Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism - 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!

Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism

Opening Argument

PoguePogue 492 Pts
edited May 8 in Politics
Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism

Laissez Faire Capitalism- Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation privileges, tariffs, and subsidies (basically no regulations)
Democratic Socialism- Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management or democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist or decentralized socialist planned economy. 

I am in favor of Democratic socialism


passedbillkmelkevolution17LibertineStatesTHEDENIERmelefBear_with_me
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • The government should not be involved wars which don’t involve the US or companies in the US and not in the US.
    qipwbdeoDrCerealPogueAmpersandTHEDENIER
  • @passedbill
    I do not get how that is relevant 
  • MikeMike 86 Pts

    “Laissez Faire Capitalism” is alive and well throughout the global society. Relative to “Laissez Faire,” we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level (aka freedom from government). The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). If one wants to establish a corporate entity, one needs a legal system; hence, government (aka a bureaucracy), whether the form of governance is a free-republic, socialistic, fascism, etc.     

    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 the unification principle of evolution). The evening satellite image of the Korean peninsula illustrates the economics of government “planned economy” of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade dealing with those dynamic channels of freedom and resistance within South Korea’s bureaucracy. It is clear what a little freedom and private ownership can do between the empirical forces of darkness and light on the Korean peninsula.

    DrCerealkmelkevolution17Pogue
  • The government should not be involved with companies.
    DrCerealPogueih8sharts
  • Mike said:

    “Laissez Faire Capitalism” is alive and well throughout the global society. Relative to “Laissez Faire,” we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level (aka freedom from government). The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). If one wants to establish a corporate entity, one needs a legal system; hence, government (aka a bureaucracy), whether the form of governance is a free-republic, socialistic, fascism, etc.     

    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 the unification principle of evolution). The evening satellite image of the Korean peninsula illustrates the economics of government “planned economy” of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade dealing with those dynamic channels of freedom and resistance within South Korea’s bureaucracy. It is clear what a little freedom and private ownership can do between the empirical forces of darkness and light on the Korean peninsula.

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."
    PogueTHEDENIER
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    Ampersand said:

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."

    When did I say “government intervention” was bad? Again I compared, “the economics of government planned economy of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade within South Korea’s bureaucracy.”

    For evolution to happen, the dynamic channels of resistance are just as important as those dynamic channels of freedom. Government bureaucracy represents those channels of resistance, where private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade represents those channels of freedom. This constants struggle between resistance and freedom is the key to advance the standard of living for a civil society.   

    In a “government planned economy of trade (North Korea)” there is only one channel, that is, the channel of government tyranny, there are no exceptions, no evolution.  

    On the other hand, “Laissez Fair” (aka total freedom one channel) seems to only exist at the garage sale level, again, no evolution.

    Now let’s look at two economic systems covered in this post:

    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.”

    Let’s consider two forms of governance:

    Democracy: is a government base on mob-rule. Tough luck if you’re in the minority.  

    Republic: a representative government base on the rule of law.

    South Korea is a republic, where North Korea is a democratic republic; the key word is “democratic.” According to Madison in Federalist Paper #10:  “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” If we get into the weeds of North Korea’s current political ideology, it seems their democracy morphed into fascism.  

    So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic, like the configuration of the US governance. From this form of governance, within a short period of 200 years brought global change like no other in recorded history through advances in technology, food production, and medicine; a social empirical data point offers a compelling example of what can happen when our unalienable rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.  

  • Mike said:
    Ampersand said:

    If you actually look at their history, the South's economic prosperity can be found in government intervention. POSCO was set up pretty much entirely by the government from Japanese reparations. LG was forced to go into electronics rather than textiles by the government. General Park Chung-Hee is said to have personally threatened the founder of the Hyundai Group into going into ship building, where it is one of the largest ship builders in the world.

    It's not even like it's especially laissez faire, which is why Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang has said:

    "Would-be red tape cutters believe that the more regulations there are, the less investment there will be. However, regulation is only a minor factor in investment decisions. Things like growth prospects, technological progress, quality of labour force and infrastructure are far more important. The truth is that, if there is money to be made, businessmen will invest regardless of the level of regulations. This is why the 299 permits that were needed to open a factory in South Korea in the early 1990s did not prevent the country from investing 35% of its income and growing at 10% per year at the time."

