Libertarianism
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: | 4/2/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 478 times | Debate No: | 51452 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)
I will argue that libertarianism is not beneficial to a society. Libertarianism A set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. Government keeps economical and social interference to a minimum. Not beneficial Does not have a good effect [on the society]. No semantics, first round acceptance. I ask the voters to vote based on who won the debate not on your personal beliefs (because then I'd be screwed).
I accept the debate. This will be fun |
![]() |
My main argument will be an example. Imagine there is a lake with 20 fish in it. There are 4 fishermen. They have two years to catch the fish in the lake. The first year the fish will be worth 1 dollar each, the second year it will be 2 dollars. What do you think will happen? The first year the lake will be untouched. The second year the four fishermen will try to catch as much fish as fast as they can, leaving the lake completely empty. The fisherman with the most starting money, the biggest boat and the most advanced equipment will catch 15 fish, leaving the remaining 5 to the lesser fishermen. The rich fisherman is now even richer, while the other 3 are left with nothing. Now compare this with a new scenario. The same 4 fishermen but now each has his own little pond with 4 fish in it, belonging to them. There will be 4 fish left in the lake. The first year, when the fish are worth 1 dollar, one might grab a few, and the second year the fish might be gone. But after that, each fishermen has 4 fish of his own to sell. Each fisherman now has 8 dollars, one or more might have caught the remaining 4 so they have more. But now each fisherman has 8 dollars to buy food for his family. The first scenario is libertarianism. The scenario where the government doesn't care about the economy. Here the fisherman with the most advanced equipment will take everything and the remaining three will starve. The second scenario is what you might call a socialist state, where the wealth is divided but there's still room for competition. If you apply these scenarios to a larger scale you will see the huge differences. The first scenario would be the US of A. Notice how the differences in wealth are huge because of lack of government interference. The second scenario would be Holland for example. Where the government plays a role in the economy to make sure everybody gets a slice. Compare these two scenarios yourself and decide which one you would like to live in as an average citizen. Priceless forfeited this round. |
![]() |
Priceless forfeited this round. |
![]() |
RowanM forfeited this round.
Priceless forfeited this round. |
![]() |
RowanM forfeited this round.
Priceless forfeited this round. |
![]() |
Post a Comment
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.