The Instigator
Awsome42
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Currency

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Rezzealaux
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,099 times Debate No: 9518
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (3)

 

Awsome42

Pro

I have been dwelling on this for a long time now but I think its time to bring my argument to the people. My argument is as follows:

There should be no such thing as currency everywhere around the world. No currency, no barter system. Everyone acts on good will. I'm not saying "revert back to savages" I'm saying, if we got rid of currency the world would be a better place. No longer would someone have to steal for food. They could go out and get the food for nothing! Even if its not food that the person is after. Say they want a new gaming system. Who is to stop them? The person would not have to steal money for this new gaming system, they would simply go out and get it.

Tell me what you think about this new topic because I sure have!
Rezzealaux

Con

The first time currency as we know it today saw usage was many millennia ago, when people started using it in place of the barter system. In a barter system, a person that wanted to get some apples and had some eggs to offer would have to go around to his neighbors and find a person that wanted eggs and also had apples up for trade. However, this system was not particularly efficient as a person would have to find those coincidences in order to have a trade. Thus, the currency was created – it symbolized value, value which could be used between consenting participants in order to cut down on the transaction cost of finding those coincidences. It also showed the market, or in other words, the society's general opinion on the value of each good in relative to each other.

Today, we also know that prices, or the amount of currency required to obtain a certain product, are also indicators of the supply and demand in any given geographical region. Prices notify the suppliers where to go and try to sell their products. If there is a high price for a product in a certain area, not only will there be the profit motive for sellers to move there or for people to become suppliers, but it also indicates that people are willing to pay that high price – that is, there is a high demand for that good or service. There are many parts and things to explain in order to completely describe the supply and demand curves and this isn't exactly and economics class, but the main idea I'm drawing from here is that prices are indicators of supply and demand.

Prices are what "regulate" the distribution of goods.

The topic of this debate is currency, and my opponent is of the position that currency should no longer be used, in favor of an goodwill system of distribution. The core of any economic system is the allocation of limited goods and services: that is, the more efficient the allocation, the better the economic system. I am of the opinion that this goodwill system will not work, or in other words, is horribly incompetent in comparison to capitalism:

Assuming for the moment that everyone accepts this goodwill system, it could not possibly hold up for long. Since there is no price system, there will be constant shortages and surpluses. Without prices to indicate where which resources need to be allocated, no area would enough of what it demands, and some would get more than they did demand. When there are shortages no price system, what inevitably happens is long queue lines, as with the Great Depression soup kitchens, the Stalin bread lines, or pretty much any of the Red Cross aid programs in third world countries. Perhaps the system does get some goods to people, but 1) it's horribly inefficient in comparison to the price system, making it undesirable. On top of that, 2) those stockpiles were only made possible through a capitalist system: soup kitchens and the Red Cross still had to buy their supplies, and even Stalin had to buy things from the world market. These inefficiencies were made possible by the more efficient capitalist system. Is it even possible to have such stockpiles if the entire system was that inefficient? Would there be that many syringes, soup, and bread? Would there be enough plastic to make those syringes, or cans to contain the soup base, or wheat to make bread? Would there be enough machines to make those syringes, cans, or harvest wheat? Would there be enough steel to make those machines? Labor to mine enough iron? Energy to heat up the iron? Etc. etc. etc...

I can't particularly show it since the world system is so complex, but if we apply the theory consistently, that shortages and surpluses would happen constantly in every market, I think it's pretty clear it wouldn't work for long (and the fact that it'd work at all for any period of time would simply be due to the leftovers of efficiency from the capitalism that preceded it).

There are several other things I could get into, but this goodwill system does not pass even the first and most fundamental test of economic systems (the efficiency of distribution). The international market we see today would probably fail completely if we changed to a mercantilist or a barter system; it relies on the efficiency of capitalism. If a goodwill system is not at least as efficient as the semi-capitalist system we have today, there is no reason we should adopt it.

