The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dr.jimmythefish
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Minarcho-socialism(pro) versus your choice of government and/or economy(con).

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: 3/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 100434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

My position: I will be arguing that minarcho-socialism should be preferred to your choice of government and/or economy. Specifically, the type of socialism(I realize socialism is broad so I will narrow it down to a specific type) that I will be arguing for is cooperative individualism. So, my argument will be thus: minarchism should be preferred to your choice of government, and cooperative individualism should be prefered to your choice of economy.

Opponent's position: My opponent may share one view of mine, either government or economic type. So, you can either agree with me about cooperative individualism, or about minarchism. You shouldn't do both, otherwise we have nothing to debate on. I would prefer to debate someone who shares neither of my views though. Still, I won't complain if someone who is also a minarchist debates me or who is also a socialist. Anyways, the opponent will be arguing why their economics and/or government should be preferred to minarchism and/or cooperative individualism

Rules of debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal insults, or attacks
2) No rebuttals in the first round that is used for debate
3) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate since I am not using round 1 for debate. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for debate even between us
4) No new arguments in the last round that is used for debate. New facts and information is allowed, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.

If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to give the point in conduct to the side who ddid not vioalate them.

Definitions of terms:
Minarchism: a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. [1]
Cooperative Individualism: the school of thought [under cooperative economics] favouring workers' co-operative societies[2]
Cooperative economics: a field of economics that incorporates socialist economics, co-operative studies, and political economy toward the study and management of co-operatives[2]
Worker cooperative: a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers.[3]
Cooperative: an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business. [4]
Now, I would provide a definition for socialism, but I don't think it is necessary since I am specifically arguing for cooperative individualism, which is a type of socialism as you can see by the definition of cooperative economics, of which cooperative individualism is a branch of.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
dr.jimmythefish

Con

I will be arguing for Carl Shmit's "the Politic" and martial law with an artificial state of emergency. My points are quite simply in that it will always work. A Great Lie will almost contain itself as those who disagree where tinfoil hats. I promise total stability and a chance for personal improvement thru war. never ending war tasking presidence over all issues the war and it's baggage are of utmost import. Your government will fail, you will have internal conflict that will set off a civil war and I will survive.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

I think I will use this round to argue for just cooperative individualism and save minarchism for the next round. Thus, my rebuttals to my opponent's arguments will not be until rounds 4 and 5.


Productivity of worker cooperatives compared to conventional/traditional businesses.
It has been found in a study conducted by Ben Craig, of the federal reserve bank of Cleveland, and John Pencavel, of Standford University, that worker cooperatives within the plywood industry are more materially productive than traditional firms[5, pg 124]. The reasons they believe for this are because:

1) "A co-op mitigates the agency cost associated with a corporation's division between ownership and control". Since co-ops are owned by the workers, they are much more likely to be informed about the business decisions than if they weren't owners, thus there is no need to spend extra time from business owners to educate them on this matter.[5, pgs 124-125)

2) Worker co-ops eliminate "the separation of interests between workers and owners."[5 pg 125] As one can imagine, there are many instances in which a conventional firm would be presented with opportunities where they can make a decision that more benefits them and harms the workers. The workers would be opposed to this, and normally what happens in a conventional firm, is that bargaining goes on and this takes up precious time that could be devoted to work. In a co-op, this bargaining would not take place, since worker-owners would likely choose what benefits the majority of the workers, whereas in a traditional business, the owner would choose what only benefits themselves.

3) Workers are able to monitor each other better than in traditional businesses where the monitor is a single manager [5, pgs 125-126]. This makes sense as well, since in co-ops, the workers are the ones who make the decisions of the company, and would be involved in hiring and firing other workers. Co-workers are more often among their co-workers than a manager is, so they would be able to monitor their co-workers more effectively than a manager. This provides incentive for each worker to provide their best work and not laze around.

