The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
42 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: 3/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,536 times Debate No: 3235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (20)

 

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 flee 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).
Yraelz

Con

Well, I definitely have ideas on how this would work. Or could work anyways, of course to actually see we would have to test it. Anyways I thank my opponent for beginning this debate, as he has requested I will not be arguing schematics at all.

With this being said I would ask that voters please vote not on what issue they personally are for or against but rather on how did the best debating in this scenario.

I am going to assume that this state is of average proportions, and has an average distribution of natural resources, along with an average distribution of arable land. I will also be so bold to assume that the liberals running this state are about of average liberal proportions, this includes intelligence. I will further be assuming that this state will begin with absolutely 0 structures, in effect this state begins with nothing.

Thus the first step is going to be to set up a state government. This set up would be done quite easily by a few primary liberals, however for the sake of argument I am assuming that I will be the main representative of this government.

Which leads me into my opponents first fallacy, being the slippery slope fallacy. My opponent simply assumes that because liberals run this state all liberal policies will be implemented from the beginning. This is highly unrealistic and would result in the utter demise of said civilization. Even I can see this, and I am no politician.

With this out of the way I propose that a basic infrastructure would have to be built, roads and bare essentials. This initial building would doubtlessly plunge liberal state into at least somewhat of a debt as this money would most likely come from foreign countries or the United States itself. At this point we have the first opportunity for companies to actually come in and do something, specifically construction companies. Liberal state would tax these companies as on par with other states as to increase incentives. It would be in these companies best interests to make smaller houses as liberal state at this point would not be of the greatest wealth. Construction companies would in turn lead to the development of close and accessible hardware stores which in turn means logging industries. The houses created for living would in turn spur the development of minor stores. Chains from the rest of America would slowly begin to pop up.

At this point liberal state needs to push hard that it plans on being a liberal state, in essence liberal state would be selling itself. Liberal state above all else would promote three main tenants.

1. The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of health care until it is non-existant.

2. The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of education, until education is free.

This of course means that the government will be paying not only hospitals and their employees but also education facilities and their employees to exist. This of course has the drawback of perpetuating the debt in liberal state. However it is also the first step out of debt. This would develop two new industries for liberal country.

Industry 1: The health care tourism industry. My main example here will be Cuba. So while Cuba has a great deal of problems it also has an amazing tourism industry. This industry is caused by its extremely low health care costs for state of the art treatment. (Note: Liberal country would have state of the art treatment as on par with the rest of the United States as they would be hiring doctors/physicians/nurses from the U.S) This health care tourism industry would in turn lead to the development of such structures as amusement parks, and actual tourist attractions. In essence free health care would become the gateway for the entire tourism industry. Liberal state would become the state to go to for major operations etc... This idea is shown through my Cuban example (I realize Americans don't feel this way, keep in mind this is because Americans are banned from going to Cuba. Europeans on the other hand often journey across the ocean for their low health care costs.) Note: In state is free. Out of state costs are simply reduced.

Industry 2: The education industry. This industry doubtlessly does not actually make a product that has monetary value. The goal of this industry would be to at the very least have schools on par with the others schools in the nation at a far lower cost. This would in turn be an incentive for incoming college students to move to the state. As time goes on, and more people enter the state taxes can be focused on developing a higher class education system than the rest of the United States. This will make liberal state somewhat like many of the now socialist states in Europe in the sense that they are responsible for educating of the most intellectual people out there. Note: Out of state still has to pay some money, it will simply be reduced from the average schooling in other states.

These two industries doubtlessly would take large amounts of money to get on their feet, yet I contest that it would take much less than something like say... the Iraq war, but if these two industries were put into place they would become the cornerstones for the economy of liberal state.