And it is not.
(And if it is, at the very least, my opponent has not shown it to be so.)

There's one more point in my opponent's case that I didn't get to above, and I'm not sure if this was a major point he was trying to make, but he mentioned how this goodwill system would eliminate stealing. "No longer would someone have to steal for food." "The person would not have to steal money for this new gaming system[…]". I do not particularly understand this. I don't have to steal for food. My parents don't have to steal for food. Neither does anyone I know, nor their parents. They all work for money, which in turn buys food. I get the feeling that this "no more stealing" concept was intended as a rebuttal towards currency, but I'm not sure how that works. I would like an extrapolation from my opponent.

__________________

That'll be it for openers.
Debate Round No. 1
Awsome42

Pro

Awsome42 forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux

Con

Rezzealaux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Awsome42

Pro

Awsome42 forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux

Con

I refuted all the opening points my opponent made in R1, and he did not come back and respond to my refutations.

Ergo, I win.

(Major disappointments for lack of debate.)
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Oh nonexistent god I wish I'd seen this before so much awesome drama.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Sources would warrant more points for CON. CON gets 4 points: ARGS and CONDUCT.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Wow; this has taken a turn for the vicious.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
*C'est la vie.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
What a mess that was, this comment system really is pathetic.

But, that is your choice, Sergeant. You can dismiss me as a propagandist, which is probably what I am; I am a politician, after all. My heroes are politicians, and being a representative in my Parliament is what I aspire to be one day - so maybe I am full of bullsh*t.

But, I also aspire to be someone that holds these politicians accountable, because I believe there is too much corruption going on, and politicians aren't doing their job as people there to serve us, to co-operate and protect our rights. I've found similar tenets flowing through my "statist" politics here in Canada, because we know things have to be improved.

Because, like you with your doubts about Molyneaux, or maybe reserved admiration for his ideas, I've learned that there can be many faults and many things yet to be learned about, and solutions figured out.

How do I propose getting our guns back? I don't know; I prefer not to, because that isn't me. I do know that after 140 years of existence as a nation, and almost 400 years as a European colony, and God knows how many years with Aboriginal societies, that Canada has survived without the need for major armed conflicts. We have settled and worked our way through history, unlike the United States; I prefer my Canadian model over the US model.

You, as an American, believe that the way to overthrow oppression and correct government injustice is through violence - whether it is the cancellation of the government's monopoly on violence, or just outright revolution. That is, really, the way US culture has grown, and I'm not American. I have a different culture.

So I don't know how to get your guns back, but I know the problem you're addressing, and I even think you're correct sometimes. I don't think you're going about it right, but that doesn't mean that you're a propagandist, or an idiot.

I like your ideas, and it is a shame you won't share with me anymore.

But, c
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Okay f*ck this sh*t. I had two parts and that was the second part, but I don't have the patience right now to reconvert and all that jazz.

SHORT VERSION

Volkov, I can't stand you. Perhaps your points have merit, but I hate your presentation. All of it. I won't tell you exactly what I think you are, but I don't like you. At all. Zero. No, it's negative. Perhaps there is someone else out there that can deliver your points in a better way and then I'll be more receptive, but I think you are just full of bullsh!t. I had typed out responses to you, but now that I've been rejected by this comments system, I've decided that it's not worth reconverting it for you anyways. I don't think you're worth talking to on the subject of anarchism. Simple as that. Go to R_R or someone else. I am done with you.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
To be honest I think the notion of taking the guns away from the government is a pure fantasy, but I’m tired of arguing that point. Would you like to show me how you’d take your guns back from the government if you no longer supported it? I mean, hypothetically. How would you do it?

I’m not even going to respond to the representative democracy one. I’d like to think I’m pretty tolerant, but there are some things I won’t do. Your whole thing and method about changing the system and that if we’re complaining we’re not trying, I know I haven’t argued this or proved this, but really, I think you’re full of f*cking bullsh*t. You’re just full of propaganda.