    When did I say “government intervention” was bad? Again I compared, “the economics of government planned economy of trade (North Korea) relative to the private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade within South Korea’s bureaucracy.”

    For evolution to happen, the dynamic channels of resistance are just as important as those dynamic channels of freedom. Government bureaucracy represents those channels of resistance, where private corporate ownership initiating the flow of trade represents those channels of freedom. This constants struggle between resistance and freedom is the key to advance the standard of living for a civil society.   

    In a “government planned economy of trade (North Korea)” there is only one channel, that is, the channel of government tyranny, there are no exceptions, no evolution.  

    On the other hand, “Laissez Fair” (aka total freedom one channel) seems to only exist at the garage sale level, again, no evolution.

    Now let’s look at two economic systems covered in this post:

    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.”

    Let’s consider two forms of governance:

    Democracy: is a government base on mob-rule. Tough luck if you’re in the minority.  

    Republic: a representative government base on the rule of law.

    South Korea is a republic, where North Korea is a democratic republic; the key word is “democratic.” According to Madison in Federalist Paper #10:  “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” If we get into the weeds of North Korea’s current political ideology, it seems their democracy morphed into fascism.  

    So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic, like the configuration of the US governance. From this form of governance, within a short period of 200 years brought global change like no other in recorded history through advances in technology, food production, and medicine; a social empirical data point offers a compelling example of what can happen when our unalienable rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.  

    As I read this, you are making a mish-mash of statements with no cohesive point and even contradicting yourself.

    To deal with them one at a time, the topic under discussion is Laissez-faire versus Democratic Socialism. You gave the comparison of South Korea and North Korea. In fact neither of them would be classified as democratic socialist countries or laissez-faire countries so any point made with them is moot. If need be I can also give explanations for why North Korea isn't democratic, etc.

    Your view of public bodies as bodies of resistance and private bodies as bodies of freedom is both nebulous (You give no indication of what you mean by freedom in this context) and wrong if you're using the definition to anything like the normal usage. Take the hundreds of millions of people across the globe working in sweatshop conditions for private industry - do they experience this freedom associated with their privately funded work? W

    You then give definitions for socialism and capitalism but make absolutely no point with them.

    With democracy and republic, this is where things get really messy. lets take democracy for example. You:

    A) Make no reference to democracy as it's generally understood
    B) Link to the wikipedia page on direct democracy, a very rarely used form of democracy that constitutes about 0.01% of the democracy that will happen in a country (occasional referendums and that's it. This usage is of course not what anyone in this thread is talking about 
    C) Offer your own simplistic explanation of democracy, again being vague enough to have no real relevance
    D) Quote from Madison where what he is referring to is clearly not applicable to what we are talking about or having the same meaning as contemporary democracy: "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens...". We are not talking about small tribes or organisations here. We are talking about nations of millions of people.

    You then call North Korea democratic even though it meets none of the critera of a democracy established by ordinary definition or any of the several odd scattershot definitions you have provided.

    Your final conclusion is vague and rather off topic:

    "So which do I vote for: “Democratic Socialism” or “Laissez Fair Capitalism”? The answer: neither.

    My vote is capitalism within a free-republic..."

    Firstly, Capitalism within a free republic is not mutually exclusive with liaise faire capitalism. What you are advocating could encompass a wide range of economic policies and attempting to match this to the US's history is incredibly simplistic to the extend it doesn't work. Over its history the US has carried our gross violations of human liberties (slavery) and wandered in economic policy from protectionism to free market ideology. Also the USA is not the world's largest producer of food, nor does it have the best healthcare and in terms of general technological advance I'd have to say the industrial revolution has it beat hands down and that was largely centred in the UK.

  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    @Ampersand
    Thank you for sharing your philosophy.
  • @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
    ih8sharts
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
    Well then, thank you for the critique.

    Next time I’ll try to do better presenting well established terms and definitions in line with historical events. There are a number of good books you can read to help clear up the myth over democracy, socialism and other forms of statism. Too much government, no matter what its form or how well intended, is not the solution only becomes the problem.  When one becomes familiar with the new discoveries surrounding the physical constructal law (the science that generates patterns), one will learn that individual’s moral virtue flowing together within a moral code of conduct is the key to a civil society not government. For the ruling-class maintains the same moral standing from its society, and if morality is on a decline, no government will work as the ruling-class morphs into tyranny.
  • Mike said:
    Ampersand said:
    @Mike

    I haven't shared a philosophy. The criticisms of your argument that I made are ones that anyone could make regardless of whether they're capitalist, socialist, atheist, nihilist, rationalist, etc.
    Well then, thank you for the critique.