Now, to play part of my opponent, it could be argued that worker co-ops would take longer to make ordinary business decisions and this would negatively impact productivity. I would argue to the contrary, however. Since multiple people are involved in the decision process rather than just one, two, or a few business owners, it means the decision is more likely to be beneficial to the company as a whole, so while it may take longer, it will be a higher quality policy. The evidence I present later in this round will also support this idea, such as how coops are more likely to survive the first 5 years of being in business than traditional firms. Additionally, when a rich person is in charge of the decisions of a business, they are more likely to be dissociated with the majority of people(who are poor and middle class) and so they may make decisions for the business that would only help the minority of people(rich) when a good business would try to appeal to majority of people in order to survive

It should be noted that in the study, it was found that labor productivity of traditional firms is higher than in coops, however material productivity is usually higher in coops.[4, pg 141] In other words, traditional firms produce more at a lower quality than coops. I would argue that quality should be preferred to quanitity. If you can buy a product that is of higher quality, it will last longer, and over all, you spend less because you don't have to spend on transportation to the stores as much as you would for a lower quality product.

How do co-ops and traditional businesses compare for success?
Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [5, pg 8] This makes sense for the same reasons I said in the previous topic in the second to last paragraph where I said "additionally, when a rich person..."

In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burdin and Andres Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that "average employment and wages in WCs[worker cooperatives] tend to be greater than in CFs[capitalist firms]." [6, pg. 522] The wage being higher definitely makes sense, since in a worker-cooperative, there is no person at the top taking a percentage of the business profits as their own, personal, income. Instead, this income is spread across the workers, which would mean their wages would be higher.

It is also the case that capitalist businesses do not have a monopoly on being the only business type that has multi-billion profit turnover. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country" where, in 2015, they had a revenue of 12.11 billion euros[7]

Now, there are many more capitalist firms which have more profit than the world's largest cooperative, this is true, but as I will point out later, there is reason why capitalist businesses are the majority in the world, and this would also mean they will likely have more businesses who are much more succesful than the best worker-coop.

Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businesses
Traditional businesses are immoral because they have an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. The business owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that worker cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few worker cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives above. Essentially, a cooperative gives a level of consent not seen in traditional businesses. A person has to work in order to survive, so the fact that business owners know this mean they can have outrageuous demands on the workers, since they may not have any other option. It often takes many applications to jobs to finally get one, so a person is desperate enough to make a living that they will be forced to put up with a tyrannical business owner. However, if all of the businesses were cooperatives, the worker would have a say in business rules, decisions, etc. Similar to how governments that don't give a consent to the governed are immoral, so are traditional businesses for the same reason.

Worker Cooperatives could help end poverty
As established above, worker cooperatives generally have higher wages for their workers. If more businesses were worker cooperatives, this would help end the poverty rate for full-time and part-time workers since their wages would be higher. Sadly, 3% of Americans who work full time are in poverty[10] and 16% of Americans working part-time are in poverty[11]. Those who work full-time should never be in poverty, it's sad that there are even any full-time workers who are. If majority or all businesses were worker cooperatives, this would likely reduce these rates of poverty.

Potential argument against cooperatives:
"If cooperatives were so much better than traditional businesses, then we should see cooperatives out-competing traditional businesses, but traditional businesses are still the vast majority"
While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way that favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[9](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established above), most governments only ever bail out traditional businesses and almost never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[9], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is10], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative instead of a traditional business since most don't even know what one is. I would also argue that, for those seeking to become business owners if they do know what a coop is, they don't want to make it a coop because they are selfish and don't want to share the business with the workers of that business.

Sources:
[5] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
[6] www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/co-op_economy_2015.pdf
[7] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...
[8] Wikipedia, "Mondragon Corporation", I don't have a link because this link always messes up
[9] https://www.youtube.com...
[10] http://www.geo.coop...
[11] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...









dr.jimmythefish

Con

In the economy of a perfect state, the national needs come before the individual needs, and the people willingly give up there services and goods to the state being driven by nationalistic urges. This allows total efficiency, the workers never strike and will work as long as necessary to complete the task for the good of the nation. A community spirit coupled with a overriding omnipotent voice is far superior to workers disusing what to do.
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

As I said before, I was saving minarchism for this round, and I will rebut my opponent's arguments as well.

Minarchism helps promote freedom
Now, I will admit that authoritarianism is more efficient in that it can survive more often than minarchism. That's only because they are stronger governments. However, just because it is more survivable and is stronger, doesn't mean we should use that form of government. I contend that the government which is best is one which only guarantees our rights. The less government is involved in our daily lives, the more freedom we have. With fewer taxes, we have more freedom to do what we want with our own money. Without compulsory education, we have freedom to let our children do what they want, or what their parents want for them. Without the Patriot act, we have more freedom of expression. So on and so forth. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Ultimately, it comes down to whether you prefer security or freedom. I admit I cannot sway any voters who already believe security is preferrable to freedom, but I believe most people may believe freedom is more important than security. If all we have government do is defend our liberties, then we have maximum liberty.

