The Instigator
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Let it be resolved that the market is the best mechanism for providing internet infrastructure

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 30011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (2)

 

ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

this is a googlehangout debate
larztheloser

Con

I have no idea why this is three rounds, but here's our hangout.
Debate Round No. 1
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

my bad i am new to this website
larztheloser

Con

No worries. (:
Debate Round No. 2
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

googlehangout debates are more fun than normal text debates
larztheloser

Con

I don't see any rational counter-arguments to that point. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Quite the contrary. I believe in free markets, I just believe they have their place as does the "state". I think free markets are good for developing new ideas. I think the "state" is good when the free market has overwhelmingly demonstrated the best solution. For instance, I believe, considering we know the best solution to roads or internet infrastructure, that the state is better suited to provide those needs.

What I actually believe (and you are correct to call it a belief), is that the goal of society is to perfect things. I believe the market place is a good training ground for ideas, but once those ideas become perfected, that it is better for the state to administer them.

You have an unnatural distrust in the state, which I do not. That is what differentiates you and I. No matter what good the state does, you will always cling to the market place whereas I see a need for both.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Oh you're not atheistic on this subject at all. You're very much a believer - it is simply that I believe in free markets and you believe in the state.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Zak, first, I want to try to be as upfront as possible which is generally not the idea of debate. I take more of an "atheistic" perspective, which is that I don't know. You seem to take more of a "theistic" perspective which is that you DO know what is best (i.e. free market/free enterprise/capitalism is best). I can argue for or against both, I see pros and cons of BOTH!

We seem to be stuck on a specific example (i.e. bank foreclosure on a house). First, you already admitted that the house is the person's property, yet you also stated, that property can be revoked. So right away you muddle the definition of "property" and thus it needs more clarification.

Next we will get into contracts and what do contracts mean and are they "moral". I.e. is it moral for me to make a contract such that "I" have an asymmetric advantage over "you". You will say, no, that's not fair, "you" should no enter into such a contract. Then I will ask, in the free market as we see it implemented, do "you" really have a choice (i.e. do you really have a choice in agreeing to a lease agreement? I would say no).

This is a canonical tenant of a free market economy, that the buyer ("you") has a choice. However, as it is, you are going to say that indeed "you" DO have a choice: you can either "choose" to live in an apartment or you can "choose" to be homeless.

My argument is that this is no choice at all.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
I mean you didn't even bother to look at the whole sentence. You cut the sentence off half way when you quoted it. Took it completely out of context.... either you didn't even bother to read my whole post (heck even the whole sentence), before scribbling away, or you intentionally misrepresented what I said. Either way... weak bro. very weak.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Your reading comprehension is poor. I was talking about if you defaulted on a cell phone bill.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
"it's not like someone is going to come take your money."

Actually, in most states, if you default on a mortgage or lease agreement, then the state can allow the creditor to take money directly out of your bank account. Some allow for wage garnishments, but almost all allow for taking money directly out of you bank account. See the money in your bank, isn't actually "your" money--it's the bank's. You just trust that the bank will give it back when you ask. So the state can direct that bank to pay your creditors with "your" money.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
As for how would the bank reclaim your house in a stateless society, assuming you resisted and tried to renege on your contract and keep your house despite not paying back the loan you agreed to pay, then I suppose they would hire someone to take it from you through force. Since you contracted to give them your property if you defaulted, this is no longer your property, but now their property, in which you are squatting and they are justified in using force to defend your aggression on their property.

in conclusion, pay your bills and don't be a dirty hippy squatting in someone elses house.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
No, if you borrow money against collateral, and do not repay the loan, it is not immoral (that is to say it is fine, it is moral) for the creditor to reclaim the collateral. You entered into a contract. Too bad, so sad.

I don't agree that the property is the banks until you pay off the house. The property is yours, but you agreed to give it to the bank if you didn't pay off your loan when you signed the loan contract. I do believe in the right to contract.

No one gives legitimacy to these contracts. These contracts are themselves legitimate and morally must be honored. As for enforcement, it's mostly voluntary, via things like credit ratings. As in todays society, if you don't pay your cell phone bill, it's not like someone is going to come take your money. Instead you get a black mark on your credit and other organizations will be less likely to deal with you as a result.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
"Although I don't think anybody's going to get violent over internet infrastructure projects."

lol, probably not--but you never know.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
"An action is immoral if it infringes upon the property rights of another."

How do you determine whether or not a thing is person's "property"?

For instance, is it immoral for a bank to take away my house that I didn't make the payments on?

Seeing as how I'm pretty sure I know what your response is going to be, I'll go ahead and interject. Assuming you and bank agree that the property is not yours until you pay off the house, who enforces such agreements? That is, who gives legitimacy to such contracts?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
ZakYoungTheLibertarianlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make any convincing arguments. They really only stated that the market was better without giving any examples of when they are or arguing for why they are. Con presented a good case as to why free enterprise is unlikely to undertake such an endeavor and supported this with examples (which I assume to be correct since they were uncontested).
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
ZakYoungTheLibertarianlarztheloserTied
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: technically con was the only one who gave arguments....