The Instigator
Darris
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

National Join Capitalism Fund

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: 11/22/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 41050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Darris

Pro

The idea of a national fund to help people to start their lives is not some newfangled hippie, liberal, pinko idea. I actually got the idea from Thomas Paine (my favorite founding father and mascot of the Tea Party nowadays, apparently: ).
It is often said that "the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain if not for the pen of Paine". Thomas Paine's writings inspired the American colonials to rise up against their British masters.
In his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, he wrote

"...I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property..."
(You can read the whole pamphlet here if you're interested
http://www.constitution.org...)

Basically, his thought process was that no one created the land on which we toil and live, so anyone claiming it as their own would be stealing from everyone else.
Since no one created it, everyone has an equal claim to it. Whereas before A claimed it, B and C could trespass across or labor upon it, now B and C have to ask permission of A in order to do those things.
For that theft of their natural inheritance, B and C are owed a ground rent for the land which A has taken from them. Only the land. Not the improvements thereupon. The improvements were made with A's capital, ingenuity, and/or labor.

Thomas Paine suggested that this ground rent money be collected in a national fund which paid out to every person when they became an adult.

This debate is not about the financing of the fund, however. I already have a debate about that. This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund.
We will assume that the fund will be (for simplicity's sake) $10,000 per child per year so, when it pays out at the end of 18 years, it would be $180,000 (we are also adjusting for inflation for simplicity's sake)
So without further adieu, my arguments:

A short, not-exhaustive list of problems having a national fund that paid out at 18 would immediately solve:
1. Crushing student loan debt. If a person wanted to use their payout to go to college, they could without any debt necessary. It's a quick cure.
2. Poverty. While poverty is bad, the general capitalistic argument is that it is ultimately the fault of the impoverished person. If the person were given that first head start of $180,000, then any rut they find themselves in probably actually WOULD have been their fault. In any case, it would allow for the disestablishment of almost every poverty alleviation program because of how utterly this would decimate it.
3. Mortgages and other loans. Many young people may choose to just buy a house in cash instead of getting a loan and making themselves beholden to the bank for 30-45 years. With this Join Capitalism Fund, the people would start life free of the chains of debt.
4. The lack of small businesses. If I were given $180,000 when I turned 18, I would have paid off all my debt, gone to school, and started a business. As soon as I were afloat, I would have put the rest of it into savings.
5. Low wages. Employers would have to actually compete for employees. The labor market is saturated with workers. Especially the unskilled market, which is what the majority of 18-year olds would be a part of. This depresses wages greatly. If the 18-year olds were given that Join Capitalism Fund payout, it would allow them to only accept employment that would truly further their ends instead of just having it to make ends meet. This would increase wages because many 18-year olds would choose to simply not work for someone else for a while.

It is very important to recognize the difference between working and working for someone else.
I'm not advocating the end of working in this argument. I am advocating the end of having to work for someone else in order to make ends meet.
A mother cooking a meal for her children is producing, but that production is not included in the GDP because it's never sold- we don't know how much society values it... without a dollar sign, it's impossible to quantify. Does that mean that it is worthless? No. On the contrary, it's quite valuable. Surely we wouldn't say that stay-at-home moms are lazy do-nothings.
They aren't working for someone else. They're working for themselves.

At present, children of the well-off are more likely to succeed thanks to that privilege. Capitalism requires that everyone starts off at a base-level. If you're beneath that level then you'll be relegated to wage-slavery for a time.
You have to work for someone else until you get enough to not have to. Unless you're born to the super-rich.
A fairer system would be to allow anyone to work for themselves from the get-go and only accept employment if they actually wanted to.

And if you're a Keynesian, you'll also like the fact that it would boost aggregate demand.


I look forward to your response.
Tophatdoc

Con

I accept your challenge. As the con side, I will be arguing against the morality of the "National Join Capitalism Fund" the negative effects said fund would have.

First I will clarify several definitions and concepts. Definitions:
1. Property-a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
2. Stealing-take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
3.Possession-the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
4.Ownership-the act, state, or right of possessing something.
5. Theft-the action or crime of stealing.
6.Private property- land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use.