    Next time I’ll try to do better presenting well established terms and definitions in line with historical events. There are a number of good books you can read to help clear up the myth over democracy, socialism and other forms of statism. Too much government, no matter what its form or how well intended, is not the solution only becomes the problem.  When one becomes familiar with the new discoveries surrounding the physical constructal law (the science that generates patterns), one will learn that individual’s moral virtue flowing together within a moral code of conduct is the key to a civil society not government. For the ruling-class maintains the same moral standing from its society, and if morality is on a decline, no government will work as the ruling-class morphs into tyranny.
    Yes, it would help a great deal if you could do that because as explained in my previous post you are using contradictory terms - making your own argument incoherent. By not using the well established terms and definitions and instead focusing on niche variations that you represented as those terms or your own personal made up examples your argument didn't have any relevance

    I don't have much personal interest in your philosophy or see its relevance to this debate so if you would like to continue discussing it I suggest you start a thread to discuss it.

    Also your claim about "too much government" being a problem is a tautology.
  • @Mike
    I have done research on the "constructal law" you raised, and I believe this website does a much better job of explaining it than the one you linked: http://mems.duke.edu/research/energy-technology-and-thermodynamics/bejan-constructal-law. Regardless, the law merely states that a system's flow must increase for it to maintain livelihood. Laissez-Faire capitalism may seem to increase flow of resources and wealth, but it does not. Fundamentally, the more money a select few earn, the less overall money is spent. The wealthiest 1% spend a relatively small proportion of their income compared to those less wealthy, simply because they don't need to spend as much of their wealth to pay for living and food. Money sitting in bank accounts is not freely flowing through an economy, and therefore fails the constructal law. This essentially wasted money can easily be taxed away to assist those who actually need it and will spend it, boosting the economy 
    Besides, if if we accept that somehow the economy does better with money sitting in the wealthy's bank accounts, this fact becomes irrelevant. If the rich are only becoming wealthier with money they don't need, while the poor stay starving, economic benefits are useless to a population. For the sake of argument, let us say that there are 2 people in a village where it costs a minimum of $1,200 a month to pay for the bare minimum expenses. Person 1 earns $700 a month and person 2 earns $2,000 a month. Every month, $800 is just put into a bank account when it could be used to boost the economy, and person 1 is starving. Now we can turn to 2 scenarios. If we accept that no control is better for the economy then we can reasonably imagine a scenario without wealth redistribution where person 1 still earns $700 a month, but person 2 now earns $2,700 a month. Person 1 is still starving, and person 2 now saves $1,500 a month. Neither standard of living has actually improved, yet more money is being introduced. Now let us imagine the 2nd scenario, where extensive wealth redistribution exists. Person 1 may no earn a total of $1,200 a month and person 2 earns $1,500 a month. Now, both people can afford to live, and only $300 is being taken out of the economy a month. We can see that even though no new money has been introduced the standard of living has drastically improved overall, and so has investment into the economy. Making the rich richer while the poor stay poor is barely progress, even if the total earnings increase.
    Thanks so much for your time, I hope to year back soon.
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    THEDENIER said:
    I have done research on the "constructal law" you raised, and I believe this website does a much better job of explaining it than the one you linked: http://mems.duke.edu/research/energy-technology-and-thermodynamics/bejan-constructal-law. ; .... Thanks so much for your time, I hope to year back soon.

    I’m encouraged that you are taking the time to do “research on the constructal law.” The caveat is, the constructal law is a physical law in nature and therefore, no man-made law or philosophy can change a law in nature. According to the constructal law, wealth inequality is a fact in nature and no man defined ideology can change that fact.

    On the topic of facts, you can’t get a job from a poor person. Wealth inequality is very important in the evolution of wealth. According to the constructal law, if all things were equal, there will be no evolution. For example, take the average poor person today, they are much wealthier and having a higher standard of living compared to our cave dwelling ancestors; hence, the constructal evolution of wealth.  