From here liberal state needs to once again push the fact that it a liberal state. However this time it needs to focus on the liberal mindset instead of the industries. Liberal state would need to push the difference between socialist and capitalist ideologies. As liberal state would doubtlessly be much more socialist than the average American state. The idea is this:

Liberal state would reject the American dream. That being get rich. Instead liberal state would promote the idea that everyone should have the inalienable right of a high standard of living. This does not of course mean that a homeless man from another state will simply be able to move their and have a house. It simply means that that man will have a greater opportunity to become successful in this society. (Successful being defined as being a benefit to society.)

This ideal would attract, as my fellow debater Kleptin mentioned, just out of college students. This idea would also attract humanitarians. It may also have the prospect of attracting some of the religious population.

This would in turn lead to new ideas, new industries, and new technologies. This however is where the liberal orientated government needs to very careful. Taxation of these new industries would need to be at the very most moderate, otherwise taxation will promote people to leave the state in order to avoid taxes. In time the government will work something like this:

1. Key industries are free or low cost. For example housing, the electric industry, and water utilities should stay low cost as to dissuade entirely unproductive citizens from moving there. However industries like health care, education, and most likely transportation should remain free to residents in order to act as an incentive for becoming a resident.

2. Non-key industries will remain nearly lassie faire. They will be taxed slightly higher than the average state but perks such as for restaurants the extensive tourist industry, or for the technological sector perhaps grants to develop new technologies would outweigh the increase in taxes. Worst case scenario said industry is taxed on par with other states.

3. The state would not function on a get rich principle. But rather a high standard of living principle. This is not to say that the rich would go bankrupt by any means, simply that the wealth gap would be lower.

Well, I'm out of room so thats what I'll leave you with. Interested to see what you have to say.
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

"my opponents first fallacy, being the slippery slope fallacy"

I took a good look at my conclusions before beginning this argument and wondered if my argument met the requirements for a slippery slope fallacy. I found my conclusions were based on a common-sense understanding of cause and effect and not the product of a wild imagination. It does not require a slippery slope for people to seek what is in their best interest and avoid what is not.

"I will further be assuming that this state will begin with absolutely 0 structures, in effect this state begins with nothing."

No, because as you mentioned liberal policies are not sound enough to create a state from nothing. I agree with you that it would be "highly unrealistic and would result in the utter demise of said civilization." This is because liberal policies punish industriousness and reward the lack of. Since industriousness, self-reliance and hard work are essential to building anything of value liberalism would be of little help in this area.

"The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of health care until it is non-existent."

Government has not had a good record in the area of lowering the costs of any service it provides. It is far less efficient than private industry. I assert that costs would increase as a result of government involvement and be passed along to the citizens in the form of high taxes resulting from said inefficiencies.

"The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of education, until education is free."

Again, look at what it costs government to educate one grade schooler, or house one prisoner. The costs are astronomical when government inefficiency is plugged into the equation. Public education is not free.

"My main example here will be Cuba."

Cuba is a communist country. But I find it interesting that you used them for your comparison. People cannot come and go from Cuba as they please. If everything is so great there, why do they have to lock everyone in. The disadvantage the liberal state will have is that people can come and go as they please-- come for the freebies and go to avoid financial annihilation. I think for a liberal state to be successful it would have to lock its borders. I knew I would have a very good chance of winning this debate if I required that the liberal state had no barriers to entry or exit.

"Europeans on the other hand often journey across the ocean for their low health care costs."

You make my point about people willing to cross border in search of generosity. Hopefully I won't have to debate that with you at some point.

Regarding education you say free education would be an "incentive for incoming college students to move to the state. As time goes on, and more people enter the state taxes can be focused on developing a higher class education system than the rest of the United States."

Again, you admit that people (likely of modest resources) would flock to the state to take advantage of generous give-a-ways. These people will be an overall drag on the economy. When they finally do get their free education do you honestly think they are going to stay in that state and agree to hand over 60-70% of their income? Only if you lock the borders.

"Liberal state would reject the American dream."

Have you been reading my diary? We agree on that.
Instead liberal state would promote the idea that everyone should have the inalienable right of a high standard of living.