Rebuttals:
Quotes from my opponent are in italics:
In the economy of a perfect state, the national needs come before the individual needs
The problem with this idea is that it can lead to some groups of people starving. It may be in the interest of the nation to let minorities starve in order to benefit the state. This is immoral and violates rights.

the people willingly give up there services and goods to the state being driven by nationalistic urges.
If it's willingly being done, then what makes anyone do this? How would you even have this economy when most people probably won't just give up their services and goods to the state?

This allows total efficiency, the workers never strike and will work as long as necessary to complete the task for the good of the nation.
This all seems theoretical, and doesn't seem that strong of an argument. Perhaps you should offer a specific example if you can.
dr.jimmythefish

Con

Yes this immoral, but it works. I use an antagonist, let say a terrorist organization, to motivate the masses to comply for their security. I use a real threat and propaganda to ensure a state of emergency. I would have control over this terrorist group and thus negate them in till I was questioned, then an attack would be successful. I would only control the leadership, the rest of the group would be actual dissenters so I can control the opposition.
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

I admit that what my opponent is arguing for would be more beneficial for security of the people, at least at first, but this comes down to the age old debate of whether we'd want security or more freedoms. I would argue that freedom is better. Here's why:

With freedom, you are of course more able to do the things you want to do. Now, while we may be sacrificing security for freedom, I would argue it is possible for every citizen to protect themselves. This is why it is important to allow a universal right to arms. If, say, a terrorist were to hijack a plane, if other people were armed on the plane, then the terrorist could be stopped. Rather than the state being invasive into people's privacy for what they take onto a plane, which doesn't always work anyways, I mean we've had terrorist attacks even after the patriot act was passed among other measures: if the people were armed there would be less chance for terrorists to get away with terror.

Thus, I argue that with freedom, comes the abillity to protect oneself. Freedom allows for self-security, where as national security doesn't allow for as much freedom. If you focus on national security, you often times don't get either liberty or security. However, if the focus is on national liberty, then the people themselves are the ones who can defend themselves because they are allowed to have weaponry equal to that of what the military has at its disposal.

It may not be as affective for individuals to protect themselves than if the government did it, but at least you have maximimum liberty, and maybe a moderate level of security. With a focus on national security at the price of liberty, you get no liberty, but a good amount of security. With one, you can have both, with the other, you only get one in a perfect world. I would still argue that the security you get from national security measures is not sufficient.
dr.jimmythefish

Con

The people have liberty; that they willingly surrender for the threat of the gun, the trick is that is't not my gun. Why do we need liberty, in a free society we would be living in ruin and under the threat of many guns. I unify mankind to combat a single perfect scapegoat.
Debate Round No. 4
Capitalistslave

Pro

Majority of people owning guns wouldn't be much of a threat. For one, most people understand it's wrong to kill someone for no good reason or for selfish reasons. One only needs to look at the percentage of gun owners who actually kill other people and you will see it is not really something to worry about.

All you have to do is be able to get along in society, and you probably won't ever get shot by a person.
dr.jimmythefish