Concepts:
1. National Join Capitalism Fund-"a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property"

The national fund that the pro side is supporting is based off of the idea that everyone has an equal claim to land. Therefore according, to the pro anyone claiming it is "stealing from everyone else." The premise of the pro's argument is in error. The pro side has failed to prove the land belongs to everyone. The point was made that no one created the land. Therefore no one can own it. That begs the question how can everyone have an "equal" claim to it then? Then who or what determines what is "equal?" Until the pro side has definitively answered how everyone has an "equal" claim to the land, the fund that has been proposed has no basis. The moral of taking from A to pay for B and C due to the theft of natural inheritance has no basis until the pro side proves that everyone has this "equal" claim.

The pro side has yet to show evidence that everyone has a claim to this "natural inheritance." The evidence has only been shown that no one can claim the land because no one created it. Therefore he has only shown no can make a claim to the land at all because they did not create the land. So how can the "natural inheritance" exist when no one created the land?
Debate Round No. 1
Darris

Pro

"Therefore no one can own it. That begs the question how can everyone have an "equal" claim to it then?"
Logic answers that question.
Whereas before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first. The landowner has only gained the ability to exclude others from the use of land. As the landowner has no greater claim to the land than any individual, and as the individual is losing out by no longer being able to labor and exist and trespass upon that land, the exclusion of others is considered theft.
They are losing the prosperity that they had prior to someone who has given them nothing in return.
The landowner is gaining all the prosperity and ability to work land freely while taking away that same right from those who didn't claim it.

Q.E.D. Everyone has an equal claim prior to the introduction of landed private property and it is landed private property that is an affront to that claim.
Person A is allowed to exclude the rest of society from the use of the land, but only with compensation that both society and A have agreed to.


Con has let go every argument for the actual establishment of the Join Capitalism Fund and decided instead to focus on the existence of land as private property.
I imagine Con will make arguments against the Join Capitalism Fund in the next round.
Tophatdoc

Con

"Whereas before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first. The landowner has only gained the ability to exclude others from the use of land."

The pro side has made several assumptions without any basis or facts to backup to his assumptions. As the Con side I effectively showed he did not have the basis for the Join Capitalism Fund the last round. Now the pro side insists that before that in the past any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it. Where did the pro side arrive at this conclusion? The information has yet to be provided. Did the individual who could go to any "piece of land" have a legal right to the land? If not it wasn't his property because property is a legal concept.

The pro side has unintentionally undermined the basis of his argument. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that suggests there where was no governing body. So what would prevent individuals from fighting over the same piece of land? After all, " any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." The pro side undermined his argument that everyone has an equal claim to the land. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that is not equal. There is no authority to make the claim that every has an equal claim to any land that they choose as the pro suggests. Therefore his equal claim that he mentioned in the first round was refuted by his own claims in the second round. I asked the pro side for his basis for the equal claim. Now he says the individual, therefore it is inherently not equal because people could claim any piece of land as says in the second round. The pro side has not shown the authority who dictates that every one has the equal claim. Therefore there is no equal claim to land.

Therefore, the points that the pro side made later have no basis. According to the pro's own scenario, Person A, Person B, and Person C "could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. For example, if Person A and Person B wanted to cultivate the same soil and farm animals on the same plot of land. That occurrence may lead to a dispute or conflict of sorts. What responsibility does Person A have to pay to Persons B and C? After all they would of contested for the same piece of land in the past.

"They are losing the prosperity that they had prior to someone who has given them nothing in return. The landowner is gaining all the prosperity and ability to work land freely while taking away that same right from those who didn't claim it."

Again, an assumption with no basis. How can someone lose something they never possessed? The pro side again has used the term "right" which he used as the legal concept. Yet his earlier implication suggests that there weren't any laws so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land. So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims.

"Con has let go every argument for the actual establishment of the Join Capitalism Fund and decided instead to focus on the existence of land as private property."

How can the pro side make such a bold claim when he has no basis for his argument? Readers, don't be deceived by the pro's feint. In order for his Join Capitalism Fund , he must show proof of the equal claim that everyone has to the land. Otherwise the pro side has no premise to base the Join Capitalism Fund. He has not shown why Person A should be paying Persons B and C. The pro side has continued with assumptions but has yielded to show proof of these assumptions. The pro side has also committed a fallacy by assuming the con's argument. The con side has yet to mention private property(til this round) but pro side makes this claim. The pro side is intentionally attempting to negate his premise so he can selectively argue the points of the Join Capitalism Fund that he wishes.

The burden of proof is on the pro side to even show that the Join Capitalism Fund has a basis. The Con side does not need to address other points about the fund until the pro side has defined the basis of the Join Capitalism Fund. Until then, the pro side's points about the fund itself are moot because they are not based on anything except opinion and autobiographical content. The argument itself has to be proven by the pro side. Yet the pro has been shown yet to do so.
Debate Round No. 2
Darris

Pro

Claiming land and using land are different things.
Claiming land and having a claim to land are different things.
To claim something as your own, you are necessarily saying that it doesn't belong to someone else.

