Opinion on actual Fascism - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com 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!


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!

Opinion on actual Fascism

Opening Argument

1Hacker01Hacker0 89 Pts
edited August 2017 in Politics
I just want to know what your honest opinion is when looking at real fascism. Obviously fascism is getting thrown around a lot as a derogatory term. I myself agree with some of the things fascism has to offer, so I was just wondering if I'm not alone. Here is a basic description of what actual fascism is:

Fascism is a type of nationalism. Fascists believes that capitalism and socialism each lacks in its own way so it tries to take the good things of both capitalism and socialism. It keeps property and businesses like in capitalism, but it also tries to satisfy everyone like in socialism. Fascist governments sponsor companies to work under the government. People can also create their own businesses, but the government makes sure the business does not pose a threat to the country. So in the middle of a war, the company can't aid the enemies, like American companies in WWII (American companies supplied oil to the Nazis). The government heavily taxes large businesses, but keeps them in power so that the company can develop as well. The government also keeps a large military which it consistently uses to promote national interests. Contrary to the belief of many people, fascism can actually be democratic at rare times. It is restricted to being a representative democracy in these cases. 

Some of the reasons why I'm not pure fascist is because it is required to be a dictatorship. Even when it is democratic, it is hard to kick the dictator off his position. Propaganda is used widely, and free speech isn't encouraged, which is part of the reason why democracy can't always get rid of a bad leader. Most fascist nations in the past didn't have democracy.

Nazism is a type of fascism which uses racism. It doesn't represent all fascism. Plus it has many socialist values which traditional fascists wouldn't like.

And by the way, fascism isn't social democracy. Although my description might seem to be similar to social democracy, there is a major difference. Every job has to benefit the state in some way. So if you want to have a retail store then be prepared to have extra restrictions, so you don't inflate the money. Also large companies are required to do research for better technology. And unlike social democracy where taxes are used for healthcare, fascism uses taxes for research.

This is just a brief description of fascism. I might also be biased so make sure to do your own research. Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, and The Roman empire are some fascist/semi-fascist countries in the past.
joecavalrynorthsouthkoreaFascism
  1. Opinion of fascism

    14 votes
    1. It is mostly good.
      14.29%
    2. It is partially good.
      14.29%
    3. It is mostly bad.
      71.43%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Fascism is horrible and may have been followed by the NAZIs.
    FlashPoint
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Not "may have." It has been institutionalized by the Nazis. Institutionalized racism.
  • @FlashPoint fascism supports one culture. not necessarily one race. Read my statement: "Nazism is a type of fascism which uses racism. It doesn't represent all fascism. Plus it has many socialist values which traditional fascists wouldn't like."

    Nazi stands for "national socialist". it emphasizes racism and socialism in fascism
  • Fascism implements social darwinism. Facism is built on its racism, and is holds capitalistic values. There is also a tight class structure, which many people today wouldn't be okay with. 
  • Without liberty among the people, there is disorder.
  • @FlashPoint Once again, fascism isn't built on racism. It is built on one culture. It is a type of nationalism. I agree with the tight class structure, however. It is one of the reasons I'm not pure fascist
  • The focus is around a militaristic dictatorship. Dictators will be power hungry, and take away everything from the people. There are no values to the system itself. 
  • I wouldn't call it nationalism, but rather ethnocentrism.
  • @1Hacker0 read my explanation: "Some of the reasons why I'm not pure fascist is because it is required to be a dictatorship." I already agree with you on that point.

    Fascism is a type of nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology where only one culture is supported. Like in fascism.

    Ethnocentrism is part of every country. It is part of the USA when we criticize Asian countries for eating dog meat, it is part of terrorists when they criticize the USA for letting troops into the holy land, etc. There is nothing wrong with it.
  • @1Hacker0It seems to me that Fascism is more like a socialist ideal than a capitalist one. I don't think it's necessarily tied to nationalism, anymore than socialism is.

    In communism, government outright owns all property. There is no private ownership of property. This includes factories and other resources.

    In fascism, government doesn't own the property, but they can dictate how it is used. Individuals still take the risk of starting ventures, but once successful on any level, government controls the product, it's market, and its price.

    Both fascism and communism were inspired from the same source; the teachings and philosophy of Karl Marx. Mussolini even mentioned this in his memoirs. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. In Germany, it took on a truly evil racist turn.

    In both cases, businesses lived or died by government whim. Employees of those businesses essentially became state workers. Secret police were commonly used to keep dissidents in line and support the government by force, or face prison or worse.

  • I don't go to work to support the State.  I go to work to put a roof over my head and feed my family.  The state will always take more than they give, even if you live off them, they take your freedom or your will to thrive.
  • @Nightwing ;
    "seems to me that Fascism is more like a socialist ideal than a capitalist one. I don't think it's necessarily tied to nationalism, anymore than socialism is." 

    Fascism is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Some types of fascism such as Nazism are more socialist, while other fascist movements such as Brazilian integralism are more capitalist. Fascism is required to be a type of nationalism. It is part of the definition. Name one fascist movement which isn't nationalist. 

    "In communism, government outright owns all property. There is no private ownership of property. This includes factories and other resources.
    In fascism, government doesn't own the property, but they can dictate how it is used. Individuals still take the risk of starting ventures, but once successful on any level, government controls the product, it's market, and its price." 

    Sure in WW2 Nazi Germany and Fascist might have had complete control of businesses, but this not the case with all fascism. Fascism requires corporatism, not necessarily complete control of businesses. Corporatism comes in many forms. It can range from Hitler's Nazism, to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Early fascists (not Karl Marx) pointed to the Roman Empire as what they based fascist corporatism on. They highlighted how the Romans controlled inflation by prohibiting merchants to increase the price of goods, and also prohibited anyone from creating trade beneficial to enemy empires. If the United States did this, then its own companies wouldn't have supplied Nazi Germany with oil during the early stages of war. Also with corporatism, fascism can suppress monopolies. As many people know, America consists of a few super companies which control most of the economy, by working together. Fascism doesn't allow this to happen. These companies are forced to supply the state with research and supplies for development, while new businesses aren't taxed as much so that they can develop. Early fascists  knew the importance of the benefits of free market, but also took note of its weaknesses. Many European countries have taken note of the weaknesses and started to employ corporatism as well. 

    I say early fascists specifically, because the type of fascism they promote is outdated. Fascism has developed into a broader spectrum. 

    "Both fascism and communism were inspired from the same source; the teachings and philosophy of Karl Marx. Mussolini even mentioned this in his memoirs. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. In Germany, it took on a truly evil racist turn." 

    It took a racist turn in Italy as well. Plus Mussolini didn't even invent fascism. He merely popularized it and gave it a country, which he didn't use properly. As I have stated before, there were many fascist writers. Fascism is a mix of socialism and capitalism, which explains why Mussolini was inspired by Marx, but he also looked to capitalism, and early fascist writers. 

    "In both cases, businesses lived or died by government whim. Employees of those businesses essentially became state workers. Secret police were commonly used to keep dissidents in line and support the government by force, or face prison or worse." 

    Italian fascism was originally supposed to have free speech, but Mussolini ditched this idea because no one supported him. It was called fascism before and after this change. Fascism can have free speech. The American Fascist Movement supports free speech and democracy. Democratic fascists in Italy during WW2 were subjugated by Mussolini as well. Fascism is a broad term, which doesn't only refer to WW2 fascism. 
  • @Rodinon Then why live under a government at all?
  • @1Hacker0 There is a tight class structure in every country, whether it is fascist or not. Fascism allows for movement between classes just as much as other countries, but the difference is that it doesn't give half of the nation's wealth to the top one percent, or give tons of money to useless celebrities. 

    Look at my previous post for the refutation for: "Fascism has to be a dictatorship." 

    And to add on to what you said, unlike social democracies, fascism also employs more corporatism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. 
  • If we're talking about today..oh there's the folks that marched in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, you know the ones...with the Swastika flags.  Then there's the Ku Klux Klan, they're openly Fascist. 

    There's a great deal of argument on this topic that Fascism is somehow not built upon Racism, instead it's built on one Culture...this is ridiculous.  If you're White and you are heavily vested in White culture but your Country is under a Fascist regime and it's decided that Black Culture will be the sole Culture of the country...then what happens?  Can you be forced into adopting another Race's culture?  Race and Culture are distinctly separate it's true...but that doesn't negate the fact that your culture is heavily dependent upon your Race.  For example, there are White people who have African Culture...not many compared to White people with Irish or European Culture but they do exist...they are the minority.  So then what happens to the Majority of the different Races that don't have that culture?  Cultural values, beliefs, practices are distinct and serve as personal identities...so under a Fascist Government...certain Races just wouldn't be allowed to have their Cultural distinction?  Would they be shunned if they refused?  Would they be cleansed?

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • FascismFascism 298 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Vaulk ;
    "If we're talking about today..oh there's the folks that marched in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, you know the ones...with the Swastika flags.  Then there's the Ku Klux Klan, they're openly Fascist."
    If we're talking about today, there also the American fascist movement, integralism, and business corporatists. They aren't racist. 

    just to avoid future confusion: race - a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 
                                                   culture - the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. 

    There are two different cultures associated with race in India: Hindus, and Muslims. There are other cultures as well, but I will compare these two. The Hindus are the majority, and are usually situated in the center and southern parts of India. The Muslims are more situated in the outer regions. There are also many Pakistani refugees who are Muslim. 

    Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism. Just look at India. There are many Hindu supporting laws in India, most notable the restriction of beef in the market. However, there is not much racism against the Muslims. There is more Hindus killed than Muslims by the other culture, even though the laws support Hindus. 

    India is only one country, but there are many countries which support one culture, and have no racism as a direct cause of these laws. 

    Supporting one culture, if done right, doesn't lead to racism. The ethnic group which is predominantly Hindu doesn't have a lot of racism against the Muslim ethnic groups. 

    Supporting one culture is part of nationalism: 
    nationalism - loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 
    Nationalism isn't bad if done right. 
  • Fascism said:
    @Rodinon Then why live under a government at all?
    Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.