"Instead liberal state would promote the idea that everyone should have the inalienable right of a high standard of living."

Yraelz, you are the first liberal I've ever heard admit this. I compliment you on your honesty. Usually libs will try to cloak this non-existent right to lifestyle as some extension of basic rights guarantied in the constitution.

"This [state] would attract, as my fellow debater Kleptin mentioned, just out of college students. This idea would also attract humanitarians. It may also have the prospect of attracting some of the religious population."

Yes, this state would attract many people who want to take advantage of what is available, culturally as well as social programs. Unfortunately this state would attract everyone accept the high-earning entrepreneurs, workers and wealthy people who would be needed to finance the entire operation through high taxes. It's a catch 22 I'm afraid.
Yraelz

Con

I thank my opponent for his very thought provoking rebuttal. I will go over each issue he presented to me and offer my own rebuttal.

To begin with my opponent argues that his position does not meet the slippery slope fallacy. He argues this under the premise that his argument is based on a simple understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately my opponent is making this argument based on two assumptions:

1. People follow what is in their best interest.
2. Living in liberal land is obviously not in a persons best interest.

Number one is flawed through the use of empirical examples, look to people who join the Peace Corps, they desire instead to help others.

Number two is flawed through the fact that people are liberals in the United States. Obviously liberals feel that liberal policies are within their best interest or they would instead have conservative policies.

Thus my opponents argument is still a slippery slope fallacy in the sense that it assumes an effect from a cause that actually has no link.

From here my opponent argues that a liberal state could not begin at ground 0. I of course find myself in strong disagreement of this statement. I define a liberal state as one guided by liberal policy makers. My opponent on the other hand seems to define a liberal state as one guided by people who will implement a liberal policy even if it is not in the best interest of said state. I.E, that liberal policy makers are idiots. This is simply not true.

A liberal state, one being guided by liberal leaders, would have the presence of mind to begin the state in a supportable manner. This, of course, would result in some form of debt as I mentioned. All things great start modest. Liberal state would need to build up to its free education and medical systems.

My opponent of course argues that making education and medical treatment free would be difficult and actually asserts that government involvement would increase the costs. This is where I do not disagree with my opponent, government involvement would increase the costs. However my opponent misunderstands my argument. My argument is that the government would pay for these costs in eight ways.

A. Free health care for residents of the state, this would attract more people to become residents who in turn could be taxed.

B. Not only that but it would attract people from all countries to come for low medical costs. Low medical costs to foreigners would decrease the tax burden on actual citizens through paying some medical costs.

C. People attracted from other countries would function as a tourist industry for liberal state. See my Cuba example which I will clarify on later.

D. Large amounts of tourists would result in out of state industries creating "tourists traps" despite the higher tax rate in liberal state. Profit is still profit and lots of people = more profit which in turn balances with higher taxes. Government in turn taxes these industries and thereby the tourists which results in money to pay for the medical industry.

E. Tourist attractions in turn result in people coming strictly to see the tourist attractions, this results in more tourism outside of the medical industry. Which in turn results in more money through taxation of this industry which results in money that can be spent on the medical industry.

F. The education sector on the other hand offers nearly the same benefit, being free education for in state students, in turn leading to more people moving to liberal state.

G. Education sector also offers lesser tuitions for out of state students while still charging, this takes some of the tax burden of residents.

H. Education sector would also receive phenomenally more funding than out of state schools (K-college). This results in parents moving with their children to liberal land for a better education. This in turns means more residents means more tax revenue means more money that can be spent on the education and medical sectors.

Which brings me to Cuba. My opponent argues that the only reason Cuba works is because people are stuck in Cuba. He justifies this argument with the idea that in liberal land people will just come for the freebies and leave. This argument deserves multiple responses from me:

A. The fact that Cuban citizens are locked in does not change the fact that Cuba's medical-tourist industry is the greatest in the country.