"As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. "
And as I've said, the solution (landed property) also leads to problems.
My solution is a solution to the problems created by the original solution.

"After all they would of [sic] contested for the same piece of land in the past."
Yes, they would have. That's what property fixed. Then other problems arose.

"How can someone lose something they never possessed?"
If my grandfather left me one million dollars to be paid when I turn 18, and someone spends it before I reach that age, I have clearly lost one million dollars despite never having possessed it.

"...so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land."
Yes. He could. He shouldn't though, because everyone has an equal claim to that land.

"So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims."
No one can have rights because we don't have a government handing those rights down?
I disagree profusely. They are rights and the government has to respect them. If they're granted by the government then they're privileges, not rights.

Despite the rules of the debate, which I laid out and Con accepted, Con has still refused to debate the merits and effects of the Join Capitalism Fund and chooses instead to just berate the method by which I have proposed to fund it.

I'll quote myself.
"This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund. "
Con refuses to debate effects and only debates morality.
Con is letting the effects through.
Half of the debate is over and Con hasn't said a word about the effects of the Fund.
Tophatdoc

Con

The Pro side is whining about the fact that I have chosen to debate the morality or lack thereof morality. Let it be known here and now the Con side has refuted all of the points the Pro side has provided so far about the morality of the National Join Capitalist Fund.

1. The pro side has insisted upon offering opinion and autobiographical content for the basis of his moral argument for the fund. Here are two examples from the last round only:
"Yes. He could. He shouldn't though, because everyone has an equal claim to that land."
Again, he has not defined where his basis for this equality is from other than his own opinion.

"No one can have rights because we don't have a government handing those rights down?
I disagree profusely. They are rights and the government has to respect them. If they're granted by the government then they're privileges, not rights."
The concept of rights are relative whether the Pro side likes it or not. Therefore no one has an obligation to even acknowledge such a concept exists because it was created by another human being.

2. The effects of the list need to to be discussed thoroughly. I will address the behavioral, financial, and moral effects.
-Crushing student loan debt.
To lift student loan debt is an admirable idea for many. But let the readers not engage in the art of deception. If the fund payed student debt, it wouldn't be fair to those who didn't go to college. There are many who chose not to go to college and they are not receiving this benefit of having their mistake being paid for. Also to pay the student loan debt would enable students to take on degrees which have no benefits like BA's in Art History, Theater, or Psychology. Students may try to pursue post graduate degrees that will reap nothing but dust. In essence, we should burn the money instead rather than enable more incompetent behavior.
- Poverty
Poverty can't be eliminated because it is relative. For example, in the past the impoverished usually suffered from malnutrition. In the United States, it is common for the impoverished to be suffering from obesity.
http://www.worldhunger.org...
-Mortgages and other loans
Demand is increasing so price would increase significantly as well. There is a limited supply in housing, so prices must rise.
- The lack of small businesses.
Most small businesses fail. It would be more beneficial to burn the money then waste a large sum of money. A minority of small businesses are successful.
http://www.forbes.com...
- Low wages
Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees.
"This would increase wages because many 18-year olds would choose to simply not work for someone else for a while."
How could these 18 year olds be successful and manage their finances without experience?
Debate Round No. 3
Darris

Pro

I'm going to be honest: this hasn't been my favorite debate.
For one, my opponent didn't even address half of it until my final round. For two, every argument in rounds two and three are me repeating myself and my opponent just saying that I haven't made any actual argument or that it's only my opinion.
That said, I still do appreciate that my opponent has accepted this debate. I will be making another one hoping that my next opponent follows the rules.

I have put my tally at the end of this argument, but obviously it's up to you, the voter, who wins.

"The Pro side is whining about the fact that I have chosen to debate the morality or lack thereof morality."
I'm not "whining", I'm pointing out that Con has refused to follow the rules which he explicitly accepted when he began this debate.
Also, referring to your opponent's counterpoints as "whining" is not really good form, so I ask that voters would remember that ad hominem.

" Let it be known here and now the Con side has refuted all of the points the Pro side has provided so far about the morality of the National Join Capitalist Fund"
I disagree. Con has not made any argument against the counterpoints of Pro's side. Con has only insisted that Pro has no basis or that all of Pro's arguments are opinion.