Con

You are arguing for my point, you comply you, your friends and neighbors are secure. Thus I maintain efficiency and most people would comply out of fear.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smorfy 10 months ago
Smorfy
*Continued* Also in "Murder is Okay under all circumstances", you say "Just keep in mind: you don't know who you're killing. You have<-[sic-could] have just killed someone who would have saved a dozen lives in their life time." You then recite variants of this fact twice more; For all you know, you may have just killed the person who was going to perfect the artificial organ." and "You never know what a person will accomplish in a life time. Them being alive may cause other people to continue living. Because of this uncertainty, even if murder allows people to get the organs they need, it can still result in a net negative loss of human life.". These statements apply to gun violence as well. By giving everyone guns and presumably increasing the fatal gun accident rate, you may have just killed someone who was going to find a cure to cancer, come up with a foolproof way to stop gun violence, or positively influence the world in some other way. Giving everyone guns is not the best way to stop gun violence. Thanks again, this has been really fun and educational so far!
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. https://iq-research.info...#
Posted by Smorfy 10 months ago
Smorfy
Terrorism can and will happen, even when others have guns to try and prevent them. Just like how you said "The criminals are likely going to get guns regardless if they are illegal or not, so making guns illegal really only prevents law-abiding citizens from getting them.", people will always find a way to get past deterrents. There are also other ways to commit murder and terrorism, such as bombing. In that case, firing at the bomber could set off the bomb and kill everyone nearby, even if the bomber could have been convinced out of blowing up themselves by a negotiator. Also, with more people with guns, there would be more murders. If people already have guns, they wouldn't have to wait to get a gun and think everything through. Simple moments of rage (even just being in a lot of traffic) right now normally don't result in harm, as whoever is getting so upset probably doesn't have the tools to hurt others, and if they do, using the tool is not as simple as pulling a trigger. Finally, in your debate "Murder is Okay under all circumstances" (1), you say "It may be seen as okay for an animal to kill another animal, but we all agree murder of another human is wrong." That is true. However., the difference between us is our solution. I believe banning guns and implementing higher security measures would be more efficient. You believe giving everyone guns would be more efficient, correct? I believe in my solution because it would reduce the number of gun accidents. I believe terrorists would find a way around people with guns. Also, America's population has, on average, an IQ of 98 (2). Many Americans aren't as smart as they could be, so they could suspect others of being terrorists because of stereotypes or not suspect others of being terrorists because of stereotypes. A white person in a dress suit could still be a terrorist, but many people still firmly believe terrorist stereotypes are true. Banning guns would eliminate accidents and wouldn't affect terrorism rates.
Posted by Capitalistslave 10 months ago
Capitalistslave
Oh, sorry, it's actually 24% who own a gun. So, that's actually a little more than a 400% increase in the gun ownership rate that I would propose, so the number of deaths by accidental shootings would be a bit higher, but still lower than the amount of murders per year.

And this is the source for that information: http://www.pewresearch.org...
Posted by Capitalistslave 10 months ago
Capitalistslave
So, it looks like 600-700 people die each year by accidental shootings[1]

While the number of murders per year is around 14,000[2]

So, that is 14,000 people who could have been saved if they had a gun on them. Now, to make this a completely fair statistic, we need to look at how many gun owners there are, because we can assume the number of accidental deaths caused by guns would go up if we were to increase the number of gun owners, which is what I'm suggesting. About 37% of Americans own a gun[3], if we were to make that 100%, that would be an increase of about 270%, for 100% is 270% of 37%. So, we can increase the number of accidental deaths by probably 270% which would be 1700-1800 deaths a year. Considering that probably close to all of the 14,000 murders could be prevented if everyone owned a gun, I would say having about 2000-3000 deaths a year(that would be from the accidental deaths, and murders that could still happen despite someone having a gun) is better than 14,000.

Sources:

[1]http://nyagv.org...
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov...
[3]
Posted by Capitalistslave 10 months ago
Capitalistslave
Smorfy: While, yes, there are instances like those you've pointed to where people with guns accidentally kill others, I believe they are less often than when people intentionally kill other people. I would need to look up the specific statistics on each of those, but I'm pretty sure that's the case. Terrorism can be prevented when law-abiding citizens have guns. The criminals are likely going to get guns regardless if they are illegal or not, so making guns illegal really only prevents law-abiding citizens from getting them.

So, if it's true that the instances where people die by gun by accident is less than those who die by gun on purpose, than more lives are saved from having guns owned by majority of the populace than if they weren't. I'll try looking up statistics on gun deaths, and how many people per year die by accident by gun and compare it to how many people are murdered. If the latter outnumbers the former, then it would make sense for majority of the populace to own guns.
Posted by Smorfy 10 months ago
Smorfy
@Capitalistslave
I don't believe we would be living in a safer society if everyone (or most people) had guns. Guns can be used as an instrument for safety, but they can also be used for terrorism. Even if the person isn't intending on shooting anybody, many guns have accidentally gone off, and this would happen all the time no matter what if most people had guns.
http://archive.jsonline.com... https://www.google.com...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...
These stories and data compilations are incredible, and go to show what would happen if most people had guns.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 10 months ago
dr.jimmythefish
I spell badly.
Posted by RC-9282 10 months ago
RC-9282
Nazis I presume?
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 10 months ago
dr.jimmythefish
And my ideology is that of the Natzis
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 10 months ago
dr.jimmythefish
The ideology i'm arguing has a very similar economy si I can't really respond to your 2nd argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.