B. My government doesn't allow for freebies. Instead it allows for reduced costs for out of state persons. This cost would be made up for in the tourism industry created by it. However my government also offers even higher incentives to become residents.

C. Finally my opponent specifically says, "If everything is so great there [Cuba], why do they have to lock everyone in." I would simply like to point out that I agree the situation in Cuba is sub-par, this however does not mean that their medical tourist industry is not working superbly.

My opponent then goes on to argue the education aspect in saying that people of low incomes will doubtlessly move to my state in order to exploit the free education for 4 years then move away. This also merits multiple responses from I:

A. I am advocating Kindergarten all the way through College has more financing and a better education system than the rest of the country. This means that parents would move their for the benefit of their children. So while a child might be somewhat of a drag on the economy (as in any state) the two parents would still be paying taxes.

B. And yes, I do think that many college graduates would stay in state because:

a. Many college graduates are liberal, and would have a great opportunity to function under a liberal society.

b. Look to the socialist countries of Europe now. Do we see mass migrations out of them despite their 40-70% tax rates? No.

Finally my opponent advocates that the wealthy, and entrepreneurs would not enjoy living in liberal land. This depends:

A. A wealthy liberal would have little objection to having to pay high taxes, they would still doubtlessly be wealthy after said tax and would never be in fear of lack of medical help.

B. Higher education leads to higher innovation leads to technological advancements. So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state, arguably higher than 5%. Though I say even higher considering the idea that people can apply for grants under my society if they are working on new technology.

C. My opponent concedes that it would attract humanitarians and some religious folk.

Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Handsoff,

In retrospect every human has the right to life, from the beginning. As far as I can tell it is the only right that we all are inherently born with, and that is not saying much. But I contest that a right to life in itself is not enough. Life with a degree of quality is meaningless. A baby born into a void will die of starvation.

The liberal idea goes off of this premise. Wealth by most people means money but I don't feel that is so. Quality of life is also a wealth in itself. A wealth, arguably far greater than that of the monetary. So I guess my question is this:

When a society can assure that everyone has a high wealth of quality life, while allowing and at times promoting social, intellectual, mental, and even physical wealth can that society afford to lower the potential monetary wealth? Does monetary wealth even mean anything when these other forms of wealth are to be had?

As a side note... I don't believe the constitution insures much of any of this, but on the same note I don't hold the constitution as a morally infallible doctrine.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

You say that in my defense of you slippery-slope accusation, I assume that "People follow what is in their best interest." I still hold this as a natural and logical assumption. Your Peace Corps example showing that occasionally there are exceptions to that rule does not make it any less valid in general. Aside from that, it could easily be argued that even those who engage in seemingly selfless acts like joining the Peace Corps are doing so for their own personal satisfaction and personal growth.

You attempted to challenge the second of my assumptions (that "living in liberal land is obviously NOT in a person's best interest") by stating that "liberals obviously feel that liberal policies are within their best interest or they would instead have conservative policies." I agree that liberals FEEL their policies are worthwhile, but my assumption is not based on how liberals feel. It is based on the catastrophic outcome that would result from those policies if they were fully enacted in a state with open borders.

Since both of your arguments against my rebuttal on slippery-slope do not stand, I now ask the readers to ignore your attempt to discount my conclusions as slippery-slope fallacy.

"From here my opponent argues that a liberal state could not begin at ground 0. I of course find myself in strong disagreement of this statement."

This is irrelevant to our topic since I am allowing for a fully operational state to begin with, but maybe we can take it up in a separate debate.

"My opponent on the other hand seems to define a liberal state as one guided by people who will implement a liberal policy even if it is not in the best interest of said state."

Liberals would have no problem implementing policies that would not be in the best interest of said state. That is evidenced by the fact that they advocate implementing liberal policies today which are not in the best interest of the entire country. This is also irrelevant to our debate, but I just couldn't resist.

"I do not disagree with my opponent, government involvement would increase the costs."

