The Instigator
perfectayo1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJK
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Do you think that if every human being earned the same payroll every year, there wouldn't be wars?

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...
MrJK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 843 times Debate No: 38853
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

perfectayo1

Pro

Ok, now I have taken this question from another debate. The debate I have taken this question from implied that "We human beings will be better off (live peacefully) if we did not have a government." That idea is very debatable and I am against having a government because having a government (and I am speaking about the governments around the world) has caused the deaths of millions of people, and is the center reason of all the issues happening to humanity in this present day. However, if today, we were to put a stop to the government, then there will be chaos. There will be one person with an idea, and another person with a conflicting idea which if not settled by a middle man (our government), it will result to violence. So, I am thinking that the best way to maintain peace in this world today, is if everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of what their occupation is whether carpenter, president, actor, basketball player etc. I will like to know what you think?
MrJK

Con

"the best way to maintain peace in this world today, is if everyone earns the same amount of money regardless of what their occupation is whether carpenter, president, actor, basketball player etc. I will like to know what you think?"


My first thought is that you may need to elaborate on your idea. Instead of disagreeing with or attacking your stance, I'll ask you some obvious questions and see how you respond, maybe an interesting discussion will develop on these points.


Q 1) Who owns the banks in this world?

Q 2) What is afforded to those without employment?

Q 3) How does trade work?

Q 4) Can money be inherited in this world? Can it be saved? Can it be loaned?

Q 5) In this world, what are the incentives to progress?

Q 6) In this world, what is the disincentive in regard to greed?
Debate Round No. 1
perfectayo1

Pro

Q 1) The banks in this world are own by wealthy people who are taxed by our government. Q 2) (I need you to be specific with this question, what is afforded to those in the U.S. without employment is different from what is afforded to those in other countries) Q 3) when someone exchange some of their home countries currency for another and endure the current currency exchange rate.Q 4) Yes to all of the above.Q 5) (Again I need you to be more specific, due to the fact that we only have 1000 characters). Q 6) (I also need you to be more clear on this as well).
The government are held responsible for many lives that have been lost (World War I and World War II). The Greeks created the government which was passed down to us. Now, we have no choice but to keep the government to maintain law and order. Money is the root of all evil, and the only way there will be peace among the human race, is only if we all earned the same amount of money whether working in the government or not.
MrJK

Con

I have tried to refine or give examples for my original questions in order to avoid confusion - if the word limit is too restrictive pick one or two to discuss.

1)
By wealthy, I must assume you mean they are afforded more wealth than others, thereby negating your proposal.

2) In your world, do you offer those who have no employment this equal wage also (the unemployed, the sick, students, the elderly etc)?

3) I was referring to general trade of goods (ie within communities) Are there limits on what can be bought/sold and for what price? For example, How do you build a business without capital?

4) In that case, you allow for financial inequality, for example, one person may inherit great wealth while another will inherit nothing thus negating the purpose of equal pay.

5) If studying for 9 years will land a job that will pay only as much as someone who has studied for 1 year, what incentive is there to study for 9 years?

6) How do you stop people from desiring to have more than others?




















Debate Round No. 2
perfectayo1

Pro

I am sorry but I think you are not understanding me (my apologies for that), non-of the questions listed above have anything to do with the original question, "Do you think that if every human being earned the same payroll every year, there wouldn't be wars?." Question six we are going somewhere with that "6) How do you stop people from desiring to have more than others?," You stop people from desiring to have more than others by giving equal pay to every working citizen regardless of what their occupation is. Meaning we do a restart, everyone who is wealthy pay their money to the government, the government splits it among the citizens, we all start from fresh. If we all have the same amount of money, the government itself will do it's job properly. This whole idea is for peace. Because most of the violence that is going on in the world today is caused by money. Money always has something to do with it. In order to avoid violence, establish the same pay for every working citizen.
MrJK

Con

My questions illustrate some problems with your idea.

You answered the first question by stating that the banks would be owned by 'wealthy people'. In order to distinguish a person of wealth you must have people with less wealth, that is, you must have inequality.

My point with question 4 is that if you are allowed to save and inherit your money then one mans grandchild can be born into wealth and another's born into relative poverty.

This follows to question 6, because if we can imagine that within three generations there is a great amount of variation in peoples wealth (despite receiving equal pay) how is that society any different from the one we have?

Imagine, all I can ever earn is 20k a year, same as everybody else no matter how hard I work or how much I can offer the world. But I meet someone who inherited 600k from his grandfather because since the 'equal wage' began, his family saved and save and saved.