    You gave an example of one who is perceived to be wealthy simply having their “money sitting in bank accounts is not freely flowing through an economy.” Not true! For example, let’s say one day you are an average middle class person having a good job, enjoying a quiet evening with your family and on the news you found your lottery number came up and you are now 500 million dollars wealthier. What do you do? Put the money in the bank! After that, if you love your job, there will be little changes in your life while you keep the money in the bank. On the other hand, if you quit your job, it will be hard to spend a million dollars a day. In the meantime, the bank will take your money and flow it through the economy via bank loans to other corporations, home loans, credit cards, etc. The bank will in turn give you a percentage of the money they earn from your 500 million dollars. Not bad, the bank is now an effective employee of yours, aka working for you, to make you more money.  

    In the end, your money via the bank loaning it out to a corporation, may result in cheaper smart phones for the poor to enjoy; hence, the constructal law at work in the patterns of evolution throughout nature. 

  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 46 Pts
    edited April 1
    @Mike ;
    The constructional law in nature implies that for a system to live, there must be flow if I am not mistaken. Your argument that wealth inequality being necessary for economic activity is as I see it, flawed in 2 ways. First of all, I believe that even if wealth inequality is necessary for any economy, minimizing it is beneficial to the overall standard of living for that society. Secondly, this argument is predicated upon the assumption that wealth must flow from rich to poor. This is untrue, the flow of wealth is not money for money, it is money for goods. As such, even in a system where all people have equal wealth, economic activity still exists, for the simple reason that people have different specialties. A system dies when a total equilibrium is formed, but even if there is an equilibrium of money, there is no equilibrium of skill, so 2 people may still exchange skill for money or vice versa.
    Mike said:

    You gave an example of one who is perceived to be wealthy simply having their “money sitting in bank accounts is not freely flowing through an economy.” Not true! For example, let’s say one day you are an average middle class person having a good job, enjoying a quiet evening with your family and on the news you found your lottery number came up and you are now 500 million dollars wealthier. What do you do? Put the money in the bank! After that, if you love your job, there will be little changes in your life while you keep the money in the bank. On the other hand, if you quit your job, it will be hard to spend a million dollars a day. In the meantime, the bank will take your money and flow it through the economy via bank loans to other corporations, home loans, credit cards, etc. The bank will in turn give you a percentage of the money they earn from your 500 million dollars. Not bad, the bank is now an effective employee of yours, aka working for you, to make you more money.  

    This is an argument that I have heard many times, yet I see some fundamental flaws with. The idea that banks lend money is totally correct, but our disagreement is how much this money helps the economy. Simply put, banks have high interest rates, and loan, don't give. This puts a damper on the economy. Money is not flowing freely because companies have debts they must pay off, and don't take such large innovative risks. Sure, loans are better than nothing, but they don't beat regular commerce where money is exchanged for good. In fact, bank loans are responsible for huge crises. http://positivemoney.org/issues/recessions-crisis/

    Finally, you make a totally legitimate point about the improvement of life for every social class in the past tens and hundreds of thousands of years, yet the lives of many people can improve even more, and to stand in the way of this is wrong.

    Thanks for your time.
  • @Mike So sorry! I was thinking of another thread and accidentally wrote that to the wrong person, it is for you.
  • NopeNope 297 Pts
    THEDENIER
    If you click on one of your arguments a gear should appear in the top right corner. Click on it and you should be able to edit your argument. : )
    THEDENIER
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    THEDENIER said:
    @Mike So sorry! I was thinking of another thread and accidentally wrote that to the wrong person, it is for you.

    The constructal law is new and I understand, relative to those who are rooted in their philosophy, the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. For many, this new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature. Examining the constructal law using symmetry will open new doors in our next evolutionary phase, including philosophical reformations from those historians and scholars’ concerning “Democratic Socialism versus Laissez Faire Capitalism.” 

    My recommendation, you should focus on the latest research in social evolution as a function of the constructal law. I understand Professor Adrian Bejan (the one who discovered the physical constructal law) is slated for another reward at the Franklin Institute next month. It’s all about understanding those patterns throughout the universe of which we, our social systems, the markets and the hierarchical distribution of wealth are part of.     

    With that I must move on, thank you for sharing your philosophy on the subject.