    Governments do provide services that are useful.

    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics.

    A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.

    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes.


  • @Nightwing ;
    "Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.
    Governments do provide services that are useful.
    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics."

    My question was rhetorical. I agree with your answer because it proves him wrong. This was what I was intending him to think about. A citizen is entitled to the state, while in turn the state is entitled to the citizen. 

    "A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.
    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree with the constitutional system. The dictatorships continued Rome into the Byzantine Empire. The dictators lasted longer the republic. The Byzantine Empire only changed its name because it lost Rome, but it still flourished with the dictatorship. 

    I have already refuted the fact that fascism can't be democratic, or republic. 

    "Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree. I just believe that this unchanging foundation should be fascism. 
  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Fascism,

    I'm afraid you're incorrect about your reference to Race.  Race is not a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language or ethnicity.  There are Black Chinese and there are Black Africans just as there are Black Spaniards and Black Brazilians...you're suggesting that your Race is also an indicator of your culture and even your ethnicity...when that's not accurate at all.

    Your Race is nothing more than the classifications of "Your" physical characteristics. 

    Let's use the picture above.  If someone were to ask you to describe this man, you'd easily be able to say that he's Black.  But you don't know his ethnicity do you?  What culture does he identify with?  What language does he speak?  What is his ancestry?  You don't know and there's no way to know by simply identifying his Race.  He IS Black, there's no denying it but he could easily be Chinese, Canadian or African...you don't know.  So the point I'm making is Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing, they are not synonymous and are mutually exclusive.  The definition of race does include that Race and Ethnicity are synonymous but I've shown that they in fact are not.  If they were then Every Black person would have one ethnicity and so would be the same for every other Race...but they don't.  

    To your point of "Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism"...you're right and I won't contend this.  What DOES support racism is the specific exclusion or refusal of a culture which is the result of Fascism.  Yes Fascism will support one Culture...but ONLY one culture.  So what does this mean for other cultures that AREN'T supported?  Well if your country doesn't support your culture then a natural "Us vs them" mentality ensues.  This is what opens the doors to ethnic cleansing.  The alternative is what?  The other unsupported cultures get thrown out of the country?  So now we're looking at a potential refuge crisis and that's IF the other cultural people are allowed to leave peacefully for which I've never seen an example of.  Or maybe the other cultural groups are allowed to stay and are just 2nd class citizens as their culture is in direct opposition by the Nation.  So now we're talking about consensual discrimination and human rights suppression.

    Onto your example of Hindu and Muslim.  Let's be very VERY clear on this one because this somehow is STILL a supporting argument when it's intellectually wrong.  Hindu is a religion and has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with your Race.  Hindu is NOT a race.  I'm White, my Friend is Black, we both decide to convert to Hinduism, we're now both Hindu.  The same goes for Muslims, there is NO Muslim Race.  The idea that Muslims or Hindus are a Race of people is a stereotype and is racial prejudice because without ANY logical reasoning or knowledge...there's this idea that it's a Race of people when it's not.  This is the equivalent of saying that Mexican is a Race when every Race of people on the planet is known to be a citizen of Mexico in one part or another.

    To your point of there being a Country in existence today that has "No racism".

    Fascism said:
    @Vaulk ;
    "
    India is only one country, but there are many countries which support one culture, and have no racism as a direct cause of these laws. 

    I would like to know firstly what country you're talking about that has no racism and then I'd like to know who told you that because whoever it was deserves some serious shame for spreading that lie.  This is not one country in this world that is void of Racism and most of us seem to understand that clearly.  And to clarify, it's not possible for Hindus as a group to be Racist towards Muslims as a group...these aren't Races and the disputes between the two groups would be based purely upon religious ideology which again has NOTHING to do with Race.  This is another case in point of why Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing nor are Race and Culture.  I'd also like to know what precedence you claim as support to "Supporting one culture, if done right, doesn't lead to racism" because if you only support one culture then you must by definition oppose any other and cultural opposition at a national level has lead to some pretty horrific stuff in the past.

    For everyone else's edification, "Nationalism" is synonymous with Zealotry and fanaticism.  Play out a scenario in your mind where an entire country has extreme devotion to the opposition of a Culture of people that live in that country.  Play out a scenario in your mind where Zealots live among their opposition.  Now name me one time or place in history where the above scenarios resulted in peace between the cultures.  

    "Nationalism isn't bad if done right".  I suppose it's technically possible to be a Zealot and fanatical about your opposition to another culture of people and not be violent towards that culture of people just as it's possible for a child to live in a pedophile commune and live peacefully without problem...it's just not likely and anyone with half a mind would see the recipe for disaster.




    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Fascism said:
    @Nightwing ;
    "Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.
    Governments do provide services that are useful.
    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics."

    My question was rhetorical. I agree with your answer because it proves him wrong. This was what I was intending him to think about. A citizen is entitled to the state, while in turn the state is entitled to the citizen. 

    "A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.
    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree with the constitutional system. The dictatorships continued Rome into the Byzantine Empire. The dictators lasted longer the republic. The Byzantine Empire only changed its name because it lost Rome, but it still flourished with the dictatorship. 

    I have already refuted the fact that fascism can't be democratic, or republic. 

    "Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree. I just believe that this unchanging foundation should be fascism. 
    The State is not entitled to anything. It is created by the citizen. The citizen is not entitled to the government. It is created by him.

    If you agree with the constitutional system, than you agree to a republican form of government. That's what a republic IS.

    Fascism can only exist through theft of control of property. No one will voluntarily agree to this. It must be forced upon them. That means a dictatorship or oligarchy. Neither are republics.

    There are certainly people who agree (for a short time) the promise of Utopia that fascism and socialism promise, but change their mind when they discover how unobtainable this Utopia is, and what price they are now paying for the false promise.

    Talk to anyone that escaped such systems of government. They will tell you why they will never go back.


  • @Nightwing
    "The State is not entitled to anything. It is created by the citizen."

    The state is entitled to it's citizens because without its citizens, it's not a state. It can't function. Sure, an immoral tyrannical government doesn't deserve citizens, but that is why we have constitutions and restrictions. If the government doesn't follow them, then the citizens can rebel. 

    "The citizen is not entitled to the government. It is created by him."

    A government is created by the people for the people. If people don't have government, there would be anarchy. They deserve governments. 

    "If you agree with the constitutional system, than you agree to a republican form of government. That's what a republic IS."

    A republic is where the government's power is derived from the people. It doesn't guarantee a constitution. There is a reason why some republics are constitutional republics, and other republics are just republics. 

    "Fascism can only exist through theft of control of property. No one will voluntarily agree to this. It must be forced upon them. That means a dictatorship or oligarchy. Neither are republics."

    Fascism uses a command economy.  A command economy is where the economy is planned. A command economy can be good if it isn't used excessively. Don't attribute a command economy with only ww2 fascist or the soviet union. It is an accepted form of economic growth in the modern world. If government intervention is kept at a low level, a command economy can work. The current accepted form of command economy is called a mixed economy, since it has low levels of government intervention. 

    Late Falangism used a mixed economy. This is a type of fascism. 

    I have already refuted that fascism can't be democratic or a republic. Your arguments that state that fascism can't be a republic or democracy don't address my arguments. 

    If someone "escaped" a command economy, then it is obvious that it was oppressive. The people who didn't need to escape a command economy even though they could (like in social democracy) means that it was a good form. Social democracy uses a mixed economy. 
  • @Vaulk
    I was using the dictionary definition of race:

    a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 

    Your definition of race is also valid. 

    I also don't think that there is no racism in India. You have only quoted one of my sentences. Here are two others:

    "However, there is not much racism against the Muslims. There is more Hindus killed than Muslims by the other culture, even though the laws support Hindus."
    "The ethnic group which is predominantly Hindu doesn't have a lot of racism against the Muslim ethnic groups."

    I made a statement with exceptions, which is: There is no racism against Muslims from Hindus, with the exception of some attacks, which are less than the attacks of the Muslims against Hindus. I stated the statement with the exception twice. The third time I only made the statement, but it is implied that the exception still applies. 

    Lastly, your definition of nationalism only applies to radical groups. 

    Nationalism - 
    patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
    • an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
    • advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
    As you can see, the opposition or exclusion of other cultures or nationalities only occurs in a radical form of nationalism. Normal nationalism only has support for his own country. You have accepted that if someone has support for his own culture or nationality it doesn't cause racism, as long as he doesn't oppose other cultures or nationalities. Your quote:

    "To your point of "Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism"...you're right and I won't contend this.  What DOES support racism is the specific exclusion or refusal of a culture which is the result of Fascism." 

    I used India's example of nationalism which excludes Muslims, but I never said I support it. 
  • @Fascism

    You know I don't get to say this alot and I'm being really liberal with that statement, I don't really ever get to say this except once in a blue moon but while our positions may differ, you make excellent points and I appreciate the way you construct your argument.  One: Because while we disagree on many of the points you're not using the typical deceptive tactics of misdirection to twist out a conclusion.  And two: Because you've successfully addressed the points and made a valid attempt at refuting them instead of ignoring potential losses or missed points.

    That being said, you're right concerning the definition of Race.  The dictionary (And I'm not sure why) contends that Race is the same thing as an ethnic group.  For the purpose of legal documentation I'm certain this is mostly correct but in the context of one race versus another, racial disparity, racial inequality, racial diversity ect ect, they are not the same at all.

    And again, there can be no Racism against Muslims unless you're fully prepared to offer the argument that all Muslims are one Race of people.  Keep in mind that a Muslim is simply a Human Being that practices Islam within the doctrine of the Quran.  There is no official documentation or certification require in order to be a Muslim, it's simply the reciting of the Shahada or "Testimony of Faith"...that's it.  So unless reciting this Shahada somehow changes your Race then you can easily see how it's not logically sound to say that Muslims face Racism in any shape or form.  The term "Racism" in our society has disingenuously replaced the words Prejudice, Bias, Discrimination, Hate, Bigotry and Intolerance and somehow now means all or some of them, whichever ones apply.  The only reason "Racism" has taken this new role is because of the severity of its connotation, it's because when people hear the word "Racism" the purest image of racism that Americans conjure up to associate with the term is "Nazi" or "Hitler", both of which are generally held to be the worst examples of Humanity.  The reason we use "Racism" to describe natural bias or simple discrimination is because it's actually been adopted by our culture as a complete and horrible Misnomer. 

