The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

America Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless It Nationalizes Housing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 98173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




At the time of writing of the this debate argument, America is 20 Trillion in debt to foreigners. That means you and everyone in your family, including your children, owes $60,000 dollars to the rest of the world. And you thought you were paying for things when you left the store. This debt occurs when America imports more than it exports. Many of these imports will end up in the landfill in a few years. What are the foreigners trading them for? They are traded for American land, American rental properties and American corporations-things that hold value far longer than that heap of high-tech we are putting in the landfill. The solution to this is to begin making our own products. But, the cost of doing business in America is too high they say. The cost of doing business is not practical because the high cost of living in America. If an American has high costs, they must have high wages. High wages bring up the cost of the product. All things considered, Americans have the highest cost of living. Until America lowers its cost of living, it cannot be made great again.

In order for America to make its own product at a competitive price we must bring down our cost of living. We cannot subsidize our way out. We cannot drill our way out. We cannot bomb our way out. We cannot diet our way out. We cannot Prius our way out. We cannot tariff our way out. We cannot deal our way out. But...

We can lower our cost of living out!

Common sense tells us that the most signficant and effective way to lower our cost of living is to lower the most expensive bills we Americans have: Housing and transportation.

The nationalist approach I suggest below will lowering the cost of living of the average American more than any other approach and bring the highest potential to make America Great Again.

1. All residential rentals become nationalized.
- Each person will receive credit for equity based on all the rent they have paid over their lives minus the management and development costs.
- The equity may be applied to any housing in America at any time as long as the unit is empty and the cost of the unit is equal or less than the person's equity.
- Equity is nationalized and cannot be traded or liquidated. Never a homeless American again. Never an American swindled out of their home. Never an American in a slave rental contract again.
- Development, tax, and management costs will take the place of the conventional parasitic rent contract (property is communistically paid for over and over by the renters).

This new housing bill which is now only development, tax and management costs is lower, which lowers the cost of living. And, instead of housing development costs going in thousands of anarchistic ways, they become centralized for the next step.

2. Develop 3D printed smart cities.

- Nationalized housing development is contracted out to Americans to build 3D printed smart cities.
- 3D printed smart cities engineered to make transportation more efficient than it is now.
- 3D printed development will lower the cost of commercial, industrial and residential development because it can be done in half the time and at half the cost.

This will result in attracting white-collar and blue-collar development because of lower costs for building in the city. Taxes will be lower as well because of the efficiency of the city. Those who live in the cities have the opportunity to have more money at the end of the paycheck, yet consume less due to the overall infrastructural savings.

This naturally will make manufacturing feasible in these cities leading us to the next nationalist step.

3. Bring home the jobs.

Because a smart city costs less, the wage is lowered without lowering an Americans quality of life and this results in a product that is more affordable for Americans and easier to sell on the international market.

Investment and Growth Opportunities Increase
3D printed smart cities use less energy. This means the excess amount needed now to power the existing infrastructure in an inefficient way could be applied to many things that now are impossible, such as increased spending in disease cures, military, etc. Smart cities bring the highest potential for the most powerful military possible.

We cannot ignore our quality of life when these changes are made. Quality of life must always be in mind when making all these changes. Countries that have too low of quality of life unionize and force the inevitable: a better quality of life. Who ever creates the sweet spot, the perfect balance between lowest cost of living and great quality of life will have the best competitive advantage in world trade. 3D printed smart nationalist cities hold the most promise. Everyone owns! Everyone saves! Subsidized housing taxing disappears, welfare is far less necessary (the lion's share goes to rent), etc., etc.

Private developers will never be able to centralize an amount of money that nationalizing housing could for developing 3D printed smart cities that are necessary to make the cost of doing business in America feasible once again. America cannot be made great again unless we lower the cost of living. Lowing the cost of living to a point that makes America competitive cannot happen unless we nationalize housing and build the 3D printed cities which will make things again, which means the 'make' in Make American Great Again really means what it means. We gotta make it!


So you want to steal all of the houses in America and give them out for free? Intresting plan.
Debate Round No. 1


Stealing means you take someone else's property without the intention of returning it. This is exactly what the current rental contract does - steals the renters property. I will prove it with the argument below.