  • ih8shartsih8sharts 44 Pts
    edited April 2
    @kmelkevolution17 Until a company defrauds you, poisons you or your drinking water.... Then you would change your tune.
  • melefmelef 65 Pts
    The U.S. government shouldn’t be involved with companies and shouldn’t the rgeulate companies to grow the U.S.’s economy.
  • @melef Do you believe in survival of the fittest anarchy then?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 42 Pts
    This question really comes down to the individual systems of values. I personally am in favor of a libertarian system and laissez-faire capitalism, because among my highest priorities for the government I want to manage the land I live on are:
    1. Respect for individual freedoms and rights.
    2. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
    3. Incentives for a willful personal growth.
    People supporting democratic socialism instead tend to have other priorities on top of their list:
    1. High level of social security.
    2. Wealth distribution according to needs and not desires.
    3. Leveling of the initial conditions of the playing field.
    People opposing this (including me) tend to see the measures required to achieve these goals as excessively authoritarian and infringing on our individual rights and interests. People opposing laissez-faire libertarian capitalism, on the other hand, disapprove of how hard it hits the initially more disadvantaged groups and how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the upper classes. Which group is right? I don't think it is a valid question.

    I think the best of both worlds is to have democratic states of both leanings, so every individual could choose where they want to live and move there, so everybody lives in the system they personally prefer.
  • First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
  • First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    I agree, socialism implies the use of undemocratic force and fiat to redistribute wealth and has killed 100 million people over the past century, in fact,  the term "democratic socialism" has been used by various dictators such as mao, Fidel Castro, and Lenin
  • AmpersandAmpersand 329 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    This question really comes down to the individual systems of values. I personally am in favor of a libertarian system and laissez-faire capitalism, because among my highest priorities for the government I want to manage the land I live on are:
    1. Respect for individual freedoms and rights.
    2. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
    3. Incentives for a willful personal growth.
    People supporting democratic socialism instead tend to have other priorities on top of their list:
    1. High level of social security.
    2. Wealth distribution according to needs and not desires.
    3. Leveling of the initial conditions of the playing field.
    People opposing this (including me) tend to see the measures required to achieve these goals as excessively authoritarian and infringing on our individual rights and interests. People opposing laissez-faire libertarian capitalism, on the other hand, disapprove of how hard it hits the initially more disadvantaged groups and how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the upper classes. Which group is right? I don't think it is a valid question.

    I think the best of both worlds is to have democratic states of both leanings, so every individual could choose where they want to live and move there, so everybody lives in the system they personally prefer.
    I think a lot of people would disagree with your idea of what each system represents and you certainly don't seem to be assessing the core issues. While there is likely to be a high level of social security and welfare due to the egalitarian aims of socialism, there is actually nothing in the ideology that states that will be the case, just like you can have typical mixed-market capitalist societies with a high level of welfare and social security (E.g. the Nordic countries).

    In others you just seem to not understand the ideology. "To each according to his contribution" is one of the defining characteristics of socialism, not "To each according to his need" which is communism.

    I'd also mention socialists would certainly disagree with point 3 and probably points 1 and 2 of your Capitalist advantages to. The primary rationale of socialism is to free the proletariat from the ordinary shackles of wage labour and give them a more equal measure of their labour - allowing them greater ability to self-actualise.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    Likewise, just saying that something isn't right doesn't mean it isn't right.

    Democratic socialism is a specific sub-type of Communism, in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism and Social Democratic Capitalism are just two of several distinct types of Capitalism. If you have specific complaints then you can raise them. Democratic Socliamism doesn't even seem to require taking things that don't belong to you - unless you care to actually back up your claims with some kind of logic.

    Sweden has one of the highest qualities of life in the world and the nordic countries are typically ranked as having the happiest citizens on earth.. if they are scaring off businesses as you claim (with no evidence) and still doing very well by the kind of metrics that countries must be judged, that just goes to show how needless and backwards it is to sacrifice the well-being of your country to try and appease a minority of rich businessmen,

    Also I'd argue Capitalism is FAR more destructive than Socialism. Has there even been a single Capitalist society that hasn't traded in death in a massive scale?.

    Also generally the quality of life in every country has risen over time if you look at a large enough scale thanks to technological developments, infrastructure being built. The quality of life in Cuba has improved over time for instance. The quality of life in China has improved. Saying "Over several decades the quality of life in country X has improved" is essentially meaningless because that should apply to basically every country that isn't currently an active warzone.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    I agree, socialism implies the use of undemocratic force and fiat to redistribute wealth and has killed 100 million people over the past century, in fact,  the term "democratic socialism" has been used by various dictators such as mao, Fidel Castro, and Lenin
    The 100 million figure comes form the Black Book of Communism, an anti-communist book, which some of the authors once they saw what was published, declared to have been biased and very misleading with the aim of coming up with a high figure regardless of the facts. An additional problem is that when you apply their criteria to Capitalist countries, it turns out Capitalist countries kill even more than Communist ones.