"Again, he has not defined where his basis for this equality is from other than his own opinion."
Actually, I have said repeatedly and without opinion:
BEFORE the introduction of landed property, any land would obviously be open to use by any individual.
AFTER the introduction of landed property, the use of that land began to require permission.
That's a loss of opportunity.
That's not opinion, that's observable fact.
Repeating that something is only opinion doesn't make it so.

"The concept of rights are relative whether the Pro side likes it or not."
And a second ago my opponent was insisting that, since my side was opinion (it's not), it was invalid.

"Therefore no one has an obligation to even acknowledge such a concept exists because it was created by another human being."
... this isn't a relevant argument, but I'll respond to it anyway. We have no obligation to acknowledge concepts that were created by other human beings? ... like every concept ever?
Voter, can you name a concept that wasn't created? The very word "concept" implies that it had a conception and was conceived by another human being.
A concept, by definition, is human-created.

"If the fund payed [sic] student debt, it wouldn't be fair to those who didn't go to college"
If my opponent had bothered to make an argument like this before my final round, I could have explained this to him. Instead, he waited to point out this "problem" based on misunderstanding what I mean.
I will only know how many other misunderstandings there are after Con has posted his final argument, because I have no way of addressing them now.
I have been robbed of a good final round by Con.

The fund doesn't pay student debts. The fund pays money. The student may choose to use it to pay student debts if he/she so wishes.

" they are not receiving this benefit of having their mistake being paid for."
They're receiving the same benefit. They can use the fund to start a business or something, if they like. They don't AVE to go to college to get the money. I never said that. That's not unfair.
The entire argument that my opponent has made against the fairness of the Fund based on student loans is based on Con not understanding what I was saying. That would be fine for Round 2, but I don't think it's acceptable for the second argument in Round 3 in a 4-round debate.
I feel obliged to point out that, again, we could have actually discussed this if my opponent hadn't waited until my Round 4 to bring it up.

"Poverty can't be eliminated because it is relative."
1. Relative things can certainly be eliminated. Why not? If we say that one below $10,000/year is impoverished and say that everyone gets $10,000/year, we will have eliminated relative poverty by our relative definition.
It is relative. And it is based on what standard of living people are able to afford. It is subjective. But there's a pretty consistent definition of poverty. Especially since the federal government sets a poverty line.
If you are at the point where you find it difficult to feed your kids every day, I would say you are impoverished.
This fund would destroy that. That brings me to:

2. Abject poverty is not relative. If you are homeless with no money, you're poor. There's no "oh, but he has a TV". He doesn't have a TV, he doesn't have money, he doesn't have many clothes, he doesn't have a place to sleep and stay warm, he doesn't bathe often, and he doesn't eat regularly.
This fund would also have a positive effect on that.


" Demand is increasing so price would increase significantly as well. There is a limited supply in housing, so prices must rise."
This issue is small and can easily be solved with things outside the fund or with the fund's financing.
Please note that this is not an argument about the financing, but a proposed solution to Con's objection.
If the fund were financed by a land value collection, housing prices would go down.
A land value tax encourages using as little land as possible to as high an economic benefit as possible. That means lots of multi-unit construction and an influx of rentable properties to the market. That would make housing demand fall sharply.

"Most small businesses fail. It would be more beneficial to burn the money then waste a large sum of money. A minority of small businesses are successful."
Most small businesses fail, so it would be more beneficial to burn the money?
That doesn't even begin to follow.
Even if it did, shouldn't burning the money be their choice?
When the person spends that money to build his/her business, they are bolstering other businesses.
Burning the money would objectively be worse.

"Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees."
... they will if that's what they're looking for.
McDonald's doesn't hire PhDs and Foremen to man the grill.

Also, the effects of the fund are more far-reaching than just 18-year olds.
It, like every major economic change, would affect everyone.
If a 28-year old still had his old payout, he, too would benefit from the competition by employers.

"How could these 18 year olds be successful and manage their finances without experience?"
By experiencing?
The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault.
I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me.

