, then what exactly is the problem?

    For that matter, why are we always considering these extreme cases which have never occurred in practice? In practice only governments have done all these terrible things on a huge scale, and even when, for example, British corporations ravaged colonies, it was on the governmental mandate and funding.
    Building totalitarianism and abusing people is a pretty lousy way to earn money on a free market with a lot of competition.
  • @MayCaesar Is there any functional difference between a country and a hegemonic corporation which has supplanted itself as a regional authority?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    The hegemonic corporation is still primarily concerned with profit, while a government is more concerned with power, although the two are somewhat connected. I suppose you can imagine an extreme scenario in which a corporation ends up behaving exactly like the government, but the history knows not of such examples, and even if that actually happens in the real world, we will simply end up where we are now.

    When the worst case in a system is just the current state of affairs, then you know you are onto something good!
  • @MayCaesar Would it start as the current state of affairs, or would this system have to go through the last 4,000 years or so of societal development only for things to end up exactly as they currently are?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Considering that everything starts at the free market and wide individual liberties, we certainly will not have to go through 4,000 years of figuring basic human rights again. Systems do not exist in a vacuum and are based on the societal trends, and the trends today are very different than they were 4,000 years ago.
  • @MayCaesar Even if it doesn't take 4,000 years just to end up where we started socially, we still wouldn't have made any progress as a society. Why should we hit the reset button and just start over if in the end we will just come right back to where we were?

    I have a little theory to run by you, what if the reason that corporations are not associated with the abuses that nation states are is because governments are preventing them from committing those abuses?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 13
    @Happy_Killbot

    I am not talking about hitting a reset button. Anarcho-capitalism is not something you build by demolishing everything and starting from scratch; it is an ideal to which hopefully we will gradually move as the historical process of individual liberalisation continues.

    Governments themselves are the ultimate corporation-monopolist, so the idea that they somehow prevent corporations from abuses is, at best, strange. Especially given how governments constantly give corporations subsidies and favorable regulations suppressing competition.

    For that matter, governments preventing abuses theory has some obvious issues with regards to matching the historical evidence. Have there been corporate Hitlers, Stalins or Chenghiz Khans? I am not aware of such; only governments allow such individuals to flourish and have their wildest dreams come true.
    Josh_Drake
  • @MayCaesar How exactly do you think laws and regulations work?

    A corporation can't sell people tainted meat because the FDA will shut it down. This alone is adequate evidence to prove that governments do in fact, prevent corporations from committing abuses.

    I think I am starting to understand why you think such an extreme position such as anarcapitalism is a good idea.
    Josh_Drake
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
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