The Instigator
Aurelio
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Establish socialism in small town cities

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 81165
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Aurelio

Pro

capitalism is a bad form to run by it corrupts the mind of the youth also the social order which they place people in to by the product with out putting in money to generate better means of living condition.
lannan13

Con

I accept.

You may now begin your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Aurelio

Pro

Non profit or privately own companies don't profit the community or meet the rights of the city due to policy guidelines they follow by.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives

P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care.

""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]

According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.

“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]

We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3]

Contention 2: Individualism and the hard work.

There is no greater arguer of individualism than Alexis de Tocqueville who defines Individualism as fallows (yes I still accept Pro's definition, but this is part of my argument):

“a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself." (Translation by Lawrence, George (1969). Perennial Classics. Quotations are from Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 2-4. Page 506)

He later argues in his novel that America (in the 1800s) is great for it's individualism as we are willing to risk all of our personal fortunes and earning to take a chance in buisness or the great wilderness of the American fronteer. Unlike Europe at the time where people only past down land to the oldest in the family and that was it, in the US people took chances and defied society's discouragement to take chances to better the economy and better the world as expected by you in a democratic society.

As social equality spreads there are more and more people who, though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained and kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine their whole destiny is in their own hands” (Same source as above page 508).

Tocqueville argues that this is necessary to be individualistic in order to maintain an independence and not being able to have to expect society to have to support you Ralph Waldo Emmerson agrees with this theory in his essay Self-Reliance, where he argues that it is the upmost importance that one must live by their own instint, because it is important that one stays independent. He also goes on to argue that one growth is dettermined by their independence from society and that one's own abilities to choose for one's self and make your own decissions make it important.

The system my opponent is purposing is a form of price Control and price controls can harm a buisness for one of two reasons.

1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness.
2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. [4]

Many people state the rising premiums is due to the collusion of the private industry, but one can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more. [5] Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the health care if you nationalize it.

Sources
1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. ( Commanding Heights the Battle for the World Economy. 2004.)
5. Paul, Rand. Taking a Stand. N.p.: Center Street, n.d. Print.

Debate Round No. 2
Aurelio

Pro

http://www.dsausa.org.... Now in my own words.

Capitalism control the markets and setting the prices of goods and services. Creating a class struggle of man as while creating a social order run by capitalism so people can buy means of goods and services also creating poverty.

People see them as bad because their economic theory is based on self-interest. Even thought I am an unrepentant capitalist, I totally agree many people who are capitalist are not good moral humans and lack love and compassion. Further, many are just plain jerks and think this economic system is some new-found religion and are rigid in their thinking.

The rich are stereotyped as greedy and heartless because of large amount of earnings they make and yet no clear value to society. They are almost seen as parasites off the sweat of others. However, this is where people get confused. Capitalism itself is not bad, nor are all capitalist. Capitalism is good. People confuse capitalism with corporate America and do no consider the alternative socialism for what it is, fake.

Jealously is the cause of people thinking capitalism is bad, not compassion

People think capitalist lack compassion and an alternative system like socialism will bring more peace and justice to the world. In fact people think they are better people just believing in anti-capitalism. Wrong. The real poverty in the USA is a spiritual poverty, not material poverty. The poor in America would be the super rich in most places in the world. If you think capitalism is wrong, live in a post-communist country for a few years.

(Posted on in Economics)n14;A039;

There is a saying. Who evere controls the market controls the world. And that being sayed you have the means to control the people as while meaning there is no such thing as freedom or expression of man, women or child meaning they have no indvialism or self thought just what you teach them of your ways to buy your goods and services to stay wealthy.
lannan13

Con

My opponent had plagerized his argument from this source. (http://political-economy.com...)

He has also dropped all of my arguments of which I extend across the board.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Whatever floats your boat. You know Communism is so great that people build boats to get away from it and walls to keep people from leaving. Sounds swell.
Posted by Aurelio 1 year ago
Aurelio
And your source is based on plagiarized your belief on a philosopher based on ideas that left millions to starve of left dead
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
Aureliolannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism. Nevertheless con has a much stronger argument.
Vote Placed by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
Aureliolannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off using infantile grammar and thus did not adequately present an argument in the first two rounds. In the third (and final) round he proved his whole argument false, explaining why capitalism works best and why people who despise it are only jealous. Con provided better sources and had a clearer, more concise argument that actually represented his views, unlike Pro. There is not a doubt in my mind that Con has lost this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Aureliolannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism results in the loss of conduct and it makes arguments extremely weak. Since Con provided sources for his arguments and Pro did not provide a link to his plagiarized source Pro loses the debate.