The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Losing
44 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,702 times Debate No: 3205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (22)

 

HandsOff

Pro

Supposing the federal government were stripped to a minimum and liberals had their own state (where they could impose their policies without constraint), I submit that most Americans would not want to live there. For the purposes of this debate let us assume said liberal state must compete with other non-liberal states in the union for population. Let us also assume there are no barriers to migration between states.

Firstly, liberals are nearly unanimous in their willingness to tax America's most productive citizens (i.e. the wealthy) to finance programs they want to provide to the rest of society. With this, it is safe to say that wealthy Americans would be wise to flea such a state or avoid seeking residency there in the first place.

Secondly, a state founded in unbridled liberalism would most certainly offer an abundance of attractive social programs to its citizens. Hence, it is likely that the least productive citizens from other states (which did not reward lack of productivity) would flock there in pursuit of these generous handouts. The added population on the part of generosity seekers would surely cause the state require any remaining wealthy citizens to pay even higher taxes, all the while creating a larger voting block of unproductive citizens who would rally in support of more social programs.

Once the wealthy citizens (including wealthy liberals) realized they had no choice but to leave the state to avoid financial ruin, the remaining middle and working-class families would be left to pay for an entire state of dependents. It wouldn't be long before they too opted to abandoned this socialist utopia in favor of a state that allowed them more control over their earnings (i.e. their time, i.e. their lives).
Kleptin

Con

I disagree.

When I first started reading what you described, I didn't imagine a normal population of liberals. I imagined a state full of hipsters, artists, and musicians. The liberals who flock there probably wouldn't be normal people that can be distinguished just by social class. Rather, they would be predominantly political-minded people, or pseudo politically-minded people like recent college graduates. Older liberals probably wouldn't move.

Undoubtedly, an entire state filled with liberals would be most enticing to groups like that and the state would eventually be quite popular. Interstate commerce would solve the rest of the problems you stated.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

Thanks Kleptin. Our first debate. We'll see how this goes.

"When I first started reading what you described, I didn't imagine a normal population of liberals. I imagined a state full of hipsters, artists, and musicians."

Age, lifestyle choices and personal interests would have very little to do with the hypothetical outcome I predicted in my opening argument. Liberals vary greatly in their education levels, interests, ages, etc. What they do not disagree on is abundant taxation, wealth distribution and legislated altruism in the form government services and entitlements.

"Older liberals probably wouldn't move."

Not sure if you meant TO or FROM the state. But again, age would have very little to do with it. The likelihood of financial survival would eclipse all other determinants in the decision to move to or from such a state.

"...an entire state filled with liberals would be most enticing to groups like that and the state would eventually be quite popular."

The idea of such a state would definitely be enticing. But in practice an overly generous state full of slackers would end in the scenario I described earlier. Once the welcomed parasites became too numerous and costly, the once-willing hosts would flee to avoid being devoured. Without the host, there is no nourishment. I honestly believe FEMA would eventually have to come in with food drops to save the libs from starvation. How enticing would that type of state really be?

"Interstate commerce would solve the rest of the problems you stated."

A state without revenue, industry or productive citizens would not be able to participate in much commerce, interstate or otherwise.
Kleptin

Con

I think we're envisioning this situation differently.

The way I see it, a new state has just been created in some part of America. It has a bunch of residences and buildings available for rent, for all sorts of purposes.

The thing is, only liberals are allowed to move there. The state is currently empty.

Now, I think about who might move there.

The town would most likely be populated by young graduates of liberal arts schools who are currently unemployed, have a bit of money, and are looking to settle down.

Knowing that a Liberals-only state has just opened up, they would undoubtedly flock there.

Soon, you'll have a steady population of 20-30 year old liberals who are living in this liberal state and commuting to the outskirts of other states in order to work.

What follows next are business-minded folk who have some ideas on how to capitalize off of this venture. Opening up coffee shops, clothing stores, night clubs, etc. to provide services to this community of liberals.

The shops are of course, extremely successful and attract liberals from nearby to start living in that state. Businesses start to grow and the liberals find work closer to home and stop commuting.

What type of production would happen here? Mostly artwork, music, poetry, books etc. I suspect interior design and fashion design to be big. Anything and everything involving creativity.

Soon, as this small state starts to become a center for night-life, it will become a major stop for teens on spring break. When it becomes totally established, this area will essentially become another Paris. Tourism will then be a huge business.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

"The thing is, only liberals are allowed to move there. The current state is empty."

No, as I mentioned anyone can move to or from the state at will. The state is populated by whomever wants to live there. It is run by a government that imposes a purely liberal agenda on it's citizens, who are originally in favor of it until they experience the eventual negative effects. The society would allow a multitude of lifestyle freedoms, legal drugs, gay marriage, top-notch social services and universal healthcare, and extremely high taxes to pay for it all.

"Now, I think about who might move there."

Not sure about who might move there, but I'm pretty sure the state would be overrun by welfare recipients who are after the best social service other people's money can buy.

"Knowing that a Liberals-only state has just opened up, they would undoubtedly flock there"

So would the nations homeless. And again, you need not be liberal to migrate there, you just have to prefer to live there based on what the state has to offer.