    Also please look up what democratic socialism is before trying to argue against it. It's a specific form of socialism that stands as a contrast and alternative to that practised by Castro, Mao, etc. Regardless of whether someone tries to latch on to a word to give themselves a veneer of respectability that we obviously ignore ("Oh no, north Korea is democratic so obviously democracy is awful!!!!"), them simply talking about democratic socialism (which you haven't in any way supported) does not mean they practised democratic socialism.
    BaconToesJuicyMelonTech
  • Ampersand said:
    MayCaesar said:
    This question really comes down to the individual systems of values. I personally am in favor of a libertarian system and laissez-faire capitalism, because among my highest priorities for the government I want to manage the land I live on are:
    1. Respect for individual freedoms and rights.
    2. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
    3. Incentives for a willful personal growth.
    People supporting democratic socialism instead tend to have other priorities on top of their list:
    1. High level of social security.
    2. Wealth distribution according to needs and not desires.
    3. Leveling of the initial conditions of the playing field.
    People opposing this (including me) tend to see the measures required to achieve these goals as excessively authoritarian and infringing on our individual rights and interests. People opposing laissez-faire libertarian capitalism, on the other hand, disapprove of how hard it hits the initially more disadvantaged groups and how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the upper classes. Which group is right? I don't think it is a valid question.

    I think the best of both worlds is to have democratic states of both leanings, so every individual could choose where they want to live and move there, so everybody lives in the system they personally prefer.
    I think a lot of people would disagree with your idea of what each system represents and you certainly don't seem to be assessing the core issues. While there is likely to be a high level of social security and welfare due to the egalitarian aims of socialism, there is actually nothing in the ideology that states that will be the case, just like you can have typical mixed-market capitalist societies with a high level of welfare and social security (E.g. the Nordic countries).

    In others you just seem to not understand the ideology. "To each according to his contribution" is one of the defining characteristics of socialism, not "To each according to his need" which is communism.

    I'd also mention socialists would certainly disagree with point 3 and probably points 1 and 2 of your Capitalist advantages to. The primary rationale of socialism is to free the proletariat from the ordinary shackles of wage labour and give them a more equal measure of their labour - allowing them greater ability to self-actualise.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    Likewise, just saying that something isn't right doesn't mean it isn't right.

    Democratic socialism is a specific sub-type of Communism, in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism and Social Democratic Capitalism are just two of several distinct types of Capitalism. If you have specific complaints then you can raise them. Democratic Socliamism doesn't even seem to require taking things that don't belong to you - unless you care to actually back up your claims with some kind of logic.

    Sweden has one of the highest qualities of life in the world and the nordic countries are typically ranked as having the happiest citizens on earth.. if they are scaring off businesses as you claim (with no evidence) and still doing very well by the kind of metrics that countries must be judged, that just goes to show how needless and backwards it is to sacrifice the well-being of your country to try and appease a minority of rich businessmen,

    Also I'd argue Capitalism is FAR more destructive than Socialism. Has there even been a single Capitalist society that hasn't traded in death in a massive scale?.

    Also generally the quality of life in every country has risen over time if you look at a large enough scale thanks to technological developments, infrastructure being built. The quality of life in Cuba has improved over time for instance. The quality of life in China has improved. Saying "Over several decades the quality of life in country X has improved" is essentially meaningless because that should apply to basically every country that isn't currently an active warzone.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    I agree, socialism implies the use of undemocratic force and fiat to redistribute wealth and has killed 100 million people over the past century, in fact,  the term "democratic socialism" has been used by various dictators such as mao, Fidel Castro, and Lenin
    The 100 million figure comes form the Black Book of Communism, an anti-communist book, which some of the authors once they saw what was published, declared to have been biased and very misleading with the aim of coming up with a high figure regardless of the facts. An additional problem is that when you apply their criteria to Capitalist countries, it turns out Capitalist countries kill even more than Communist ones.

