The Instigator
FEARTHEGHUS
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NovaLux
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is any country truly free? Even with AMERICA not everything is right, so which side for capitalism?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,332 times Debate No: 44486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

FEARTHEGHUS

Con

plz check my comments at the first before accepting/doing anything with this

I believe that even AMERICA is sliding back ever since it was let off from Goerge WAshington
and the founding fathers (all of them, not just the ones we know, though they are good)



this arguement is almost a 2-part one, whether or not the problem exists, and if so how to fix it. the problem is that no country is free anymore, I believe i have a very good way to fix that.

first we debate wether any country (even the great AMERICA, a place i love and live in) is truly free anymore or at least as close to truly free without very bad consequences.


with that done, my arguement is that even AMERICA is not truly free, since we have regulations, bad education, and laws that only harm the main correct and historically good way of life: capitalism. The problem is that the regulations are pointless and only damage the world, because they are easily fied by a gov that perfectly stays out of the way of life and is only here to defend the country from outside attacks, and inforce the few laws against theft, harm to property or person, and murder. Even unholy things and sinful things should be allowed, the reason: if your husband cheats on you you tell him to go to #### and fix the problem. If a business is being bad and harming the enviroment (which some do though i believe against global warming) the people get told by press businesses and then boycot/don't buy there, the business fails if it is bad enough that a well-educated public stops it with free speach, and free-will, then it is probably bad or at least not wanted. IF the public does not stop it, then it was not too bad was it? This can only work if the public is educated, so i believe that the only other law is against ALL REGULATIONS and adds a new part to the education system, instead of history and english classes (they stay though) we add a new Freedom class, or some other name patriotic, or free-country class: that teaches the constitution and what the founding fathers wanted, and is matters MORE THAN ANY OTHER SUBJECT, if you can't get it right for any reason, you cannot graduate taht class or grade PERIOD, until you do get it right. Also that if soeone is left back 3 times they are knocked out of school so that someone who cares cna live, and we don't pay for them in welfare, someone who has never had a job cannot go on welfare, and if you never finished school or for any reason f=got left back 3 times, are not allowed on any subsidies, also no more subsities other than a 1-month welfare, period from the gov. since charity is giving the peopl freedom to choose wether they want to help the an on welfare, and they can even spend time with him to teach him no just pay taxes. i also want to eliminate any and all progresive taxes, so taht if you are gifted and work harder and become rich your mony is not stolen and given to a guy who does not feel like doing hard work. That will fix any freedom problems except the freedom to do immoral things, and you still have that freedom, you just get consiquences. the gov should give all people a yearly, or monthly but smaller, tax to people that without a 85-95% minimum vote from THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY, they cannot raise. It will be like a $1000 tops (i wanted 150 tops but that really would not work) in tax for once per year, to all people no matter what they do unless they do something illegal, and if they get a death sentance or life in prison. We may have some thing for wether they still own any of their money or items, i have not chosen one on that yet, i really only though of it now. That is really it. I shall await your responce, and will hope for a chalenge (since even though i am only 13, i have beaten every person but one in my school at almost every single debate)
NovaLux

Pro

I'm not going to argue that the world is free in the true sense of capitalism, if that is what you are implying. So instead I must disagree with the methods you have suggested, and might as well propose my own for the growth of "freedom", still a vague concept. For clarification, is this about the world, or just America? I'm going to assume the world for now.

As far as freedom goes, I would say we have much more of it on all fronts (economic, social, and legal) compared to earlier ages, though maybe not the 19th and 20th centuries. But still, during that time period imperialism ran rampant and contributed to a loss of freedom for many colonies because it doesn't uphold the rule of law. In practical terms, we still have our bill of rights, as this very website proves. Trade restrictions have reduced greatly since the end of World War II and led to greater prosperity as a whole. As for bad education, its true that our current system is bad, but with the advent of the internet homeschooling has made a tremendous comeback, and will only make private schooling easier and easier to do. People are fed up with our education blob, and a voucher movement has sprung up in the united states. While things are bad here in the U.S., arguably the failure of government is good because it is helping people to see what a destructive force it is.

