Is it better for the economy to be in the hands of a billionaire or a community organizer? - 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!

Is it better for the economy to be in the hands of a billionaire or a community organizer?

Opening Argument

We are finding out that self made billionaires know more about the economy than community organizers.
aarongMax_Air29joecavalry
  1. Billionaire or Community Organizer

    8 votes
    1. Billionaire
      50.00%
    2. Community Organizer
      50.00%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • someone234someone234 475 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Self made what? The only self made ventures trump made ended up bankrupt or fraudulent.

    From the idea of the Apprentice which he stole from Lord Alan Sugar to his inherited businesses that he sat on, he's unfairly gifted.

    Sure he works hard but he isn't self made in the slightest.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 475 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Self made what? The only self made ventures trump made ended up bankrupt or fraudulent.

    From the idea of the Apprentice which he stole from Lord Alan Sugar to his inherited businesses that he sat on, he's unfairly gifted.

    Sure he works hard but he isn't self made in the slightest.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • MikeMike 83 Pts
    edited December 2017
    It is “better for the economy to be in the hands” of a free market. The tyrannical “hands” of any entity or government interference of market forces, will only distress the market.
  • @Mike Yet the nations with the highest rates of poverty and corruption are all free market nations that ended with the rich running it.

    Nigeria, India, Brazil you name it and the rich run it.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • The government should be run by experience people from different of diverse backgrounds. They should not be corrupt, but can be wealthy if they were elected into office.
  • @Mike Yet the nations with the highest rates of poverty and corruption are all free market nations that ended with the rich running it.

    Nigeria, India, Brazil you name it and the rich run it.
    North Korea, Venezuela...
    DrCereal
  • @someone234 ;I see we are on the same page. Like I said “any entity,” which includes those entities in “Nigeria, India, Brazil you named” only distresses the market. On the other hand, there are many throughout the world who got “rich” using free market principles, who support those principles.
    DrCereal
  • @CYDdharta Actually in those nations the rich don't run it but it is that those running it end up rich. That is just as bad indeed but the reverse issue.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Mike If it's cute in theory but corrupt in practise every time, it's not an ideology worth pursuing to fruition.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234 ; If you feel that way, thank you for sharing your philosophy. With that, I must move on. 
  • @Mike Your philosophy is let the rich enslave the poor.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Mike Your philosophy is let the rich enslave the poor.
    Your point seems to be that sometimes the rich are in charge of the government, other times those in charge of the government get rich from their positions.  In either case, the government enslaves the poor.  Why are you complaining about the rich instead of the government, which seems to be the real culprit?
  • someone234someone234 475 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @CYDdharta In free market nations yes and in the other extreme yes. In nations like Canada or Western Europe or... Australia a really good balance between the wings is found and that is healthy government.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @CYDdharta In free market nations yes and in the other extreme yes. In nations like Candace or Western Europe or... Australia a really good balance between the wings is found and that is healthy government.
    No nation has a truly free market.
  • @CYDdharta

    I’m not complaining about the “rich” nor the “government,” I’m complaining about any entity, from the poor all the way to the rich, including social systems and governments; those who do not support free market systems.  

    I love the “rich,” for you can’t get a job from a poor person. In a free market system, if you do not want to work for someone else, form your own business and become your own boss. 

  • @CYDdharta that's because as soon as they try, the rich corrupt it.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 475 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @Mike and with free market policy not stopping cartels how will you compete? The privately owned cops sure aren't gonna save you, neither will the high priced private law firms when you sue for contract breach or copyright infringement, they'll laugh in your poor face.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234
    You’re missing the point. A free market is a function of morality. Without morality, any market will be in distress by the tyranny or plunder from others.
    someone234
  • @Mike throughout history and even today in any non Communist country that has high rates of poverty you can clearly see the end result of capitalism.

    Socialist policies must be in place to stop competition from going too far.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Mike said:
    @CYDdharta

    I’m not complaining about the “rich” nor the “government,” I’m complaining about any entity, from the poor all the way to the rich, including social systems and governments; those who do not support free market systems.  

    I love the “rich,” for you can’t get a job from a poor person. In a free market system, if you do not want to work for someone else, form your own business and become your own boss. 

    My comment wasn't actually directed at you, but your answer raises an interesting point.  Can a government actually support a free market?  The only way I can think of for it to actually support a free market is to do nothing.
    someone234
  • @CYDdharta wow we actually agree for once.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Mike throughout history and even today in any non Communist country that has high rates of poverty you can clearly see the end result of capitalism.

    Socialist policies must be in place to stop competition from going too far.

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

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

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    As for the moral factor in free market systems, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

  • @Mike you're not the first ring wing libertarian. I know the outlook of "free market = freer people" but it's WRONG and you will soon understand that if you take the time to study economics and justice.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @CYDdharta
    “To do nothing at all,” quite the contrary, the government is an essential part of a free market system. From the pure free market existence at the garage-sale level to the numerous laws needed for international free trade, a moral government supports free markets by embracing and protecting the “unalienable Rights” of all parties involved.
  • @someone234

    Thanks for the advice and I like your enthusiastic persistence relative to your ideology. And in saying that, in reference to your constructive recommendation, I have spent exploratory time to “study economics and justice,” and its relationship to the symmetry found in a physical law in nature known as the constructal law. In fact, I wrote a book on the subject. If you are interested in said subject, I completed the fourth edition of my book to be out at the end of next month (January 2018).

    In the meantime, perhaps, we could exchange ideas over the Introduction Chapter of my fourth edition. 