    Also please look up what democratic socialism is before trying to argue against it. It's a specific form of socialism that stands as a contrast and alternative to that practised by Castro, Mao, etc. Regardless of whether someone tries to latch on to a word to give themselves a veneer of respectability that we obviously ignore ("Oh no, north Korea is democratic so obviously democracy is awful!!!!"), them simply talking about democratic socialism (which you haven't in any way supported) does not mean they practised democratic socialism.
    Your have not effectively addressed my argument, which is herb democratic socialism is non existent, as socialism implies the use of undemocratic force whether that force is voted for or not. If you think differently I ask you to then define democratic socialism in a Way that refutes my argument

    You also stated that’s capitalist countries kill More than communists oneself and attempted to dispute my statistic, however your only rebuttal was that’s it came from Anti communist source. I would also like to see the statistic of capitalism slaughtering people by the millions.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 329 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    MayCaesar said:
    This question really comes down to the individual systems of values. I personally am in favor of a libertarian system and laissez-faire capitalism, because among my highest priorities for the government I want to manage the land I live on are:
    1. Respect for individual freedoms and rights.
    2. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
    3. Incentives for a willful personal growth.
    People supporting democratic socialism instead tend to have other priorities on top of their list:
    1. High level of social security.
    2. Wealth distribution according to needs and not desires.
    3. Leveling of the initial conditions of the playing field.
    People opposing this (including me) tend to see the measures required to achieve these goals as excessively authoritarian and infringing on our individual rights and interests. People opposing laissez-faire libertarian capitalism, on the other hand, disapprove of how hard it hits the initially more disadvantaged groups and how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the upper classes. Which group is right? I don't think it is a valid question.

    I think the best of both worlds is to have democratic states of both leanings, so every individual could choose where they want to live and move there, so everybody lives in the system they personally prefer.
    I think a lot of people would disagree with your idea of what each system represents and you certainly don't seem to be assessing the core issues. While there is likely to be a high level of social security and welfare due to the egalitarian aims of socialism, there is actually nothing in the ideology that states that will be the case, just like you can have typical mixed-market capitalist societies with a high level of welfare and social security (E.g. the Nordic countries).

    In others you just seem to not understand the ideology. "To each according to his contribution" is one of the defining characteristics of socialism, not "To each according to his need" which is communism.

    I'd also mention socialists would certainly disagree with point 3 and probably points 1 and 2 of your Capitalist advantages to. The primary rationale of socialism is to free the proletariat from the ordinary shackles of wage labour and give them a more equal measure of their labour - allowing them greater ability to self-actualise.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    Likewise, just saying that something isn't right doesn't mean it isn't right.

    Democratic socialism is a specific sub-type of Communism, in the same way Laissez Faire Capitalism and Social Democratic Capitalism are just two of several distinct types of Capitalism. If you have specific complaints then you can raise them. Democratic Socliamism doesn't even seem to require taking things that don't belong to you - unless you care to actually back up your claims with some kind of logic.

    Sweden has one of the highest qualities of life in the world and the nordic countries are typically ranked as having the happiest citizens on earth.. if they are scaring off businesses as you claim (with no evidence) and still doing very well by the kind of metrics that countries must be judged, that just goes to show how needless and backwards it is to sacrifice the well-being of your country to try and appease a minority of rich businessmen,

    Also I'd argue Capitalism is FAR more destructive than Socialism. Has there even been a single Capitalist society that hasn't traded in death in a massive scale?.

    Also generally the quality of life in every country has risen over time if you look at a large enough scale thanks to technological developments, infrastructure being built. The quality of life in Cuba has improved over time for instance. The quality of life in China has improved. Saying "Over several decades the quality of life in country X has improved" is essentially meaningless because that should apply to basically every country that isn't currently an active warzone.

    First off, "Democratic socialism" is just socialism. Just slapping the word Democratic in front of something doesn't make it right. Just because you vote to take something that doesn't belong to you doesn't grant you moral justification for doing so. Socialism throughout history has wrought nothing but destruction. Even in modern countries that practice what I call "Socialism Lite" the tax rate is so high that many businesses flee the country as is what happened in Sweden. Laissez Faire capitalism has developed the strongest economies ever. In the United States the quality of life has increased steadily even after some demographics taking a hit after Lyndon B.Johnson's great society and its government programs. 
    I agree, socialism implies the use of undemocratic force and fiat to redistribute wealth and has killed 100 million people over the past century, in fact,  the term "democratic socialism" has been used by various dictators such as mao, Fidel Castro, and Lenin
    The 100 million figure comes form the Black Book of Communism, an anti-communist book, which some of the authors once they saw what was published, declared to have been biased and very misleading with the aim of coming up with a high figure regardless of the facts. An additional problem is that when you apply their criteria to Capitalist countries, it turns out Capitalist countries kill even more than Communist ones.