Thank you for conceding this. I ask the readers to please make a note of it.

"My argument is that the government would pay for these costs in eight ways."

The only way the state will pay for anything is by way of heavy taxation. Your tourism scheme is flimsy at best. Keep in mind this state will not have exclusivity in its ability to provide attractions such as art, music, theater, restaurants, or even marijuana lounges. It will be competing with other states that provide these same attractions, but without the high prices necessary to subsidize high taxes on business profits. Libertarian states for example would be offering the best of both worlds-- all the lifestyle freedoms and attractions along with affordable prices due to low taxes. So here you are wrong by falsely assuming lib-land will have the market cornered on such attractions.

You say that people would not come to lib-land for just 4 years of free college, but for many years because schooling would be free for all years prior to college. Again that would not be an exclusive offering of the liberal state, so there would be no advantage for young families to move to that state and tolerate twice the tax rate in order to get free K-12 education they could get free elsewhere. So you are wrong here as well.

You say graduates would stay and tolerate keeping just half the income they could keep working elsewhere because they "would have a great opportunity to function under a liberal society." The only thing the liberal state would offer that a libertarian state would not is free health care, free college and a plenitude of social programs for the poor. Once a graduate is finished with college and finds a job, he probably will not be poor. Hence, the only freebie left in lib-land for him to enjoy is the free health care. I think the readers would agree that no intelligent person (liberal or otherwise) would give up nearly 3/4 of his income to get "free" health care, especially when insurance can be gotten in a competing state from an employer or privately at an affordable price. So your reasoning here is again faulty.

"A wealthy liberal would have little objection to having to pay high taxes, they would still doubtlessly be wealthy after said tax and would never be in fear of lack of medical help."

Wealthy people (liberal or otherwise) do not like handing 60% to 70% of their earnings over to an undeserving government. Also, wealthy people are not generally in fear of lacking medical help. So your argument is weak on both counts.

"Higher education leads to higher innovation leads to technological advancements. So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state...."

Again, when a graduate leaves lib-land in search of a job where he is allowed to keep the lion's share of his earnings, he will take his higher education with him (and all the great innovations that might have resulted). A competing state will likely derive any benefits from the "free" education lib-land provided. So you're wrong here too.

"So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state, arguably higher than 5%."

I'll give you this, because it only helps my argument. If lib-land retains around 5% of its entrepreneurs, it effectively chases away 95% of them. That is 95% of the people responsible for starting new businesses. Small business is the lifeblood of any modern economy. I think your comments on this subject do a far better job of proving my point than anything I could come up with. You have unanimously admitted that lib-land has little or no chance for economic survival, much less economic prosperity. Without economic prosperity you would eventually have low-paying jobs, poor government healthcare, limited social services, and a quality of life most discerning Americans would find unappealing.

Thanks and good luck on your final round.
Yraelz

Con

Alright so last round I began by arguing that my opponent entire argument was a slippery slope fallacy off of two assumptions those being:

1. People follow what is in their best interest.
2. Living in liberal land is obviously not in a persons best interest.

On the first plank I argue that people join the peace corps and that isn't necessarily in their best interest. My opponent turns around and agrees with me but says in general people will follow their best interest. My response:

a. My opponent offers no evidence to show us that people will usually follow their best interest.

b. Best interest is entirely subjective. I may have been to hasty in stating that people joining the peace corps are doing so outside of their best interest. It may very well be that subjectively to them, joining the peace corps is in their best interest. Myself as an example, I love helping people with their homework, this may not seem like something that benefits me but it is non-the-less in my best interest.

c. Conclusion, even if my opponent has somehow proven to you, as voters, that people follow their best interest despite his obvious lack of evidence, then I still contest that a persons best interest can lead them to help others. Liberal state is all about helping others.