"so i believe that the only other law is against ALL REGULATIONS and adds a new part to the education system, instead of history and english classes (they stay though) we add a new Freedom class, or some other name patriotic, or free-country class: "
Though it might sound good, I'm skeptical about this claim. All regulations is hasty and generalized, while such a rapid, massive change for the country could spell economic disaster because of lack of investor confidence. And if you argue against government involvement, why would you want a federally enforced 'freedom class'? Do you really think we could keep a class enforced by the government that warned students of the perils of government? In a free society, you could choose whether or not to learn about these types of subjects.

"It will be like a $1000 tops (i wanted 150 tops but that really would not work) in tax for once per year, to all people no matter what they do unless they do something illegal, and if they get a death sentence or life in prison."
$1000* 300 million people = $3 billion dollars, (if you were to include convicts, children, and illegal aliens) Current deficit is about $680 billion, whereas $3 billion per year wouldn't be enough for law and order, let alone defense. (1)

Overall, there were a huge number of separate issues mentioned in the original post. Clarification and a more specific topic of debate would be appreciated.

Sources:
1. http://money.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FEARTHEGHUS

Con

FEARTHEGHUS forfeited this round.
NovaLux

Pro

I know my argument last round wasn't particularly clear last round, but neither was the topic. Awaiting a response.
Debate Round No. 2
FEARTHEGHUS

Con

sorry i did not mean to forfeite thought i gave longer time and could do it but completely forgot, my mistake. This deate is we as AMERICANS speaking about the world, we are not comparing countrys but the single phylosophy at stake is that no country even AMERICA the one that is so thought of as free, is no longer free. I believe AMERICA was (sorry i caps AMERICA whenever i say it to show respect to by far teh ebst country) this is about whether a country is free in this world, this is about true freedom and polocies to fix problems with not enough freedom. OUr goal here is to find a better policy then what we have now, or debate that what we have now is good, in this case only debate AMERICAN policy. I debate that with regulations on anything except murder, theft, damage of property, and other horrible crimes should not be illegal, rape is included, hate-crime is not for it is not true to equality in man's creation. I beleive that we should have no regulations, and only those few laws, and all the ones AGAINST the gov. so they can't gain power. Only then will we be truly free, and with freedom we prosper. Check what i have said before since i shall stay with those polocies at least for now.

sorry for bad spelling i could not get the check your spelling working, ik a lot but don't type well if i type fast.



NovaLux

Pro

NovaLux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FEARTHEGHUS

Con

I have nothing else to say until my opponent gives his argument, sorry that we both forfeited a round.
NovaLux

Pro

"also no more subsidies other than a 1-month welfare, period from gov."
Is sounds here as if you are for the complete abolishment of a social safety net. The problem is, there are a great deal of people requiring paychecks, healthcare, etc. just to survive. So are you saying we should just tell them to die off? It's crazy to think that private charities will step in and front the entire cost of those who need support. After all, what is stopping them now? If people wanted too, they could pay the entire cost of welfare and we wouldn't need a government program. But people aren't generally that generous to each other. It's averse to your self-interest to just give money to people, so we mainly don't. You may cite the perennial argument that welfare creates a "climate of dependency", though most people cannot find jobs, but the fact remains that many people will die if we abolish the safety net. Private charity spending for 2006 was $295 million (1), govt spending was closer to 250. Billion (2). Not to mention that it helps the economy because consumers who don't have any money now have money to spend. You cannot simply throw people out in the cold and leave them to starve.

"i want to eliminate any and all progressive taxes"
The problem with this is that even if the rich get taxed at higher rates, they still have exorbitant sums of money, while the poor have little if anything at all to spend. You tax someone making $1 million at 30% and they've still got $700, 000 to spend. Tax someone making $10k at 5% and they've only got $9,500 left to spend. Progressive income taxes reduce inequality and are a major source of funding for the government.