    Also please look up what democratic socialism is before trying to argue against it. It's a specific form of socialism that stands as a contrast and alternative to that practised by Castro, Mao, etc. Regardless of whether someone tries to latch on to a word to give themselves a veneer of respectability that we obviously ignore ("Oh no, north Korea is democratic so obviously democracy is awful!!!!"), them simply talking about democratic socialism (which you haven't in any way supported) does not mean they practised democratic socialism.
    Your have not effectively addressed my argument, which is herb democratic socialism is non existent, as socialism implies the use of undemocratic force whether that force is voted for or not. If you think differently I ask you to then define democratic socialism in a Way that refutes my argument

    You also stated that’s capitalist countries kill More than communists oneself and attempted to dispute my statistic, however your only rebuttal was that’s it came from Anti communist source. I would also like to see the statistic of capitalism slaughtering people by the millions.
    You haven't made an argument, you've merely made claims without any support or evidence. If you want me to respond to them you have to actually make them first - that's the onus of proof in a debate. If someone disagrees with your claims you need to back them up. So I disagree with your claims and you need to back them up before you can respond, otherwise I can dismiss your entire argument with "You have offered no proof to support your position."

    That's the basis of why you challenging me on my Capitalist countries killing more than Communist ones is fair game too, I made that claim so I need to defend it. Once I have done then if you still disagree you've got to give a rebuttal as to why.

    There are two analyses for why Capitalist countries kill more.

    1) The never-ending annual and needless deaths of millions of people. We produce enough good to feed the world. We have medicine and equipment that protects people from a variety of diseases in impoverished countries. Capitalist is the global economic system in use for distributing goods - and it distributes these commodities in a way which causes millions of needless deaths each year. For instance about 3.1 million children die from hunger every year. Not people, that's just specifically children.

    It's an abominable death toll and what makes it worse is that it seems intrinsic to Capitalism. You can point the finger at Stalin and Mao, but the thing is their successors didn't have their own versions of the Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward - they were issues with the leaders rather than the economic system and Capitalism is just as capable of having despotic killers in charge.

    The deaths caused by Capitalism however seem intrinsic. There is not a single day that goes by where people aren't dying because the issue isn't caused by a single cackling villain that has found his way into power, it's market forces causing an array of different actors to make decisions which personally benefit themselves but cause mass death in combination. For instance people want to use food produce to create expensive manufactured foods that can be sold at higher prices in the west, not staple foods for sale in poor countries, so even though we could feed everyone in the world we instead let them die.

    2) Communist nations have tended to see massive gains in areas like health, life expectancy and industrialisation. If you look at the work of nobel prize winner in economics Amartya Sen, it's worth taking note of his comparison of China and India. There are a lot of different factors which make direct country by country comparisons hard, but Sen found a way around this by comparing India and China. In the 1950s India and China they were remarkable similar in terms of development (large, poor, rural, geographically neighbours, high populations, poor industry, etc). They developed incredibly differently in terms of the economics they applied though and while China went Socialist, India went Capitalist

    As Sen explained in Hunger and Public Action, this example where the countries were directly comparable and thus we could be allowed to see the difference ideology caused. In fact it showed that Capitalism was far more harmful and resulted in far more unnecessary deaths. To quote:

    " Comparing India's death rate of 12 per thousand with China's of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year"

    Essentially because India focuses on people making private profit rather than social benefit, millions of people needlessly die each year in India alone.

    I'll also point out that this at 3.9 million needless deaths per year since independence, more deaths have been caused by the inequality of India's economic system alone, not even taking into account other Capitalist countries, than by all the deaths attributed to every Communist state in the entire history of the world according to you.

    Even with the massive amount of deaths in China during the "Great Leap Forward", India still is responsible for more needless death overall because other than that 3 year period China's socialist focus on improving the lives of the poor and providing adequate health care to all as a social necessity - rather than a profit making business - helped vast amount of people who would have died in India. This results in India, the capitalist example in our comparison of two different countries going down two different routes, being responsible for a greater net loss of lives.
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