The second plank I attacked by stating that their are liberals in the United States so obviously some people (roughly 50%) agree with liberal policies. Therefor many people feel it is in their best interest. My opponent attacks this by stating it is true but he feels such policies will have a catastrophic outcome. I will get to the catastrophic outcome later, for now keep in mind that about 50% of people would feel it is in their best interest.

Next my opponent offers this argument which I have many responses to:

"The only way the state will pay for anything is by way of heavy taxation. Your tourism scheme is flimsy at best. Keep in mind this state will not have exclusivity in its ability to provide attractions such as art, music, theater, restaurants, or even marijuana lounges. It will be competing with other states that provide these same attractions, but without the high prices necessary to subsidize high taxes on business profits. Libertarian states for example would be offering the best of both worlds-- all the lifestyle freedoms and attractions along with affordable prices due to low taxes. So here you are wrong by falsely assuming lib-land will have the market cornered on such attractions."

1. He simply calls my tourism scheme flimsy. He doesn't bother attacking my eight part plan on how it works. He doesn't bother attacking the Cuban example, nor the examples of socialist European countries that I offered. So my question, I guess, is: does calling something flimsy hold up as evidence in a debate? If so....

2. My opponents entire case is rather flimsy.

3. My opponent seems to be advocating a flimsy case.

4. After calling my tourism scheme flimsy my opponent goes on to state that my state would not have, "exclusivity in its ability to provide attractions such as art, music, theater, restaurants, or even marijuana lounges." This is very true! Its a very good thing I never said it would. The main draw to my tourism scheme is the medical industry! MEDICAL INDUSTRY! Which would offer prices for medical care at significantly lower rates than any other state in the Union! How do I happen to know that this would draw people to liberal state for tourism, because Cuba, offers the cheapest and arguably the best health care in the world. Which in turn has created their largest industry, which is? Tourism! Liberal land has exclusivity in the sense that it would have the largest funded medical program in the country! My opponent never argues this.....

5. Brief recap. Liberal Land offers low medical costs. People come to take advantage of this. Tourism industries see this and build a tourist industry in Liberal Land. Now Liberal Land has exclusive medical care and an on par tourism industry when compared to other states. Which means with the added exclusive medical, Liberal Land has a greater tourism industry than any other state. Liberal Land taxes these industries to pay for medical industry, which is owned by the state.

6. And then we have my opponent last comment in this paragraph,

"Libertarian states for example would be offering the best of both worlds"

a. I don't care because purely libertarian states don't exist. My state is being added to the current 50 states, not the current 50 states plus libertarian state.

b. This idea seems flimsy....

Next my opponent argues that free education is not exclusive for K-12. Yep, that is pretty true free education is not exclusive from other states. I guess its a good thing that I advocated that, "H. Education sector would also receive phenomenally more funding than out of state schools (K-college)."

And it seems to me that if the education sector would be receiving PHENOMENALLY more funding than out of state schools (K-COLLEGE) then that would kind of be something exclusive....

My opponent however ignores this point, so I guess I don't have much to rebuttal.

My opponents next paragraph (You say graduates would.....is again faulty.) basically draws the idea that no one would stay in a state where 3/4's of their income is stolen when they could go elsewhere. Arguments:

a. My opponent ignores my entire incentives argument from my last speech. Notice this, "grants to develop new technologies would outweigh the increase in taxes." Liberal Land offers grants to develop new technologies. My opponent concedes this.

b. Liberal land is doing free health care, education, and grants. There is absolutely no gaurantee that this will suck 75% of the income. The United States could arguably do this right now if it dropped out of the Iraq war and still keep the taxation of its citizens about where it is.

Finally my opponent advocates that entrepreneurs would leave the state. He does this while ignoring my grant arguments. Then he quotes me twice from the same sentence and says, "I'll give you this, because it only helps my argument. If lib-land retains around 5% of its entrepreneurs, it effectively chases away 95% of them." Which would be totally fine with me except for the fact that he ignored my last sentence stating,

"Though I say even higher considering the idea that people can apply for grants under my society if they are working on new technology."