"What follows next are business-minded folk who have some ideas on how to capitalize off of this venture. Opening up coffee shops, clothing stores, night clubs, etc. to provide services to this community of liberals."

Probably not, taxes would be extremely high for businesses. This would not be a pro-business environment. As far as customers go, most citizens would be on welfare or worse-- working to support the majority who are. Who has money to spend on such luxuries as a $4 cup of coffee or a laptop computer?

"When it becomes totally established, this area will essentially become another Paris."

Paris is no more or less socialist than neighboring alternative cities, so your analogy is not appropriate for this debate. However, I'm certain fewer people would live and do business in Paris if they knew they could live and work in an adjacent city while saving a fortune in taxes. Also, how appealing would Paris be if it were overrun by homeless welfare recipients from nearby non-socialist cities? The state I mentioned would be attracting unproductive people and chasing away the productive ones along with any hope for financial stability.

"Tourism will then be a huge business."

Only for tour companies that would bus political science students through the ruins and abject poverty left behind in the wake of failed liberal policies. I can hear the tour guide now, "Keep your arms and hands inside at all times. Do not throw food to the homeless."
Kleptin

Con

Yes, we are most undoubtedly thinking completely different things.

The way I read this was that Liberals would somehow have their own state, as in, a new state would be created that is populated solely by liberals. Meaning, every citizen is a Liberal. You are arguing that the citizens may or may not be Liberals but the government officials and the policies are. I disagree with this on the notion that the topic is "If liberals had their own U.S. State". Obviously, the state belongs to the people living there, not the government, so my interpretation is correct.

As such, since everyone living in that state is a Liberal, they probably won't have any problems adjusting Liberal policies and such for their own means. The poor are guaranteed some services, but not housing or employment. They'll probably stay put.

And another good point you bring up. Legalized drugs and gay marriage. Two more factors that would contribute to a lot of tourism and commerce. An entire state filled with entertainment and places of enjoyment for stoners and homosexuals, two groups known to enjoy night-life.

"Probably not, taxes would be extremely high for businesses. This would not be a pro-business environment. As far as customers go, most citizens would be on welfare or worse-- working to support the majority who are. Who has money to spend on such luxuries as a $4 cup of coffee or a laptop computer?"

Well, the taxes probably won't be that high because the social programs don't need to run yet. But when business starts booming, the taxes will come. At that point however, they won't really cripple the economy. You can bet Starbucks will have quite a few branches there.

"Paris is no more or less socialist than neighboring alternative cities, so your analogy is not appropriate for this debate."

Not talking about socialism. Talking about Paris as a center of artistic flourishing.

I think our key disagreement is this: The topic clearly states that the population of this new state (Liberal-Land) is made up of only Liberals. I derived this logically from the notion that "Liberals have their own state" and the state is owned by the citizens. Thus, all citizens of Liberal-Land are Liberal.

In addition, since it is a new state, citizens will be moving in.

Bottom feeders won't move in because there's nothing there.

Liberal, 20-30 year old hipsters *will* move in because this politically flavored oddity (a Liberals only state) is appealing to that mentality.

Thus, expect a population of hipsters. Then expect businesses to start developing which revolve around the hipster culture. After that, expect all those nice things I said up there.

Simply put, very many people would like to live in a state full of liberals, run by liberals. If you really think about it.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
AHAHAHAHAHA XD

I totally deserve the -1 for conduct. In my defense, this was almost 3 years ago and I've become less sleazy since.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Conduct lost for intentionally joining a debate and arguing outside the obvious and intended framework of the instigator.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Yraelz,

"I do not feel that liberal ideas require capitalism."

You make it clear in your debate that you think unbridaled liberalism wouldn't choke off its source of funding-- capitalism. But I never read that you believe liberalism is not dependent on such funding. You can't make a statement like that and leave me hanging. Please explain.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I'm not Kleptin or Logical-Master, unless you're reading conspiracy theory debates. However I do not feel that liberal ideas require capitalism.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Big Dog,
Yeah, but every time I widdle my thoughts down to a really good question, it doesn't get answered.
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
I SURE DONT WANT TO LIVE IN COMMI LAND.
Posted by bigdog 8 years ago
bigdog
Handsoff - Very good philosophical question, summed it up.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Kleptin & Logical Master,

I'd like your thoughts on one or two philosophical question.

Is it true that the implementation of liberal ideas is dependent on the success of capitalism, the defense of which is at the heart of the conservative philosophy? And if you agree that liberalism is dependent on its mortal enemy for its very survival, do you see that dependency as mutual? Or is one but a parasite on the back of another?
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Yeah, identically low. That's why this lib-land would is not a viable idea or catch 22 if you will. It would require heavy financial resources to keep its social programs funded.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
That's it. I didn't really see a reason for a progressive tax in a state where the income levels are essentially identical across the board.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HeroDanny 6 years ago
HeroDanny
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
HandsOffKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by oswaldaballa 6 years ago
oswaldaballa
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
HandsOffKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
HandsOffKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
HandsOffKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Araku 8 years ago
Araku
HandsOffKleptinTied
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:70