The way I would vote:
1. Spelling and grammar: definitely should go to Pro because of Con's numerous spelling mistakes. At one point he put "of" instead of "have". At another he spelled "paid" with a 'y' (i.e. "payed").
2. Conduct: I'll just say that Con didn't actually provide an argument against the second half of the debate he accepted until I couldn't respond more than once. Con also referred to my requests that he argue the other half of the debate as "whining". Not exactly good form.
3. Better arguments: Since Con didn't make an argument against literally half of the Pro side until Pro's final round, I think Pro should get that point from the get go. However, there is a question I'd like to ask the voter:
Does this sound like opinion to you? :
" before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first"
--Because Con insists repeatedly throughout this debate that that's just an opinion.
4. Sources: I think sources could go either way.
Tophatdoc

Con

Multiple occasions the Pro side has shown that he is attempting to misconstrue arguments and points to his own leisure. Now, the Pro has made the claim that the Con was supposed to dictate the debate. That is an error because the proof was on the Pro's side. The Pro side has also claimed that I have committed an ad hominem by claiming he "whining." The word "whining" is a verb and refers to an action. It is not a character trait or a noun for that matter. To appropriate something one knows nothing about is poor debate etiquette on the Pro side.

Ad Hominem:marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

"I disagree. Con has not made any argument against the counterpoints of Pro's side. Con has only insisted that Pro has no basis or that all of Pro's arguments are opinion."
A disagreement is an opinion, not a fact. I was not making an argument because the burden of proof is not on the con. I have effectively shown you have no basis. I explain in explicit details later on.

"If my opponent had bothered to make an argument like this before my final round, I could have explained this to him. Instead, he waited to point out this "problem" based on misunderstanding what I mean.
I will only know how many other misunderstandings there are after Con has posted his final argument, because I have no way of addressing them now.
I have been robbed of a good final round by Con."
The burden of proof was on the Pro side, not the Con's. The course of the debate was supposed to be dictated by the Pro since the fund is being proposed not rejected. He was supposed to provide facts and evidence to support the fund. The Con only need to have to refute the evidence provided or show that he has no evidence. I chose to show that he has no evidence whatsoever.

"But there's a pretty consistent definition of poverty. Especially since the federal government sets a poverty line. "
Perhaps, the Pro side again infers something the Con side did not mention. I mentioned nothing of poverty lines. Poverty is not a relative definition. It is defined quite clearly. What one associates with poverty is inherently relative as I was stating in the previous round.

Poverty:the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

A poverty line in the United States is absolute because it is determined by the government.
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...

"Abject poverty is not relative. If you are homeless with no money, you're poor. There's no "oh, but he has a TV". He doesn't have a TV, he doesn't have money, he doesn't have many clothes, he doesn't have a place to sleep and stay warm, he doesn't bathe often, and he doesn't eat regularly. "

The pro side has committed a fallacy. An appeal to the emotions of the readers and not to the logic of the readers.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"If the fund were financed by a land value collection, housing prices would go down.
A land value tax encourages using as little land as possible to as high an economic benefit as possible. That means lots of multi-unit construction and an influx of rentable properties to the market. That would make housing demand fall sharply."

The Pro side negated the fact that there is a limited amount of housing. Also there is significant amount of taxes and fees that cause the rise in prices. Taxes don't lower prices, prices only rise. If your referring to building more apartments, property taxes are normally hire on them than houses already. Then the property of apartments would rise. Unless the Pro side is suggesting a rent ceiling as well.

http://www.quickenloans.com...
http://www.nmhc.org...

"When the person spends that money to build his/her business, they are bolstering other businesses.
Burning the money would objectively be worse."

"Burning money" is a saying for money that is being wasted. The Pro side must of never heard the phrase previously.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...

""Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees."
... they will if that's what they're looking for.
McDonald's doesn't hire PhDs and Foremen to man the grill.

Also, the effects of the fund are more far-reaching than just 18-year olds.
It, like every major economic change, would affect everyone.
If a 28-year old still had his old payout, he, too would benefit from the competition by employers."

No, youth employment would only sky rocket if people chose selectively who they would be employed by. McDonalds, Walmart, and Exxon Mobile don't employ most Americans. Corporations don't employ most Americans. So who could afford this? Most Americans are employed small businesses with fifteen employees or less. Essentially, the Pro's scheme would also bankrupt or prevent the creation of small businesses as well because they would no longer afford the startup costs for employees.

http://www.entrepreneur.com...
http://www.sba.gov...
http://economics.about.com...

"The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault.
I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me. "

There are five distinctive reasons why the voters should vote Con.

1. The burden of proof was on the Pro's side not Con's. The Pro side has negated his own rules, not the Con.

"This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund."

The Pro side has not proven the morality or the positive effects of the fund. It was the Pro's jov to do this since this was a proposal.