My aim is not to “convert” everyone to anarchism. I don’t particularly like him anymore, but Stefan Molyneux does have some good points, and one of the things he said once was that voluntarists have a monumental task and a very short lifetime in which to do their work. I agree with him: we simply don’t have the time to talk with everybody. He uses a metaphor about a battlefield sergeant, who has to be able to decide who’s going to live, as in who he’ll try and give covering fire and support or whatever for, and who’s going to die. He can’t save all of them; he doesn’t have that ability. I don’t have the ability to sit down and talk with everybody about anarchism. I’m going to have to decide, due of my limited time and energy, who to discuss anarchism with and who to not discuss anarchism with. Who is worth my time and energy? Who is it going to be worthwhile discussing anarchism with? Who might I “convert” (for lack of another word), or who might I learn about the faults of anarchism from?

You’re not in either of those categories.

I’m the battlefield sergeaent, and I’m about to decide that you’re a dead man walking.

Perhaps R_R thinks you&
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
MOTHER F*CKING I HATE THIS COMMENT SYSTEM

let me do all caps GOD DAMIT F*CKING BITCHES
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
To be honest I think the notion of taking the guns away from the government is a pure fantasy, but I’m tired of arguing that point. Would you like to show me how you’d take your guns back from the government if you no longer supported it? I mean, hypothetically. How would you do it?

I’m not even going to respond to the representative democracy one. I’d like to think I’m pretty tolerant, but there are some things I won’t do. Your whole thing and method about changing the system and that if we’re complaining we’re not trying, I know I haven’t argued this or proved this, but really, I think you’re full of f*cking bullsh*t. You’re just full of propaganda.

My aim is not to “convert” everyone to anarchism. I don’t particularly like him anymore, but Stefan Molyneux does have some good points, and one of the things he said once was that voluntarists have a monumental task and a very short lifetime in which to do their work. I agree with him: we simply don’t have the time to talk with everybody. He uses a metaphor about a battlefield sergeant, who has to be able to decide who’s going to live, as in who he’ll try and give covering fire and support or whatever for, and who’s going to die. He can’t save all of them; he doesn’t have that ability. I don’t have the ability to sit down and talk with everybody about anarchism. I’m going to have to decide, due of my limited time and energy, who to discuss anarchism with and who to not discuss anarchism with. Who is worth my time and energy? Who is it going to be worthwhile discussing anarchism with? Who might I “convert” (for lack of another word), or who might I learn about the faults of anarchism from?

I’m the battlefield sergeaent, and I’m about to decide that you’re a dead man walking.

Perhaps R_R thinks you’re not dead and are worth trying to save, or
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
The government does not take away the ability to "do basically anything you want regardless of the others around you", it just centralizes it and makes it exponentially more deadly.

Irrelevant what things are designed to do if the design does not meet the purpose.

You always come back to that monopoly on violence argument, which I don't know enough about to really refute, though regebro apparently does.

But anyways, sure you can climb the fence and set fire to your neighbor's house. But that neighbor can't then turn around you murder you; they can't blame you right away without fair trial, and that isn't guaranteed in an anarchist society; they could basically do anything to you, and they would have all the justification in the world - even if it is false justification.

With a government, your neighbor's right to justice is balanced by your right to fair trial and treatment. Does it complicate matters, and even seem unfair? Sure; but both sides have their rights guaranteed, and violence can be avoided. The neighbor can force restitution out of you and have you face justice, but you don't have to do either if you're proven not to be guilty; would you prefer if the neighbor was allowed to decide right away? Just kill you on the spot, even if you did nothing?

Governments have centralized power, and I see nothing wrong with that. But our liberal democracies mean that centralized power is still in the hands of individuals responsible for giving them the keys - and can just as easily take them away.

That is the power of representative democracy - the power is in the hands of the individuals, and if we don't like what is going on, we'll make sure whoever made those changes gets out and those that will follow what we want will get in.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Awsome42RezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Awsome42RezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Awsome42RezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07