    Example: There's nothing wrong with saying "I'd rather be a Baptist than a Catholic".  This statement is indicative of discrimination, specifically Religious discrimination...because you're making your stance clear that you have a preference of one over the other and reject one over the other.  You'd also be eluding to your bias in Religious preference if you admitted to knowing little or nothing about Catholicism.  Well in today's society, you have be careful with whom you say this around for fear of being cast down as a "Racist".  ...Seriously.  Something as small as liking one group over the other can label you as a Racist...do you think that's ethical?  Now if I said: "I don't really think I could ever practice Catholicism because of what happened during the Crusades and besides, I'm a Baptist".  This is a simple example of Prejudice, because unless you've actually studied the Crusades then you'd be speaking from ignorance (Prejudice), it would be simple Discrimination; because you'd be admitting preference of one over the over without justification and you'd be indicating your bias; because your choice of Baptist doctrine was based on prior establishment.  Now you're a super, duper, ultra-mega Hitler Racist!  You see where this is going?

    As intellectuals we need to put the foot down on the brakes hard when it comes to this kind of behavior.  I can't see any point of mislabeling racism other than to unfairly vilify someone or something.  This is dangerous logic that we're talking about and I only say that because it really does seem to be sweeping our Country.  People all over are slinging the word "Racist" with no forethought as to what they're even talking about.  Are you intolerant of Islam?  You're a Racist!  Do you think the statistics concerning racial disparity in crime are accurate?  You're a Racist!  Do you support BLM?  Well if you're White then it doesn't matter...you're DOUBLE Racist!  We need to put a stop to the misuse of this word.

    Apologies for the extent of that, probably should find another topic for that one but I really can't crush that whole "Race baiting" ideology enough.

    As far as Nationalism goes, you've stated that you don't support India's example of Nationalism because it excludes Muslims but you've also stated that:

    Fascism said:

    Supporting one culture is part of nationalism: 
    nationalism - loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
    If you support Nationalism, and by your own admission "Part of Nationalism is "Supporting One culture"", then by your own statement you support opposing and excluding all other cultures within the Nationalist body.  You see how it's not possible to support just one culture without specifically opposing all others?  I mean I suppose you could technically just tolerate the other cultures without supporting them but from a National standpoint, if the vast majority of the country refuses to support a minority Culture within its borders...what do you honestly think will happen to that culture?  I would think you'd only have to look at history to see what happens to cultures when the entire nation they live within turns their back on them.  From a history standpoint...it's usually not very pretty.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Classical Fascism isn't rascist. Legitimately it is only the system of nationalism centralized around goverment authority. Mussolini cited race "as a sentiment, not a reality." There argument over.
  • Why is race even part of this discussion. I thought it was on actual fascism and not some dude accusing us of causes not found before 1938 Italy. Citing is as racist is almost as ignorant as actual national socialism the party of >National Socialist M Germany. Nobody would have called it fascist Germany. Look up the vaterlandische front of Austria. That should help show you the differences.
  • @Vaulk thx. Nice arguments for your beliefs on the word race. 

    I agree that nationalism only supports one culture. I was just making a point that only the radical groups are opposed to other culture. The reason I used the second definition is because it highlights the difference between the normal, and the radical groups. 

    "If you support Nationalism, and by your own admission "Part of Nationalism is "Supporting One culture"", then by your own statement you support opposing and excluding all other cultures within the Nationalist body.  You see how it's not possible to support just one culture without specifically opposing all others?  I mean I suppose you could technically just tolerate the other cultures without supporting them but from a National standpoint, if the vast majority of the country refuses to support a minority Culture within its borders...what do you honestly think will happen to that culture?  I would think you'd only have to look at history to see what happens to cultures when the entire nation they live within turns their back on them.  From a history standpoint...it's usually not very pretty."

    Nationalism can have bad effects. An example of this would be to only support Christians in the USA. However, nationalism can come in varying forms. If the English language is only supported in the USA (which it already is in schools) then won't be much bad effects. 

    My point is, that the nation shouldn't only support one group of culture in the nation itself, but it should support culture which is existent throughout the nation as a whole. If some immigrants come to the USA, and they don't know English, they're kids are still forced to learn English as a core subject in schools because English is the language of the USA as a whole. 

    Without this type of nationalism, it is detrimental to a nation. If some Muslim radicals come to the US, someone can't just use the logic "They have a different culture from our culture. It is normal for them to kill. We just have to have tolerance." Obviously, no rational person uses this logic. They use ethnocentrism, which is the evaluation of other cultures with someone's own culture, to judge these terrorists. Every nation has some nationalism in it. 

    This is why I made the point that nationalism, if done right, can be good. As long as it appeals to the culture of the nation as a whole, and it isn't used extensively, it is good for the nation. 

    So basically to sum it up, culture can be used as a broad or specific term. In this case, I support the broad term. 
  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Fascism,

    Okay, well presented.  And Bravo.  So there's been a confusion here, when I saw you refer to culture I presumed you were speaking about individual cultures I.E. Arab Cultures, which consists of several distinct customs, courtesies, family structure ect ect.  When you talk about supporting "One" culture, I saw this as rejecting this type of cultural behavior while simultaneously dictating that only one type of cultural practices will be allowed.  For example, in many Arab countries, Women are expected to never speak out of turn when it comes to the opposite Sex.  This would be something that I saw as being on the chopping block for your "One culture" ideology.  But instead what you're actually saying is that Nationalism can be what we already expect of people that immigrate legally to the U.S...that they assimilate and pick up the American Culture.

    If I understand correctly, under your idea of nationalism, no one would be forced to sacrifice self-identifying cultural values or practices necessarily so long as they didn't conflict with American values, I.E. polygamy in many cultures is the norm and is even expected in certain circumstances but American culture rejects polygamy and will not legally recognize it.  So anyone with cultural customs of marriage in regards to polygamy would be expected to conform first and foremost to the customs of the United States due to the conflicting cultural value.

    I actually see your point and while I agree that it's not bad, we already have that here in America.  We DO allow people to keep their own cultural identities, some are religious cultural identities, some are language, some are specific practices that most Americans think is weird...but we let people keep them when they migrate here.  At the same time we also expect the people (No matter how culturally different they may be) to ultimately respect the cultural values of America first.  However, in America our Founding Fathers established us with Liberal Individualism...quite different from Nationalism.  This may or may not have had something to do with the ugly situation that drove our founding fathers to declare independence in the first place.

    All in all, at the surface level I cannot see anything necessarily Evil with Nationalism however, there's nothing inherently evil about Bias, Prejudices, or discrimination.  Having biased opinions on something does not indicate Evil nature, it's actually quite natural to develop an opinion in favor of or against something or someone based on completely unreasonable logic.  If I saw a large Dog being walked by his owner down the sidewalk and he was walking towards me...I could easily be scared enough to cross the street for fear of being hurt...but why?  If the dog didn't display any aggressive cues, was bound properly on a leash and gave no legitimate reason to be afraid of it...then why cross the street?  Because we as humans are fallible creatures and we develop bias attitudes and ideologies. 

    The same goes for Prejudice, I remember the first time I saw boiled asparagus.  I had never seen, smelled or tasted it before but I decided "Yuck, I don't like it, I don't want it".  But why?  I had no knowledge of asparagus, had never tasted nor smelled it before...how then could I have concluded that I didn't like it?  Prejudice my friend...that's how.  The same is for discrimination, we unfairly treat other groups of people with disdain, disgust, ect...why?  I wouldn't date a Woman who had pox scars all over her face...do you know why?  Because I discriminate against Women who have those physical features.  It's unfair to do so, it's unjust...but I do it anyway and I won't be stopped or change either...I have preferences no matter how unfair or unjust they might be.  I also don't like Redheads, I don't find the color attractive, does that justify refusing to be in a relationship with one...nope, it's actually really shallow but hey...I discriminate.

    While the above is all true...it doesn't change the fact that while personal bias, prejudice and discrimination might not be Evil...the systematic application of the three has always brought really bad results.  And while I suppose it's true that examples in History don't cement anything in stone...it sure does make a compelling argument.  Here's a theoretical for you, if every time someone went swimming in a particular Lake...they drowned while swimming in it...then it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to say that swimming there will kill you.  But one could easily argue that the Lake itself can't be responsible for the drownings, Lakes don't kill people after all.  Well that's all fine and technically true...but nobody's going to swim there just the same.

    Fascist governments haven't had the greatest track record and I'm not saying that the failure of the government or country is an indicator, but the things that happened in Fascist governments as a result of the ideology are testimony enough.  Fascism may not be Evil per say, but people aren't going to swim there just the same.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • WakeWake 123 Pts
    @1Hacker0 - Fascism is RADICAL Nationalism. And Nationalism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with racism, ethnocentrism or sexism.

    There is nothing whatsoever good about it and it, by definition, can never be democratic in process because it must be authoritarian - meaning there has to be AN AUTHORITY. And that inevitably is a dictator.

    This is the same with virtually any government where disagreements may rise other than a democracy or a simplified democracy in our model - a representative republic.

    The end results of a monarchy, a nobility, a fascism, a socialism or a communism is the same - dictatorship.
  • @Vaulk ;
    Yes your interpretation of my nationalism is correct. I just wish it was at a higher level in the US. If it was, there would be more unity within its own borders. 

    To your lake argument, I have no refute. This is because the nature of macroeconomics has risk that comes with it. There is nothing definite when it comes to macroeconomics. I believe fascism is good for society, and I have my reasons justifying it, but nothing is definite. The reason I looked to it is because we are already drowning in a lake right now. No one is united. So might as well try something else. 

    Good debate. 
  • @Wake
    "Fascism is RADICAL Nationalism."