But just for fun we will pretend that my opponent is totally right and it will only keep 5% of these workers that are of a higher education than the rest of the country. For fun I will call them "the intelligent". This means that 95% of them will split and divide hypothetically between the other states. Which means each state would end up getting 95%/50 or 1.9% of "the intelligent". Which in turn means liberal state with 5% compared to 1.9% will output more technological advancements and reap the profits.

So thats my case....

Sadly my case is all basically moot in comparison with the topic of this debate,

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

which he redefined in his first speech as,

"liberal state must compete with other non-liberal states in the union for population."

As my opponent has allowed me to take religious folk, humanitarians, the college population, and, through dropping my argument that K-12 would have increased funding, the U.S population that falls in that age group plus their parents- my opponent has therefor conceded that my state would easily be able to compete in population with any other state.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Yraelz,
I'd like your feedback on a debate I am in with Leftwingmormon on just this topic.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Butcherd that one. Let's try it again.

Whether such conversions are unjust and to what degree would depend on which services we are talking about. I would say most are unjus merely because they result in a higher expense than can be paid otherwise via private services. The more obvious injustice is when a supposedly free person is forced to give of his time, money and life to another for the sole benefit of the other person. With roads, police, fire service, etc. at least the majority of contributors feel they are benefiting directly from these services. Did that clarify my position?
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Whether such conversions are unjust and to what degree would depend on which services we are talking about. I would say most are unjust for the merely because they result in a higher expense that can be paid otherwise via private services. The more obvious injustice is when a supposedly free person is forced to give of his time, money and life to another for the sole benefit of the other person. With roads, police, fire service, etc. at least the majority of payers feel they are benefiting directly from these services. Did that clarify my position?
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
All those things have the possibility of happening. It depends on the government and the society.

Why do you feel they are unjust?
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
When a private expense is converted to taxation a few things happen:

1. The expense grows significantly due to government inefficiency.

2. Working class, tax-paying families are now left to pay not only the higher expense, but bear the onus of paying it for themselves and others.

3. Low-income citizens are received of the expense entirely.

4. Contributing members of society are punished for playing by the rules, while the non-productive are rewarded with yet another handout.

And yes, I'm aware there are some good reasons to be in favor of such a scheme. But they are unjust, nevertheless.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
When a private expense is converted to taxation a few things happen:

1. The expense grows signficantly due to government inefficiency.

2. Working class, tax-paying families are now left actually pay not only the higher expense, but bear the onus of paying it themselves and others. Low-income citizens are releived of the expense entirely.

3. Low-income citizens are releived of the expense entirely.

4. Contributing members of society are punished for playing by the rules, while the non-productive are rewarded with yet another handout.

And yes, I'm aware there are some good reasons to be in favor of such a scheme. But they are unjust, nevertheless.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Ah, yeah, I guess I could have worded that a little better. To a given person they would be free, aside from taxes.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Yraelz,
I meant the absurd claim that healthcare and education would eventually cost nothing. Nothing is really free.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Ragnar just out of curiosity.... do you always vote for the conservative side of a debate?
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I fail to see the absurdity, are there not states in existence with free health care and free education now.

Here is a map of all the countries with Universal health care http://en.wikipedia.org.... Which country seems to be missing that shouldn't be?

As far as education goes, every Nordic country offers it, all the way through post-grad studies. Are these countries flailing for failing to stay afloat? Denmark? Finland? Iceland? Norway? Sweden? I mean, our own system offers free all the way through high school doesn't it? Are we seeing horrifying draw backs?

So yes, I believe in my arguments, I believe through empirical example that it is more than possible for the government to cut the cost of education and health care until it costs nothing for a citizen to attain.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 6 years ago
1gambittheman1
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Araku 8 years ago
Araku
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
HandsOffYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Handout 8 years ago
Handout
HandsOffYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
HandsOffYraelzTied
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:30