  • Mike said:
    @CYDdharta
    “To do nothing at all,” quite the contrary, the government is an essential part of a free market system. From the pure free market existence at the garage-sale level to the numerous laws needed for international free trade, a moral government supports free markets by embracing and protecting the “unalienable Rights” of all parties involved.
    The only thing a government can do is regulate markets.  Regulations are encroachments on freedom.  A government can make a market fairer, but only by reducing it's freedom.  A pure free market would have no government regulations at all.
  • MikeMike 83 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @CYDdharta

    It is true a government can over regulate, however, there are government regulations that embraces a free market, such as antitrust, development of laws protecting the integrity of money, arbitrating contractual disputes; prosecuting criminals; facilitating trade through the building and maintenance of roadways and infrastructure, protection of patents, copyrights, etc.

     In a free market we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level. The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). As more levels of bureaucracy increases, maintains dynamic channels of resistance in conflict with those channels seeking freedom. This natural dynamic flow between resistance and freedom is known as the physical constructal law (the latest discovered law in thermodynamics dealing with flow independent of domain). The evening satellite image of the Korea peninsula illustrates the economics of government “Centralized” control of trade (North Korea) relative to the private ownership initiating the flow of trade having dynamic channels of freedom and resistance (South Korea).    

     It is normal for all flow systems to have dynamic channels of resistance and freedom, otherwise, evolution will not exist.

  • I don't think that having a billionaire as our president is a good idea. First of all, billionaires are narcissistic, greedy, jerks. Also, they are probably just into politics because they want fame and more money. However, community organizers actually care about people and having them as our president means that they would want to take care of the whole country and make sure that the welfare of our country is good and the community organizer would care more about the country than themselves. 
  • @Mike What's natural and what's morally  good are two very VERY different things.

    I already explained how cruel nature is.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • averyapro said:
    I don't think that having a billionaire as our president is a good idea. First of all, billionaires are narcissistic, greedy, jerks. Also, they are probably just into politics because they want fame and more money. However, community organizers actually care about people and having them as our president means that they would want to take care of the whole country and make sure that the welfare of our country is good and the community organizer would care more about the country than themselves. 
    Bill Gates, warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg etc., are narcissistic, greedy, jerks?

    Community organizers care about certain people, not everyone.  They set one group against another.
  • @Mike What's natural and what's morally  good are two very VERY different things.

    I already explained how cruel nature is.

    The physical laws of nature created us. If you find that “cruel,” how sad your life experience must be.

    As for “morally good” is a natural event because it falls within the matrix of the physical laws of nature. For example, the evolution a human moral code of conduct stems from a “universal morality” (according to Jonathan Haidt, Marc Hauser, Frans de Waal) found among groups of non-human animals. That is, the evolution of a human moral code of conduct is a function of the “Golden Rule” which is an outgrowth from a “universal morality”, which is an outgrowth of “unalienable Rights”, which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law

  • someone234someone234 475 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @Mike If anything that humans construct is natural according to you then so are the moral and legal constructs they make while violating these rights you so fervently uphold.

    Checkmate.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Elected official should be in charge of the government. 
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @Mike If anything that humans construct is natural according to you then so are the moral and legal constructs they make while violating these rights you so fervently uphold.

    Checkmate.

    “Checkmate”??? I’m not sure what game you are playing.

     Relative to life’s innate rights (or bio-primitives) when events follow the physical constructal law flows in the direction of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (or positive feedback for all life).” When events goes against the physical constructal law flows in the direction of Death, Tyranny, or the pursuit of Failure (or negative feedback for all life), that is, extinction is part of evolution.

  • @Mike Your outlook is extremely method-oriented and not at all results-oriented but the issue is that you aren't measuring it at all.

    If you torture a few to save hundreds (which is done by CIA regularly) then initially that violates your idea and then suddenly it supports it because of the switching to 'life' from 'death and suffering'... You don't really make sense because you don't understand the need for some evil to combat worse evils.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234

    Any objective life pursues (“results-oriented”) follows a “method-oriented” set of steps in the attempt to achieve said “results.”

    Your “torture” example is the “method-oriented” set of steps in the attempt to achieve the result to save many.  

    As for your term “evil” is simply relative.

  • @Mike So then you concede that all rights are relative.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234
    Life’s “unalienable Rights” are defined by the physical constructal law. One’s “relative” perception of the physical laws of nature is a function of one’s philosophy. 
  • @Mike Every single time I explain why you are wrong and why right-wing libertarianism is corrupt and so far from the ideal system that upholds fairness and genuine rights of the people, you counter me with some mumbo jumbo about natural rights or about some new 'law' be it "constructal" (that is not even a word) or physical... I attack you, you concede and think you have somehow proven me wrong but you just admitted that you are wrong.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234

    I understand the constructal law is a paradigm-shift relative to prior theories, however; the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. The new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature.

    At the end of next month (January 2018) my fourth edition will be out using familiar examples, and scrutinizing some of those historical issues, building an effective exhibit for the interested practitioner who may continue to explore the constructal law, having profound philosophical reformations throughout the social and political sciences.

  • @Mike Canada, Most of the EU (western EU at least), Australia and New Zealand all dedicate themselves to finding a happy medium that sides on socialism more than capitalism but overall is centrist in that it enables a decent amount of private activity but favours the 'small' competitor in 'unnatural' ways to prevent big corporations inhibiting innovation and competition by unfair price-reduction etc that they know will drive the small ones bankrupt but only be a tiny loss for themselves in the short-run.

    There is so much beauty in left-wing ideology that you fail to see. I am not a hammer and sickle waving Trotskyist but I damn well respect them more than the Right-wing anythingist.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
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