    Fascism has high levels of nationalism. Not necessarily radical nationalism which is the opposition of other culture. Fascism only requires support of the nation's culture. Some examples of fascism which doesn't have radical nationalism is the American Fascist Movement, The Roman Empire, BUF, Democratic Fascist Movements, and others. 

    "And Nationalism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with racism, ethnocentrism or sexism."

    ethnocentrism - 
    evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture.
    Nationalism consists of this definition. It consists of ethnocentrism. 
    Nationalism can lead to racism and sexism, if used the wrong way, or in a radical way. 

    "There is nothing whatsoever good about it and it..."

    It has unity. 

    "by definition, can never be democratic in process because it must be authoritarian - meaning there has to be AN AUTHORITY. And that inevitably is a dictator."

    That is not what authoritarian is. 
    Authoritarian - favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
    No authoritarianism doesn't require a dictator. The democrats in the US are authoritarian. They prefer high taxes, and social democratic system, unlike the republicans, who are libertarian, and prefer lower taxes with a freer economy. The democrats don't have a dictatorship, nor do they favor one. Much of Europe is also social democratic, and authoritarian, but they don't have a dictatorship either. 

    "This is the same with virtually any government where disagreements may rise other than a democracy or a simplified democracy in our model - a representative republic."

    I don't understand what your trying to say, but if you are commending a representative republic, then I agree. To be even more specific, I support a representative constitutional republic. 

    "The end results of a monarchy, a nobility, a fascism, a socialism or a communism is the same - dictatorship."

    Not really. A constitutional monarchy doesn't have a dictatorship. Democratic socialism doesn't have a dictatorship. I have already explained in my previous arguments that fascism doesn't need a dictatorship either. Authoritarianism doesn't automatically make a dictatorship. 

    You only criticized WW2 fascist dictatorships in your arguments. Not all fascism is like Nazism or Italian Fascism. 
  • NightwingNightwing 50 Pts
    edited October 2017
    There is a fallacy known as the compositional error. This fallacy is the extension of a property of an element of a class across the entire class, which may contain elements devoid of that property.

    If the class is people, the fallacy is called bigotry. If the property being extended is a physical trait, such as eye color, the fallacy is called racism.

    Socialist forms of governments, including fascist governments, are based on bigotry. The 'elite' are 'elite' because they are not one of the 'oppressors' such as factory owners, property owners, rich people, priests or pastors, etc. The basic argument both forms of these governments require is that all factory owners, property owners, etc. are oppressing people. Further, they feel it's ok to oppress people to prevent oppression, building a paradox.

    This naturally can extend on into actual racism very easily. This is why such governments are quite often racist.


  • @Nightwing
    "There is a fallacy known as the compositional error. This fallacy is the extension of a property of an element of a class across the entire class, which may contain elements devoid of that property.
    If the class is people, the fallacy is called bigotry. If the property being extended is a physical trait, such as eye color, the fallacy is called racism."

    I lost you here. 

    "Socialist forms of governments, including fascist governments, are based on bigotry."

    Fascism isn't socialist. It has socialist and capitalist elements within it. The type of fascism I'm defending, leans towards capitalism. 

    A little off topic, but how is socialism based on bigotry? 

    "The 'elite' are 'elite' because they are not one of the 'oppressors' such as factory owners, property owners, rich people, priests or pastors, etc. The basic argument both forms of these governments require is that all factory owners, property owners, etc. are oppressing people. Further, they feel it's ok to oppress people to prevent oppression, building a paradox.
    This naturally can extend on into actual racism very easily. This is why such governments are quite often racist."

    Fascism doesn't oppress the rich. It taxes them more than poor people. That isn't oppression. In fact, it is used quite frequently in the US, and other Western countries. I think your argument applies to socialism here. 
  • NightwingNightwing 50 Pts
    edited October 2017
    Fascism said:
    @Nightwing
    "There is a fallacy known as the compositional error. This fallacy is the extension of a property of an element of a class across the entire class, which may contain elements devoid of that property.
    If the class is people, the fallacy is called bigotry. If the property being extended is a physical trait, such as eye color, the fallacy is called racism."

    "I lost you here."
    An example of the fallacy not involving people:
       'In a bag of marbles, I pulled out two white ones. Therefore all marbles in the bag are white'. Here the class is marbles in a bag and the property is marble color. The marbles could possibly be any color.
    An example of the fallacy involving people, but not racism, and is therefore bigotry:
      'A women in a red dress is unlucky'. Here the class is garments women (people) wear, and the property is the color of a dress. It can be either lucky or unlucky to be around a women in a dress of any color.
    An example of the fallacy involving racism:
      'All white men are oppressors'. Here the class is men (people) and the property is a physical trait (skin color). There are oppressors of any skin color. There are many white men that are not oppressors.

    Does that clarify?

    "Socialist forms of governments, including fascist governments, are based on bigotry."

    "Fascism isn't socialist. It has socialist and capitalist elements within it. The type of fascism I'm defending, leans towards capitalism. "
    Fascism IS socialist in nature. It controls the economy for the 'communal good'. It promises Utopia, just like any socialist system. Modern forms come directly out of the inspiration and teachings of Karl Marx.

    "A little off topic, but how is socialism based on bigotry?"
    By constructing an 'elite'. Everyone else is treated as pawns, or as dissidents.

    "The 'elite' are 'elite' because they are not one of the 'oppressors' such as factory owners, property owners, rich people, priests or pastors, etc. The basic argument both forms of these governments require is that all factory owners, property owners, etc. are oppressing people. Further, they feel it's ok to oppress people to prevent oppression, building a paradox.
    This naturally can extend on into actual racism very easily. This is why such governments are quite often racist."

    "Fascism doesn't oppress the rich."
    Tell that to the Jews in Germany, who lost their businesses (and often their lives) to fascism. Tell that to those who had their businesses ruined because of micromangement of economies that fascism does. Tell that to those that lost control of their business to the government.
    "It taxes them more than poor people. That isn't oppression."
    Taxing 'the rich' more than anyone else IS oppression.
    "In fact, it is used quite frequently in the US, and other Western countries."
    It's oppression there too.
    "I think your argument applies to socialism here."
    That's EXACTLY what it also applies to. These are points where the Federal government has left the Constitution that founded and defined it.
    Various States and cities do this too, violating not only the Constitution of the United States by doing so, but also the constitution of their own State and their city charter by doing so.





  • @Nightwing
    "Does that clarify?"

    Yes thank you. 

    "Fascism IS socialist in nature. It controls the economy for the 'communal good'. It promises Utopia, just like any socialist system. Modern forms come directly out of the inspiration and teachings of Karl Marx."

    That is a better way to put it. Fascism isn't socialism, but does have socialist characteristics. It also has capitalist characteristics too. That was the whole reason fascism was made in the first place. To combine the good characteristics of both socialism and capitalism. 

    "Tell that to the Jews in Germany, who lost their businesses (and often their lives) to fascism. Tell that to those who had their businesses ruined because of micromangement of economies that fascism does. Tell that to those that lost control of their business to the government."

    Yes, in Nazi Germany this was the case. But looking at late Francoist Spain this isn't the case. Early Francoist Spain did have the characteristics of Nazi Germany. They had micromanagement in their economy. However, they soon changed their system and made it into a mixed economy. They didn't oppress the rich anymore, and the economy did much better due to that. 

    "Taxing 'the rich' more than anyone else IS oppression."

    It's negligible compared to the oppression they could against normal people. Look at the monopolies in the US. The GDP is constantly increasing in the US, but the standard of living isn't. The rich don't get rich because they do hard work. It's because they are lucky. There are always people who do more hard work than them, but they get unlucky. Giving them a small portion of the money from the rich people, they can get back up succeed again, if they are truly good at working hard. Not all people in poverty are poor because they are lazy. Some of them definitely are, but by giving hard workers the support they need, it is beneficial not only to one person, but also the entire society. 
  • @Fascism

    "That is a better way to put it. Fascism isn't socialism, but does have socialist characteristics. It also has capitalist characteristics too. That was the whole reason fascism was made in the first place. To combine the good characteristics of both socialism and capitalism."
    Capitalism does not exist in fascism. You take the risk, but the government tells you how to run your business.
    "Yes, in Nazi Germany this was the case. But looking at late Francoist Spain this isn't the case. Early Francoist Spain did have the characteristics of Nazi Germany. They had micromanagement in their economy. However, they soon changed their system and made it into a mixed economy. They didn't oppress the rich anymore, and the economy did much better due to that. "
    In other words, they abandoned some aspects of fascism.
    "Look at the monopolies in the US."
    What about them? They are weak. A monopoly won't survive in a free market. They can only survive with government aid.
    "The GDP is constantly increasing in the US, but the standard of living isn't."
    The GDP is rated in dollars, which are losing value. You are comparing centigrade to fahrenheit as if they were the same scale.
    "The rich don't get rich because they do hard work. It's because they are lucky."
    No, it's because they do hard work AND they are lucky.
    "There are always people who do more hard work than them, but they get unlucky."
    True. Hard work does not necessarily mean wealth.
    "Giving them a small portion of the money from the rich people,"
    You mean welfare. Now you are advocating socialism. Who is anyone to declare who I must give my money to by force?
    "they can get back up succeed again, if they are truly good at working hard."
    They may never have succeeded. Working hard is not a guarantee of wealth. You do not need to have money to become wealthy. Voluntary charities exist you know. If you want to help out people voluntarily, you can.
    "Not all people in poverty are poor because they are lazy."
    True. It can be due to drugs, natural disasters, market changes (no one wants what they produce anymore), and a whole variety of reasons.
    "by giving hard workers the support they need, it is beneficial not only to one person, but also the entire society. "
    You do not need money to go out and become wealthy. You need time, a strong desire to do so, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get yourself there. You can build your own stake to try for it. You do not need the government to provide you with one.

  • @Nightwing
    "Capitalism does not exist in fascism. You take the risk, but the government tells you how to run your business."
    Not in all types of fascism. Maybe in Nazi Germany, but not all fascist countries do this. 