Would I feel that this was fair? Why would I not try to steal his wealth?
Debate Round No. 3
perfectayo1

Pro

You made some great great points. I understand where you are heading at. And I know, not many people will agree with this idea of sacrificing their wealth to create "equal wealth" to all, in order to generate peace among us. You made a point about money being inherited by one person, and the other person wanting the money of the inherited. If the money inherited by person A was split even between person A and B their wouldn't be any more wanting, you understand? I know that having the equal amount of money wouldn't be the solution to all problems, but it will, for sure, eliminate 90% of most problems. We, people already inherited what was passed down to us, the government, social class, wealthy, poor, etc. However the question is to make a better world for every human being on it, will the wealthy (human beings) sacrifice their money, to create peace among their brothers and sisters? We have a system that was passed down to us, but, do we (human beings) care enough to change it?
MrJK

Con

"not many people will agree with this idea of sacrificing their wealth"

"If the money inherited by person A was split even between person A and B their wouldn't be any more wanting"


Your first statement contradicts the second.


Why would person A want to give up the money his family had worked so hard to provide to him?

The problem is that it seems that in many cases you (or the state) would have to force people to share.

If you set one wage that applies to everybody, does this mean that you necessarily have to impose other 'equalities'?

No inheritances, no sharing/collecting finances.

No bank balance above X

Only X amount of children per household.


It is beginning to sound like this world would not be very 'free' or 'peaceful' ...
Debate Round No. 4
perfectayo1

Pro

"Not every one will see it my way" however, you will be surprised, if you see how many humane people exist in our world today i.e. Brad Pit, Denzel Washington, groups, etc. On CNN it was this one billionaire who lived in Italy who for no apparent reason split all of his money with his fellow citizens. AND THERE ARE MANY GREAT THINGS WE HUMAN BEINGS ARE DOING THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CAPTURED BY THE EYE OF THE MEDIA.
There was this village somewhere in the world (I am speaking from memory, but I will research it and give you the source)., in the village (it is a growing village by the way), there isn't any class distinction, no government, no hierarchy, and everyone lives peacefully. They said freedom for slaves will never happen, but then Martin Luther King, and many others arouse, and it was changed. I BELIEVE IN OUR HUMAN RACE, THERE WILL BE CHANGE!
I am not forcing my ideas to any ones head, all I am saying is, see this my way and let me know what you think how it makes feel if anything.
MrJK

Con

Unfortunately, pro has not managed to address any of the questions or criticisms I have presented.

Pro has offered no support for his argument.

I suspect that pro is aiming in the right direction however it has to be considered where walking blindly down the road paved with good intentions leads us.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
It isn't a statement I would find much argument with, but once I have finished the 2 or 3 debates I've agreed to I will get back to you.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
MrJK, I am willing to take the Pro position in a debate titled "All people are naturally greedy, arrogant and selfish and this is why we require a society with sensible laws and firm punitive consequences."

I'm up for this if you are.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@Juan:

Thanks for voting.

I'm wondering if you'd have an interest in debating (as pro) me on any the following :

"Do you think that if every human being earned the same payroll every year, there wouldn't be wars?"

"God is a strong factor in what is labeled as social human progress."

"God uses fear and incredible loss to get naughty people to behave"
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
This was an interesting debate. I actually disagree with Pro's premise that humans don't require a government. I think government is more crucial to the stability of human populations than many currently realize.

I also believe that a multitude of factors account for human progress. These factors can include the fear of death, chaos, and war. Additionally, I'm of the opinion that God is a strong factor in what is labeled as social human progress. I do believe God uses fear and incredible loss to get naughty people to behave.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
perfectayo1MrJKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was "Do you think that if every human being earned the same payroll every year, there wouldn't be wars?" Con showed that this would be difficult to obtain and that even if it were each individual is associated with a set of circumstances that places different financial burdens on him. No sources were provided by either debater. Ultimately I concluded that wars would be greatly diminished if everyone had an equal income, but not completely eliminated. Pro didn't reply to all of Con's conditions, but that really wasn't the debate. I declared this debate a tie! (Now, personally I'm not endorsing the resolution, but I do believe income inequality should be significantly narrowed.)
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
perfectayo1MrJKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Defeating really silly ideas is not as easy as it seems. Con's Q&A approach showed the inherent contradictions in the idea. without incentives, the only salary at which economic equality is achievable is when everyone has nothing. BTW, people are inherently tribal and that yields a survival advantage. Take away government and in a short while it naturally reappears.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
perfectayo1MrJKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was completely refuted given that the economic differences wouldn't just be quenched with equal wages. Most of Con's refutations seemed to woosh past his head.