In order for someone to own something, they must pay for it. The price of something is determined by the cost in which it takes to create. Those who are renting out the property say they are paying for the property and therefore are owners, but actually the ones who are paying for the property are the renters.

The renters pay for:
  • all the development costs
  • all the materials
  • all the labor
  • all the taxes
  • the vacancy rate
  • all the management costs
  • all the maintenance costs
  • and they pay for all the royalties that go to the pet projects of the landlord which are probably are non-sustainable projects that can’t float their own boat otherwise they would need the rent to do it, the projects would do it themselves. If they need venture capital that’s what the bank if for. People stuck into forced renting have no responsibility to fund these projects.

A real capitalist doesn’t need to enslave people, instead customers will voluntarily purchase their products.

The rental contract takes the efforts of the renters and put the landlord’s name on those efforts via putting the title of ownership in their name.

Renters have their minds controlled by a twisted psychology. This is the same slave psychology that subjugated African Americans in the days of slavery.

African Americans were under a false assumption - the belief their bodies were owned by whites. Renters are under a similar false assumption - renters believe their homes they have collectively paid for as a group are owned by a like minded despicable attitude as slave owners.

Blacks believed their efforts of picking cotton were actually owned by the slave owners. Blacks did the work and slave owners took the work and just wrote their name on it. This is no different than what the rental contract does. It's theft.

Back in the slave days we didn't call stealling blacks efforts theft because it was legal. Rent may be legal, but just like slavery was theft of human efforts, so is the rental contract.

Representing ownership by the ones who actually do the work is the truth. Do you remember this famous saying, The Truth Shall Set You Free? It helped set blacks free and it can set renters free!

If people want control of the country, they better start owning up to what they’ve done, because it’s being taken away by thieves every second.


Alright, renting is not stealing. Renters voluntarily pay to use someone elses house. Their houses reeally are some one elses.
Debate Round No. 2


I have already shown a proof that you are wrong on those two points.

Ownership requires you do the work for the object. Renters are doing that work, not the one who simply writes a rental contract. Stealing is taking that which is someone elses. Taking credit for someone's work is stealing. The renters do all the work for the housing, not the parasite with a contract and a pen.

Renters are not volunteering to pay rent. They are socio-economically forced into it. They are also brainwashed into believing they should pay rent vs getting their fair share of the equity they solely are responsible for, just like I showed you that slaves were brainwashed into believing they were owned and their efforts were not their own, so they didn't get credit for their work.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko

Parasitic contracts are destroying our country. Americans don't really want to be enslaved by foreigners through rental contracts. They don't really want their children enslaved for generations either. This requires the internal parasite be removed from the scenario as well, which simple means we give everyone credit for their investement in houseing. Everyone wins except the parasite!


What are you talking about? Stealing is defined as taking someone elses property without their permission, and renting does not fit that definition.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Hylian_3000// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both had good conduct S&G: No distracting spelling or grammar mistakes Arguments: I vote Pro because Con didn't address Pro's arguments well. Con only made super small arguments against Pro that didn't even address Pro's arguments. Arguing about whether or not it's "stealing" and how rent works does not pertain to the plan proposed. Sources: No sources were used Comments: What about people who own their own houses? Pro, you talk about equity based on rent paid, but you don't talk much about people who don't pay rent. That left me pretty confused about your proposed plan for most of the debate.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. The voter does so for Con, but fails to assess Pro"s arguments beyond questioning faults with his case. There must be a clear reason why Pro is winning, and not solely reasons why Con is losing.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
A tariff won't fix the problem, but surely it can help. The tarif is a subsidization fix, makes us pay more for our own product or meant to put us on a diet, or somthing along those lines. Consider America a machine. You have to make the whole thing more efficient to make a product at a competitive price. The biggest parts of it that consume the most energy are my focus: housing and transportation. A tariff is nearly insignficant when you consider what leverage we can create with housing and transporation changes.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
Or just put a fair tariff on imports.
No votes have been placed for this debate.