    "In other words, they abandoned some aspects of fascism."
    Don't use Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan as the standard form of fascism. Francoist Spain was still fascist. Fascism combines socialism and capitalism. Just because a country leans more towards capitalism doesn't make it not fascist, just like if it leans more towards socialism it doesn't make it not fascist. They also still had a command economy. They still taxed the rich with higher taxes, and regulated what was available on the market. They didn't allow any business which wasn't beneficial to promoting collective interests. 

    "What about them? They are weak. A monopoly won't survive in a free market. They can only survive with government aid."
    They are most definitely not weak. A monopoly has an entire portion of the market under its control. How does this make them weak? And also a monopoly can survive in a free market. Why can't they. There is nothing restricting them. Just look at the US. Government aid isn't needed for a monopoly. The super companies in the food industry don't have any government support in the US. There are industries such as the video game industry where monopolies don't exist yet, but the food industry is completely monopolized. 

    "The GDP is rated in dollars, which are losing value. You are comparing centigrade to fahrenheit as if they were the same scale."
    So what exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you trying to say that my statement that the GDP in the US is increasing is wrong? But that would mean that you're saying that capitalism in the US doesn't improve the GDP. It also doesn't say anything about my statement about standard of living. 

    "No, it's because they do hard work AND they are lucky."
    Yes but it has a whole lot more to do with luck than hard work. You can have hard work, but there is still slim chance that you will be part of the richest. 
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wealth+distribution+in+the+us+youtube&view=detail&mid=AF7DB686CAEDAD71F8FFAF7DB686CAEDAD71F8FF&FORM=VIRE

    "True. Hard work does not necessarily mean wealth."
    Most of the time. We are wasting the potential of these hard workers, by letting them go bankrupt. They have potential to help themselves, their sons and daughters, the people around, and the state. 

    "You mean welfare. Now you are advocating socialism. Who is anyone to declare who I must give my money to by force?"
    The state is the one which declares. The purpose of the government is to keep all of its people happy. The rich already have plenty of wealth. Taxing them to the point of bankruptcy is bad, but taking some of what they already have in surplus isn't immoral. Refer back to the video I showed. Is it really immoral to take some wealth away from group of people who make up one percent of the population, but have half of the country's wealth? All of their wealth isn't even used. It has so much potential to make the economy better. 

    "They may never have succeeded. Working hard is not a guarantee of wealth. You do not need to have money to become wealthy. Voluntary charities exist you know. If you want to help out people voluntarily, you can."
    They may never have succeeded in becoming rich, but they could still succeed in getting a decent living. Whether this welfare is benefits for the disabled, or helping drug addicts become normal, it gives them a boost to get successful. Job fare is also needed to get them a job. In the type of economy you advocate, their would be no free education, since we can't take money from the rich and put it to use for the entire society. So in this society, there would be a need for money, since getting an education would cost money. In the type of society I present, education would be free. This means that money isn't needed to get wealthy. There is also the type of community that a child grows up in which causes poverty. A child which grows up in a community plagued by drug abuse, and gang violence, then he too will probably be driven to go into these habits. This is an endless cycle of poverty, which isn't the poor people's fault. They got exposed to the wrong things. We can't blame these children for their criminal behavior. Voluntary charities barely do anything. The average American gives $2500 for charity each year. This is not enough. 

    "True. It can be due to drugs, natural disasters, market changes (no one wants what they produce anymore), and a whole variety of reasons."
    Which is why these people deserve a second chance. Luck shouldn't determine someone's success. Welfare could get rid of drug addiction, help people affected by natural disasters, and give free education to people whos education no longer applies to the market. 

    "You do not need money to go out and become wealthy. You need time, a strong desire to do so, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get yourself there. You can build your own stake to try for it. You do not need the government to provide you with one."
    Then how are you going to get an education without free schools. There is also luck. Without luck you can't get rich. Period. Without job fare, it is almost impossible for a poor person to get a job. Companies prefer college students over them. Only with free education and a decent place to live, can a person get enough leverage to get out of poverty. A mix of the usual welfare, and job fare is good for the economy. 
  • @Fascism
    "Not in all types of fascism. Maybe in Nazi Germany, but not all fascist countries do this. "
    All fascist countries have the government telling you how to conduct your business, who you can sell to, what you can charge, and what your product will be.
    "Don't use Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan as the standard form of fascism."
    I will use them, particularly fascist Italy, since Mussolini coined the term. You used them as well. Are you trying to paint yourself out of a corner?
    "Fascism combines socialism and capitalism."
    Nope. Capitalism and fascism are mutually exclusive. Fascism is control of your business by force.
    "Just because a country leans more towards capitalism doesn't make it not fascist,"
    Yes it does.
    "just like if it leans more towards socialism it doesn't make it not fascist."
    Fascism is a form of socialism.
    "They also still had a command economy."
    They BOTH have a command economy.
    "They still taxed the rich with higher taxes, and regulated what was available on the market. They didn't allow any business which wasn't beneficial to promoting collective interests."
    Thus, no capitalism.
    "They [monopolies] are most definitely not weak."
    Yes they are.
    "A monopoly has an entire portion of the market under its control."
    Not for long! Not unless the government helps them!
    "How does this make them weak?"
    Because they can't maneuver in the market fast enough anymore. They become a dinosaur.
    "And also a monopoly can survive in a free market. Why can't they."
    Because sooner or later their own noncompetitive nature will catch up with them.
    "There is nothing restricting them."
    Yes there is. All it takes is for some little startup to come along and shoot their kneecaps off. The startup is maneuverable. It can satisfy the market while the monopoly can't because of it's own obsolete product line.
    "Just look at the US. Government aid isn't needed for a monopoly."
    The monopoly will often go whine to the government to 'save them'. The government can outlaw the startup's products.
    "The super companies in the food industry don't have any government support in the US."
    The food industry in the United States is not a monopoly.
    "There are industries such as the video game industry where monopolies don't exist yet, but the food industry is completely monopolized."
    No, it isn't.
    "[concerning GDP] So what exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you trying to say that my statement that the GDP in the US is increasing is wrong?"
    Yes. You are trying to show what does and does not improve the GDP as being 'good' or 'bad'. The argument is based on a changing scale. It is a false equivalence.
    "But that would mean that you're saying that capitalism in the US doesn't improve the GDP."
    It does, but not the way you are thinking.
    "It also doesn't say anything about my statement about standard of living."
    GDP is not the standard of living. The standard of living is determined by you, and only you.
    "[concerning how people get wealthy] Yes but it has a whole lot more to do with luck than hard work. You can have hard work, but there is still slim chance that you will be part of the richest. "
    No, mostly hard work. You don't need a lot of luck. Just a bit will do.
    ...deleted Holy Link...
    You will find that I tend to reject people that use websites as their arguments. This practice is a sign of weak thinking. I am debating with YOU, not some clown on another website.
    "Most of the time. We are wasting the potential of these hard workers, by letting them go bankrupt."
    Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It's a new start. Many successful businessmen went bankrupt several times before becoming successful. Many businesses have too.
    "They have potential to help themselves, their sons and daughters, the people around, and the state."
    That potential is purely within themselves, not the money they have, not the education they have, not the government aid they receive. Themselves. Only themselves.
    "The state is the one which declares. The purpose of the government is to keep all of its people happy."
    That is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to govern. A successful nation will have a government that stabilizes conditions so the open free market will prevail with predictable conditions such as the curtailment of theft, murder, and other disrupting behavior.
    "The rich already have plenty of wealth."
    True.
    "Taxing them to the point of bankruptcy is bad, but taking some of what they already have in surplus isn't immoral."
    Yes it is. Who are YOU to judge what is 'surplus'? Who are YOU to judge the taking of their property by force so you can give it to someone else you deem is more 'worthy' of it?
    "Refer back to the video I showed."
    The video is part of the Holy Link and is summarily dismissed. I am here to debate YOU, not a video.
    "Is it really immoral to take some wealth away from group of people who make up one percent of the population, but have half of the country's wealth?"
    Yes. Who are YOU to determine who 'deserves' the wealth?
    "All of their wealth isn't even used."
    Who are YOU to determine what is and what is not used?
    "It has so much potential to make the economy better."
    Who are YOU to determine what the taking of wealth by force is to make the economy better? Wealthy people open new companies, create new products, create new jobs, even pay for the education of their own employees. Why do you think they do this? No one is forcing them to!
    "They may never have succeeded in becoming rich, but they could still succeed in getting a decent living."
    Anyone that has the initiative and drive to keep at it can not only become rich, but can do it over and over, starting with nothing. I ought to know. I'm one of them.
    "Whether this welfare is benefits for the disabled,"
    Who are YOU to determine who is 'disabled'? I've known blind people who are quite successful in music and radio. I knew a guy that lost the use of his legs to polio as a kid that started five successful businesses. He also happens to be the fastest thing on a pair of crutches I have ever seen. Don't get in his way at the airport! I've known guys in wheelchairs that delight in taking them up and down stairs. It's almost like parkour in a wheelchair!
    "or helping drug addicts become normal,"
    Welfare does not help drug addicts. The only thing that will help them is themselves...or death.
    "it gives them a boost to get successful."
    A drug addict will never be successful no matter how much money you give them. They'll just buy more drugs.
    "Job fare is also needed to get them a job."
    I have never gotten a job from a job fair. My company stopped using them, because they are a waste of time and effort. We recruit using more effective means.
    "In the type of economy you advocate, their would be no free education,"
    There is no such thing as a free education. It must be paid for somehow.
    "since we can't take money from the rich and put it to use for the entire society."
    Did you know a lot of companies will pay for the tuition at many schools for their employees? It's a company benefit. Why do you think they do that? It's not because the government forced them to!
    "So in this society, there would be a need for money, since getting an education would cost money."
    Education always costs money.
    "In the type of society I present, education would be free."
    No such thing. Education always costs money.
    "This means that money isn't needed to get wealthy."
    Neither money nor an education is needed to get wealthy. All you need to do is learn a trade. You can do that on your own. I know several successful businessmen that have no degree at all, not even a high school diploma. They simply found a market for their services that others weren't providing very well. A few of these have even created new products and markets.
    "There is also the type of community that a child grows up in which causes poverty. A child which grows up in a community plagued by drug abuse, and gang violence, then he too will probably be driven to go into these habits."
    The inner city ghetto is a product of government welfare.
    "This is an endless cycle of poverty, which isn't the poor people's fault."
    It is not an endless cycle, it is not the people's fault. It is the GOVERNMENT's fault. It IS possible to break out of the cycle, but again you have to have the initiative and drive to do it.
    "They got exposed to the wrong things."
    Who are YOU to decide what 'the wrong things' are? Becoming street smart is a valuable commodity that is worth money to people.
    "We can't blame these children for their criminal behavior."
    Yes we can. They are criminals at that point. We lock them up. They broke the law.
    "Voluntary charities barely do anything. The average American gives $2500 for charity each year. This is not enough."
    Random number. You have no idea what Americans give to charity. Charity does not have to be organized either.
    "Which is why these people deserve a second chance."
    Everyone has all the 'chances' they need.
    "Luck shouldn't determine someone's success."
    Guess what? To a certain extent, it DOES. No escaping it.
    "Welfare could get rid of drug addiction,"
    Welfare CAUSES long term drug addiction by enabling it to continue.
    "help people affected by natural disasters,"
    Communities themselves come together in such events. The government usually gets in the way. We recently had such a natural disaster in a town near me, called Oso, WA. The town was essentially wiped off the map by a massive mudslide. The community in Arlington, WA and surrounding towns came together and helped the survivors find new homes, get them new jobs, and deal with their grief for those they lost. The government KNEW the hill was about to slide and did NOTHING. After the disaster, they went in and basically got in the way of the community helping these people while claiming credit for what the community itself already dd.
    "and give free education to people whos education no longer applies to the market."
    Education is not free. It is not needed to become wealthy either.
    "Then how are you going to get an education without free schools."
    There is no such thing as a free school. Education must be paid for no matter what.
    "There is also luck. Without luck you can't get rich. Period."
    "Without job fare, it is almost impossible for a poor person to get a job."
    I have never gotten a job at a job fair.
    "Companies prefer college students over them."
    Depends on the job. Also, there is nothing preventing you from starting your own company, other than yourself.
    "Only with free education"
    Education is not free.
    "and a decent place to live,"
    Decided to just toss in free housing as well? Now you are just showing your socialism.
    "can a person get enough leverage to get out of poverty."
    You don't need 'leverage'. Build your own lever!
    "A mix of the usual welfare, and job fare is good for the economy. "
    Don't think so. I just explained why.