Sources:
1. http://www.american.com...
2. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
Debate Round No. 4
FEARTHEGHUS

Con

it IS creating dependancy, and people are already paying it, as taxpayers. The only difference is that they are FORCED to pay for another man's lively hood. As Mr. Franklin said "I am all for the welfare of the poor, but I beleive in a different way of doing it. I beleive they should be given no more than required to live."(i forgot the exact last part's way of speach so this is what it said in modern speach): so that they will survive but will try to work for themselves. Social subsities run by the gov. give it the ability to cut them since they own the military and if we give them enough power, they can simply do what they want, the real reason the founding fathers allowed us guns is to fight off our own gov. when they start to become tyranical to the point where non-violence won't work. Diplomacy will never work with the gov. since in the end you give it even just a little. If people want to pay for the people who won't work for their own money, they can, but you should be able to deside your own live and not mooch of others. We should not be forced to pay for push-overs that won't work for themselves. As for the elderly, they must work for their own retirement instead of getting us to give them our money that we actually EARNED and steal it from us by force. As for the problem with progressive tax, i told you and you probably have not read it, the rich are rich because they are successful, because they worked harder and/or were smarter and worked harder. The poor are poor because they chose to be, whether it is to spend more time with their families then they may rather that. You have no right to deside who earned their money. If i am rich and did not steal my money from you, then i have earned it. I deserve to do what i want with it, i may even donate more than i am taxed right now to the poor, (right now being in real life where i am taxed about 4 million for my 10 million each time i earn it. It is redistribution of wealth i earned (as answer to 2 also) taht they now have money to spend the same way a criminal has money to spend after they stole my money, they are doing the exact same thing. The fact remains true that if we abolish the "safety net" they will go to get work, and if we abolish the regulations too, then the businesses would grow and then hire, the best of both worlds, for the ebst and even worst of both peoples. And your sources have no real proof, so they have no point.

THE REAL FACT IS SIMPLE: IF YOU GIVE MAN THE FREEDOM TO THRIVE AND GOV. GETS OUT OF THE WAY, HE WILL DO WHAT HE WANTS. IF HE WANTS TO BE POOR HE WILL< VICE VERSA FOR RICH.
NovaLux

Pro

I realize this is the final round so I'll try to keep it brief.

"when they start to become tyranical to the point where non-violence won't work. "
India tried nonviolence, and they didn't have guns. Took a while, but India is its own country today.

"We should not be forced to pay for push-overs that won't work for themselves. "
The thing is many people who are on welfare would love to work for themselves, but cant find any jobs. Why do you think the number of jobs is the perennial issue in the united states, not welfare payments?

"the rich are rich because they are successful, because they worked harder and/or were smarter and worked harder. The poor are poor because they chose to be..."
This is what is known as the Gospel of Wealth (a.k.a Social Darwinism) and it was used as an argument many times during the late 19th century. There is a reason that it isn't used anymore.
The rich, many times, inherent vast fortunes of money, while the poor work all their lives just to maintain a living.

"The fact remains true that if we abolish the "safety net" they will go to get work"
The fact remains that if we abolish the safety net people will starve. There is a reason people are on welfare receive it- they don't have jobs.

I'm not really sure what the topic of this debate has become, but.. yeah.
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
PLZ GOD NEVER CALL ME A SOCIAL DARWINIST, i hate communism so it makes my stomach turn.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
np man it's fine
Posted by NovaLux 3 years ago
NovaLux
Sorry. I couldn't post last night, I got sick and didn't have time to respond.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
you can stop spamming now
Posted by 2104 3 years ago
2104
i'll accept IF we debate on method, NOT purpose.
Posted by 2104 3 years ago
2104
i'll accept IF we debate on method, NOT purpose.
Posted by 2104 3 years ago
2104
i'll accept IF we debate on method, NOT purpose.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
oh and if you accept as pro you either have to try to debate that it is free, or that my way of capitalism/ capitalism as most others who even really knew waht it is think of it now, should be allowed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.