  • @Nightwing
    "All fascist countries have the government telling you how to conduct your business, who you can sell to, what you can charge, and what your product will be."
    I already gave you examples on fascist governments which don't do this. 
    "I will use them, particularly fascist Italy, since Mussolini coined the term. You used them as well. Are you trying to paint yourself out of a corner?"
    Mussolini coined the term fascism, but he did not invent it. Fascist writers existed before Mussolini. They all used the fasces as their symbol. Just because someone takes their ideology and puts a "ism" at the end, doesn't mean his actions determine everything about it. I use them as examples, but I don't use them as standards for other fascism. You only describe fascism from what Nazi Germany and fascist Italy did disregarding everything else. 
    "Nope. Capitalism and fascism are mutually exclusive. Fascism is control of your business by force."
    Yes capitalism and fascism are different. Fascism uses ideals of capitalism, but it is different. Almost all types of governments put regulations on businesses. Fascism puts more regulation. It doesn't take direct control over the businesses, but puts regulation on them. 
    "Yes it does."
    Then why is Francoist Spain considered fascist by scholars? Even when it leaned towards capitalism. 
    "Fascism is a form of socialism."
    It has socialist and capitalist values. The whole point fascism was created was to combine capitalism and socialism, along with some other things. 
    "They BOTH have a command economy."
    Yes, except Francoist Spain used a different type of command economy. 
    "Thus, no capitalism."
    Thus no free-market*. Free-market isn't guaranteed in capitalism. In that case, modern Germany wouldn't be capitalist, nor would the US. The US puts regulations on harmful substances in food. Does that mean no capitalism? Fascism does this at a greater extent. 
    "Not for long! Not unless the government helps them!"
    Not the case with Luxottica. 
    "Because they can't maneuver in the market fast enough anymore. They become a dinosaur."
    That's why companies systematically split themselves up. It not only allows them to maneuver in the market, but it also hides the fact that it's all one corporation. 
    "Because sooner or later their own noncompetitive nature will catch up with them."
    But after how long? The damage will be done to the nation. 
    "Yes there is. All it takes is for some little startup to come along and shoot their kneecaps off. The startup is maneuverable. It can satisfy the market while the monopoly can't because of it's own obsolete product line."
    When is this startup coming for Luxottica? The damage has already been done anyways and even if the startup comes, a new monopoly will take its place. 
    "Yes. You are trying to show what does and does not improve the GDP as being 'good' or 'bad'. The argument is based on a changing scale. It is a false equivalence.
    It does, but not the way you are thinking."
    So my original statement that GDP increases was true. Don't just assume what I was thinking. It's like saying: 
    1. "Carrots are bad."
    2. "No they are actually good for your health."
    1. "So you agree that carrots are good? But wouldn't that undermine your chips company?"
    2. "Carrots are actually bad when it comes to taste. Chips are still better."
    1. "So carrots are bad. I was right."
    2. "Not in the way you were thinking."
    "GDP is not the standard of living. The standard of living is determined by you, and only you."
    I never said GDP was standard of living. I made a clear contrast between them in my statement. 
    "No, mostly hard work. You don't need a lot of luck. Just a bit will do."
    I'm pretty sure more than 5% of Americans have hard work. The poorest of the rich are considered to have twice the amount of money as a middle class, while the top one percent has 380 times the pay of a middle class. They own 40% of the nation's wealth. 
    "...deleted Holy Link...
    You will find that I tend to reject people that use websites as their arguments. This practice is a sign of weak thinking. I am debating with YOU, not some clown on another website."
    I'm not using the website to do my argument. I was using it for the statistics it had to prove my argument. It's a citation. I will still avoid using it if you really don't like it though. 
    "Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It's a new start. Many successful businessmen went bankrupt several times before becoming successful. Many businesses have too."
    Then why are there so many bankrupt people? This is survivorship bias. You only explain that the successful businessmen went bankrupt, but miss the fact that most businessmen who go bankrupt fail. 
    "That potential is purely within themselves, not the money they have, not the education they have, not the government aid they receive. Themselves. Only themselves."
    Not the case with my family or every other poor family I know, and the bottom 30% which is not in poverty, but still struggling. 
    "That is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to govern. A successful nation will have a government that stabilizes conditions so the open free market will prevail with predictable conditions such as the curtailment of theft, murder, and other disrupting behavior."
    These conditions only help the rich. Free-market doesn't do anything for the poor. The reason poor people are involved more in drugs is because of the drug businesses. If free market opens up, then the monopolies will take over the drug industry as well. The poor depend on these illegal forms of market. The state helps all of its nation. It governs the nation to make sure all classes are having it good. 
    "Yes it is. Who are YOU to judge what is 'surplus'? Who are YOU to judge the taking of their property by force so you can give it to someone else you deem is more 'worthy' of it?"
    All innocent human beings are of the same worth. Some just need the money more than others. The rich have too much money which doesn't reflect their hard work. The 1% didn't do enough hard work to justify the copious amounts of money they have. They got lucky. 
    "The video is part of the Holy Link and is summarily dismissed. I am here to debate YOU, not a video."
    Once again the video does not argue for me. It doesn't even advocate socialist policies. I just cited it for the statistics. What difference does it make anyways? If linking to other websites isn't allowed, then I will just paraphrase the statistics anyways, which just causes confusion. I might also be biased in the way I read the statistics. The raw statistics are better. 
    "Yes. Who are YOU to determine who 'deserves' the wealth?"
    Someone who knows the wealthiest do not work hard enough to earn their wages. I figured this out doing some simple math: if the one percent has more money than the bottom 90%, then shouldn't they be doing more work them? They are obviously not. So why not make them give up a fraction of their already towering pile of money. It will negligible to them, but will affect the poor positively. 
    "Who are YOU to determine what is and what is not used?"
    It is not me, but the wealthiest people themselves. If they don't use their wealth, I'm not determining anything. I'm just saying that they aren't using it. They do use most of it to invest into their company, but still some of it ends up in their useless savings, which they don't even need. 
    "Who are YOU to determine what the taking of wealth by force is to make the economy better? Wealthy people open new companies, create new products, create new jobs, even pay for the education of their own employees. Why do you think they do this? No one is forcing them to!"
    All of this also happens by giving opportunities to the poor. The poor can open new companies if they had education and enough money, they could create new products, and create new jobs, and the education would be free for them anyways. The difference between your case and my case, is that the bigger companies don't allow for diversified products, and only a few big companies produce most of the products for that market. 
    Anyone that has the initiative and drive to keep at it can not only become rich, but can do it over and over, starting with nothing. I ought to know. I'm one of them.
    Survivorship bias. Why are there so many bankrupt people? These people don't have as much access to media outlets and don't get to speak to the public as much. It is why they don't share their failure stories as much. And now since public libraries are getting underfunded as well, they have decreased access to the internet as well. 
    "Who are YOU to determine who is 'disabled'? I've known blind people who are quite successful in music and radio. I knew a guy that lost the use of his legs to polio as a kid that started five successful businesses. He also happens to be the fastest thing on a pair of crutches I have ever seen. Don't get in his way at the airport! I've known guys in wheelchairs that delight in taking them up and down stairs. It's almost like parkour in a wheelchair!"
    Just because you know a couple of successful disabled people doesn't mean all disabled people can be successful. According to statistics, disabled people are much less likely to be successful. Why do you think there is special ed? They need more education to cope with their disabilities. The statistics provided had disabled people, and I didn't determine if they were disabled or not. So to you answer your question, I don't determine if they're disabled or not. That's what a doctor does. I'm just providing the conclusions they along with researchers came with. 
    "Welfare does not help drug addicts. The only thing that will help them is themselves...or death."
    Welfare in the form of money doesn't work I agree, but welfare in the form of therapy has been proven to work. Look at Switzerland. 
    "A drug addict will never be successful no matter how much money you give them. They'll just buy more drugs."
    Unless you give them welfare in the form of therapy. It is still considered welfare. Welfare doesn't have to be money. 
    "Job fare is also needed to get them a job."
    That depends on the job. Many companies still use job fare in certain job fields. 
    "There is no such thing as a free education. It must be paid for somehow."
    Yes, but when it is in the form of taxpayer money, then it is free for the people with no money. 
    "Did you know a lot of companies will pay for the tuition at many schools for their employees? It's a company benefit. Why do you think they do that? It's not because the government forced them to!"
    Yes I know about this. I also know why they do this. It's because they don't want talented employees to leave the company. They only do it for jobs which require education already. For the poor employees which I want free education for, don't benefit from this. 
    "Education always costs money...
    No such thing. Education always costs money."
    Yes, but this time it should be payed by taxpayer money so that lower classes can benefit. 
    "This means that money isn't needed to get wealthy."
    Survivorship bias. 
    "The inner city ghetto is a product of government welfare."
    The wrong type of government welfare. The other types of welfare I presented work in other countries. 
    "It is not an endless cycle, it is not the people's fault. It is the GOVERNMENT's fault. It IS possible to break out of the cycle, but again you have to have the initiative and drive to do it."
    Yes I agree it is the government's fault. They provide the wrong types of welfare. Simply handing out money doesn't work. And the poor people do have initiative. They have initiative for the drug industry. Simply having initiative in this case is actually more harmful. If the right types of welfare is given, then like the other European nations, America can also get these people out of this. 
    "Who are YOU to decide what 'the wrong things' are? Becoming street smart is a valuable commodity that is worth money to people."
    Killing innocent people is wrong. I can be a normal person to decide this. The drug gangs are outside the law, and since they are not legal, they resort to violence, to get their job done. This is also how the drug cartels formed. 
    "Yes we can. They are criminals at that point. We lock them up. They broke the law."
    I was referring to the exposing of this criminal behaviour. Of course we should lock them up, but it isn't their fault that they were exposed to this. 
    "Random number. You have no idea what Americans give to charity. Charity does not have to be organized either."
    It isn't a random number. It is a statistic. Researchers stratify a large number of people into class groups, by randomly selecting them. Then they take a survey of how much each person payed in charity. This isn't perfect, but if the method is repeated multiple times, then the resulting number is close to the parameter. 
    "Everyone has all the 'chances' they need."
    What about a kid who was born into a slum? Incentive doesn't guarantee their success, and since they start off poor, it is even more unlikely. 
    "Guess what? To a certain extent, it DOES. No escaping it."
    We can still try minimizing it instead of doing nothing about the wealthiest people, who own half of America's wealth. 
    "Welfare CAUSES long term drug addiction by enabling it to continue."
    Not if the welfare is done right. 
    "Communities themselves come together in such events. The government usually gets in the way. We recently had such a natural disaster in a town near me, called Oso, WA. The town was essentially wiped off the map by a massive mudslide. The community in Arlington, WA and surrounding towns came together and helped the survivors find new homes, get them new jobs, and deal with their grief for those they lost. The government KNEW the hill was about to slide and did NOTHING. After the disaster, they went in and basically got in the way of the community helping these people while claiming credit for what the community itself already dd."
    "Education is not free. It is not needed to become wealthy either...
    There is no such thing as a free school. Education must be paid for no matter what."
    It could still be payed by taxpayer money, and give benefits to people with no money. It isn't always needed to become wealthy, but it does most of the time. 
    "I have never gotten a job at a job fair."
    It depends on the job. Job fare tends to favor poor people. 
    "Depends on the job. Also, there is nothing preventing you from starting your own company, other than yourself."
    And also not having enough money to fund and invest into the businesses. 
    "Decided to just toss in free housing as well? Now you are just showing your socialism"
    No I never said I wanted free housing. There is a system where the government provides housing for rent, instead of making them live in cramped disease infested slums. This type of affordable housing for poor allows for better living conditions for the poor. Big businesses have always overtaken the cities. With government buildings which provide for the poor, there is a balance. 
    "You don't need 'leverage'. Build your own lever!"
    What if they can't. 
  • We can talk about ideal fascism all day, I could also talk about ideal communism and ideal capitalism, to properly evaluate fascism we have to look at what results it has given.Putting the racism and that bad stuff away for a sec, fascism has failed compared to capitalism, the US is the example of that. Capitalism and the free market is far superior to fascism. Also some here said there was something wrong with the 1% controlling more wealth than the bottom 90% when in reality there isn't. There is massive wage mobility in the US, studies show that if you are in the bottom 15% you will not be in the bottom 15% if you: Graduate Highschool, Maintain a stable job, Do not have kids out of wedlock. Life has also proven that giving the lower class will not help, take Powerball winners for example. The poor people that stay poor do so because they are bad with money, the rich people that stay rich do so because they are good with money.

    As a classic conservative I believe that the government sucks at everything. Take for example a poorer man who was given money to renovate his home, he was allowed to change anything not he outside of his home, so people can see. Sadly, the man's house did not have internal heating, and that is what he really needed. Redistribution is not even good in theory, it is immoral robbery. Why should I have to give the money I worked for to other people? If there are three people in a room, person A has $100, person B and C are both broke. People B and C vote to take peron A's money - that is not moral, that is robbery. 
  • NightwingNightwing 50 Pts
    edited October 2017
    @Fascism

    "All fascist countries have the government telling you how to conduct your business, who you can sell to, what you can charge, and what your product will be."

    I already gave you examples on fascist governments which don't do this.
    No, you didn't.

    "I will use them, particularly fascist Italy, since Mussolini coined the term. You used them as well. Are you trying to paint yourself out of a corner?"
    Mussolini coined the term fascism, but he did not invent it. Fascist writers existed before Mussolini. They all used the fasces as their symbol. Just because someone takes their ideology and puts a "ism" at the end, doesn't mean his actions determine everything about it. I use them as examples, but I don't use them as standards for other fascism. You only describe fascism from what Nazi Germany and fascist Italy did disregarding everything else. 
    Yes capitalism and fascism are different. Fascism uses ideals of capitalism, but it is different. Almost all types of governments put regulations on businesses. Fascism puts more regulation. It doesn't take direct control over the businesses, but puts regulation on them. 
    Then why is Francoist Spain considered fascist by scholars? Even when it leaned towards capitalism.

    Fascism is mutually exclusive with capitalism. It takes over your business and tells you how to run it. Francoist Spain didn't lean toward capitalism.

    "Fascism is a form of socialism."
    It has socialist and capitalist values. The whole point fascism was created was to combine capitalism and socialism, along with some other things.
    It is not created to combine capitalism and socialism. It is created to control economies by government force. It is Marxism.

    "They BOTH have a command economy."
    Yes, except Francoist Spain used a different type of command economy.
    Nope. No different.
    "Thus, no capitalism."
    Thus no free-market*. Free-market isn't guaranteed in capitalism. In that case, modern Germany wouldn't be capitalist, nor would the US. The US puts regulations on harmful substances in food. Does that mean no capitalism? Fascism does this at a greater extent.
    Capitalism does not enable the free market. The free market is immortal. It can't be killed. It will always exist, even when driven underground. Regulations on food is not fascism.
    "Not for long! Not unless the government helps them!"
    Not the case with Luxottica.
    They are not a monopoly.
    "Because they can't maneuver in the market fast enough anymore. They become a dinosaur."
    That's why companies systematically split themselves up. It not only allows them to maneuver in the market, but it also hides the fact that it's all one corporation.
    Doesn't hide it much at all.
    "Because sooner or later their own noncompetitive nature will catch up with them."
    But after how long? The damage will be done to the nation.
    No damage is usually done. If 'damage' is being done, that's usually the time a startup will appear.
    "Yes there is. All it takes is for some little startup to come along and shoot their kneecaps off. The startup is maneuverable. It can satisfy the market while the monopoly can't because of it's own obsolete product line."
    When is this startup coming for Luxottica? The damage has already been done anyways and even if the startup comes, a new monopoly will take its place.
    Luxottica is not a monopoly.
    "Yes. You are trying to show what does and does not improve the GDP as being 'good' or 'bad'. The argument is based on a changing scale. It is a false equivalence.
    It does, but not the way you are thinking."
    So my original statement that GDP increases was true. Don't just assume what I was thinking. It's like saying:
    No, it was not true. You are confusing sets within sets. You have a logic problem.
    "GDP is not the standard of living. The standard of living is determined by you, and only you."
    I never said GDP was standard of living. I made a clear contrast between them in my statement.
    You actually did say it. You made no such 'clear contrast'.
    "No, mostly hard work. You don't need a lot of luck. Just a bit will do."
    I'm pretty sure more than 5% of Americans have hard work. The poorest of the rich are considered to have twice the amount of money as a middle class, while the top one percent has 380 times the pay of a middle class. They own 40% of the nation's wealth.
    Hard work by itself is not going to make you wealthy. You have to work smart too.
    "...deleted Holy Link...
    You will find that I tend to reject people that use websites as their arguments. This practice is a sign of weak thinking. I am debating with YOU, not some clown on another website."
    I'm not using the website to do my argument. I was using it for the statistics it had to prove my argument. It's a citation. I will still avoid using it if you really don't like it though.
    You WERE using the website as  your argument. The 'statistics' you were using are random numbers generated through a math error. Statistics is a branch of mathematics with a rigid set of rules. Please avoid using such links in the future. They are not a proof. They are just a waste of time.
    "Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It's a new start. Many successful businessmen went bankrupt several times before becoming successful. Many businesses have too."
    Then why are there so many bankrupt people? This is survivorship bias. You only explain that the successful businessmen went bankrupt, but miss the fact that most businessmen who go bankrupt fail.
    This seems to be a new phrase you like. There is no such thing. It is psychobabble created by the left.
    "That potential is purely within themselves, not the money they have, not the education they have, not the government aid they receive. Themselves. Only themselves."
    Not the case with my family or every other poor family I know, and the bottom 30% which is not in poverty, but still struggling.
    Learn to work hard and smart. You'll get there with a modest amount of luck.
    "That is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to govern. A successful nation will have a government that stabilizes conditions so the open free market will prevail with predictable conditions such as the curtailment of theft, murder, and other disrupting behavior."
    These conditions only help the rich. Free-market doesn't do anything for the poor. The reason poor people are involved more in drugs is because of the drug businesses. If free market opens up, then the monopolies will take over the drug industry as well. The poor depend on these illegal forms of market. The state helps all of its nation. It governs the nation to make sure all classes are having it good.
    It helps everyone, not just the rich. Free market does everything, even for the poor. It also destroys monopolies.
    "Yes it is. Who are YOU to judge what is 'surplus'? Who are YOU to judge the taking of their property by force so you can give it to someone else you deem is more 'worthy' of it?"
    All innocent human beings are of the same worth. Some just need the money more than others. The rich have too much money which doesn't reflect their hard work. The 1% didn't do enough hard work to justify the copious amounts of money they have. They got lucky.
    No, human beings are NOT of the same worth. This is a Marxist attitude. You have the opportunity to make something of yourself. You may be starting from a disadvantaged position, but the only one in the way of your success is yourself. All you have to do is make yourself worth something to someone.
    "The video is part of the Holy Link and is summarily dismissed. I am here to debate YOU, not a video."
    Once again the video does not argue for me. It doesn't even advocate socialist policies. I just cited it for the statistics. What difference does it make anyways? If linking to other websites isn't allowed, then I will just paraphrase the statistics anyways, which just causes confusion. I might also be biased in the way I read the statistics. The raw statistics are better.
    You weren't using statistics. I know that branch of mathematics. You were quoting random numbers as a 'proof'.
    "Yes. Who are YOU to determine who 'deserves' the wealth?"
    Someone who knows the wealthiest do not work hard enough to earn their wages. I figured this out doing some simple math: if the one percent has more money than the bottom 90%, then shouldn't they be doing more work them? They are obviously not. So why not make them give up a fraction of their already towering pile of money. It will negligible to them, but will affect the poor positively.
    They are paid what they are paid because what they do is worth it to the people they serve. It's as simple as that. Work smarter, not harder.
    "Who are YOU to determine what is and what is not used?"
    It is not me, but the wealthiest people themselves. If they don't use their wealth, I'm not determining anything. I'm just saying that they aren't using it. They do use most of it to invest into their company, but still some of it ends up in their useless savings, which they don't even need.
    You ARE determining what is and what is not used. You are building yourself a paradox here. You don't determine anything, but you say they aren't using it. Which is it, dude?
    "Who are YOU to determine what the taking of wealth by force is to make the economy better? Wealthy people open new companies, create new products, create new jobs, even pay for the education of their own employees. Why do you think they do this? No one is forcing them to!"
    All of this also happens by giving opportunities to the poor. The poor can open new companies if they had education and enough money, they could create new products, and create new jobs, and the education would be free for them anyways. The difference between your case and my case, is that the bigger companies don't allow for diversified products, and only a few big companies produce most of the products for that market.
    You don't need money to create a new product or service. All you need is some creativity.
    Anyone that has the initiative and drive to keep at it can not only become rich, but can do it over and over, starting with nothing. I ought to know. I'm one of them.
    Survivorship bias. Why are there so many bankrupt people? These people don't have as much access to media outlets and don't get to speak to the public as much. It is why they don't share their failure stories as much. And now since public libraries are getting underfunded as well, they have decreased access to the internet as well.
    You don't need the internet to become wealthy. It's not that hard to get it either.
    "Who are YOU to determine who is 'disabled'? I've known blind people who are quite successful in music and radio. I knew a guy that lost the use of his legs to polio as a kid that started five successful businesses. He also happens to be the fastest thing on a pair of crutches I have ever seen. Don't get in his way at the airport! I've known guys in wheelchairs that delight in taking them up and down stairs. It's almost like parkour in a wheelchair!"
    Just because you know a couple of successful disabled people doesn't mean all disabled people can be successful. According to statistics, disabled people are much less likely to be successful. Why do you think there is special ed? They need more education to cope with their disabilities. The statistics provided had disabled people, and I didn't determine if they were disabled or not. So to you answer your question, I don't determine if they're disabled or not. That's what a doctor does. I'm just providing the conclusions they along with researchers came with.
    A doctor doesn't determine who is disabled. The examples I've shown are sufficient to show that you don't need to let your handicap get in your way.
    "Welfare does not help drug addicts. The only thing that will help them is themselves...or death."
    Welfare in the form of money doesn't work I agree, but welfare in the form of therapy has been proven to work. Look at Switzerland.
    Switzerland isn't working. More and more people are arrested in Switzerland for drug offenses every year.
    "A drug addict will never be successful no matter how much money you give them. They'll just buy more drugs."
    Unless you give them welfare in the form of therapy. It is still considered welfare. Welfare doesn't have to be money.
    It doesn't work. People have to WANT to get off the drug. Reducing the cost of injecting yourself with that stuff doesn't help them. It enables them.
    "Job fare is also needed to get them a job."
    That depends on the job. Many companies still use job fare in certain job fields.
    We don't. That's a dry hole. You want to work for a company? Make yourself useful to that company and go and apply!
    "There is no such thing as a free education. It must be paid for somehow."
    Yes, but when it is in the form of taxpayer money, then it is free for the people with no money.
    No, it is not free. What you get is a crappy education, and you still wind up paying for it in any future taxes you pay. Educate yourself. No one is stopping you.
    "Did you know a lot of companies will pay for the tuition at many schools for their employees? It's a company benefit. Why do you think they do that? It's not because the government forced them to!"
    Yes I know about this. I also know why they do this. It's because they don't want talented employees to leave the company. They only do it for jobs which require education already. For the poor employees which I want free education for, don't benefit from this.
    You missed the point. Dropping this portion due to lost context.
    "Education always costs money."
    Yes, but this time it should be payed by taxpayer money so that lower classes can benefit.
    They don't benefit. Crappy education is not useful. Go educate yourself. No one is stopping you.
    "This means that money isn't needed to get wealthy."
    Survivorship bias.
    No such thing. You have everything you need to educate yourself, choose what service or product you want to provide, make yourself useful to people, and they'll pay you for it! The smarter you work, the more you can make.
    "The inner city ghetto is a product of government welfare."
    The wrong type of government welfare. The other types of welfare I presented work in other countries.
    They don't work either.
    "It is not an endless cycle, it is not the people's fault. It is the GOVERNMENT's fault. It IS possible to break out of the cycle, but again you have to have the initiative and drive to do it."
    Yes I agree it is the government's fault. They provide the wrong types of welfare. Simply handing out money doesn't work. And the poor people do have initiative. They have initiative for the drug industry. Simply having initiative in this case is actually more harmful. If the right types of welfare is given, then like the other European nations, America can also get these people out of this.
    There is no 'right' type of welfare. Only YOU can get yourself out of welfare.
    "Who are YOU to decide what 'the wrong things' are? Becoming street smart is a valuable commodity that is worth money to people."
    Killing innocent people is wrong. I can be a normal person to decide this. The drug gangs are outside the law, and since they are not legal, they resort to violence, to get their job done. This is also how the drug cartels formed.
    Becoming 'street smart' does not have to result in you becoming a drug cartel. It doesn't have to involve the drug trade at all.
    "Yes we can. They are criminals at that point. We lock them up. They broke the law."
    I was referring to the exposing of this criminal behaviour. Of course we should lock them up, but it isn't their fault that they were exposed to this.
    Immaterial. They chose to be criminals. They must pay the price for their choice. No one forced them to become criminals.
    "Random number. You have no idea what Americans give to charity. Charity does not have to be organized either."
    It isn't a random number. It is a statistic. Researchers stratify a large number of people into class groups, by randomly selecting them. Then they take a survey of how much each person payed in charity. This isn't perfect, but if the method is repeated multiple times, then the resulting number is close to the parameter.
    That isn't a statistic. That is a poll. Polls are most often used to shape opinion, not measure it. The math used to describe the results of the poll is often horrible. Don't depend on poll results for anything.

    The method you are describing for the summary is itself a math error. It violates the rules of statistical math.
    "Everyone has all the 'chances' they need."
    What about a kid who was born into a slum? Incentive doesn't guarantee their success, and since they start off poor, it is even more unlikely.
    Incentive doesn't guarantee him success, but he will get nowhere without it. Again, you seem to have a real problem with set theory.
    "Guess what? To a certain extent, it DOES. No escaping it."
    We can still try minimizing it instead of doing nothing about the wealthiest people, who own half of America's wealth.
    You don't improve your luck by 'punishing' the rich. You actually reduce your opportunities that way.
    "Welfare CAUSES long term drug addiction by enabling it to continue."
    Not if the welfare is done right. 
    There is no 'right' way to do welfare, other than voluntary contributions from those who wish to support it.
    "Depends on the job. Also, there is nothing preventing you from starting your own company, other than yourself."
    And also not having enough money to fund and invest into the businesses.
    You don't need money to start a business. You need a service or a product. You can do that for practically free. If what you are doing is worth something to somebody, you can make money.
    "Decided to just toss in free housing as well? Now you are just showing your socialism"
    No I never said I wanted free housing. There is a system where the government provides housing for rent, instead of making them live in cramped disease infested slums. This type of affordable housing for poor allows for better living conditions for the poor. Big businesses have always overtaken the cities. With government buildings which provide for the poor, there is a balance.
    Most cities have the problems they have because they try to micromanage economies...in other words, partial fascism.
    "You don't need 'leverage'. Build your own lever!"
    What if they can't. 
    Believe me, they can.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

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

Contact us

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

Get In Touch