2. The Pro side has not shown any facts but only opinion.
"Actually, I have said repeatedly and without opinion:
BEFORE the introduction of landed property, any land would obviously be open to use by any individual.
AFTER the introduction of landed property, the use of that land began to require permission.
That's a loss of opportunity.
That's not opinion, that's observable fact. "
Where did the pro arrive at this so-called "fact?" I must insist upon the absolute fact he has provided not a single fact. Look at every single post he has shown and he has provided not a single source or an ounce of evidence to produce this "fact." Therefore, the readers, voters, and the Con side have been left to conclude this is nothing short of autobiographical content and opinion. I asked the Pro side several times for a basis to be clear, yet he only added more assumptions(read for yourselves). No evidence, no sources, only assumptions, therefore no facts have been provided.Far as I am concerned the Pro side must be intentionally attempting to deceive all those who have read this debate. I challenge the voters to look and search thoroughly for any facts, sources, or evidence he has provided. He only provided one link which has no relevance upon the content of our debate(which was in the first round). Not a single source of relevance has been provided I promise you.

3. The Pro side has not proved any of his points.
As said, the burden of proof was on the Pro side, not Con. The Pro side has not shown why we should accept the Nation Join Capitalism Fund morally, economically, idealistically, or even practically. The pro side has only described the functions of the fund. Yet, the readers and myself were not provided why we should be for this fund.

4. The Con side has refuted the moral basis on the National Join Capitalism Fund.

The Con side questioned several times for the basis of the Pros' assumptions but was only given opinion. Opinion is not a strong moral basis. We awaited for the facts, not a single one arrived. I questioned thoroughly and shown his basis was only made up of opinion and sentiment.

5. The Pro side has destroyed any constructive support for the National Join Capitalism Fund when he made this statement:

"The same way everyone learns. Why would I care if they decide to blow it all? It's their decision. It's their money. It's their fault.
I wouldn't have wasted it if it were given to me. "

Essentially, the money is collected from property owning Americans then effectively wasted by teenage adolescents. There are better things this money can be used for. If you think the Pro side has not provided an argument for the fund, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
"all taxes raise prices" is also a position that I could have fought against if Con had actually brought up an objection. No Con doesn't have to dictate the debate. But if Con ignores something for three arguments, he's allowing that thing through. To bring it up after I can't respond is terrible form.
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
This is my last comment for now.
@ax123man,
the Laffer curve doesn't apply to goods that are fixed in supply. Land (location) is fixed in supply.
No one will produce less land if we tax it highly. They stopped making it a while ago.
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
It appears half of my debate has posted, so that's good. I really do hope that Con and the voters check here for the other half.
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
"Who is the loser in this transfer of money and what damage will this cause to the economy? What about inflationary affects if the funds come from debt creation (by banks or the federal reserve), the negative effects taxation has on capital growth, the difficulty in raising taxes both politically and due to the Laffer curve?"
Those are great questions to ask.
Con is not asking those questions. He's only focusing on the morality.

"By stating that "This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund", you have effectively removed the strongest argument against such a fund."
Wouldn't you agree that that would mean you shouldn't accept the debate instead of accepting the debate and then refusing to abide by the rules you agreed to?
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
Claiming land and using land are different things.
Claiming land and having a claim to land are different things.
To claim something as your own, you are necessarily saying that it doesn't belong to someone else.

"As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. "
And as I've said, the solution (landed property) also leads to problems.
My solution is a solution to the problems created by the original solution.

"After all they would of [sic] contested for the same piece of land in the past."
Yes, they would have. That's what property fixed. Then other problems arose.

"How can someone lose something they never possessed?"
If my grandfather left me one million dollars to be paid when I turn 18, and someone spends it before I reach that age, I have clearly lost one million dollars despite never having possessed it.

"...so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land."
Yes. He could. He shouldn't though, because everyone has an equal claim to that land.

"So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims."
No one can have rights because we don't have a government handing those rights down?
I disagree profusely. They are rights and the government has to respect them. If they're granted by the government then they're privileges, not rights.

Despite the rules of the debate, which I laid out and Con accepted, Con has still refused to debate the merits and effects of the Join Capitalism Fund and chooses instead to just berate the method by which I have proposed to fund it.

I'll quote myself.
"This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund. "
Con refuses to debate effects and only debates morality.
Con is letting the effects through.
Half of the debate is over and Con hasn't said a word about the effects of the Fund.
Posted by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
Debate.org is not letting me post my response, which is infuriating. I have NOT forfeited this debate.
I'm posting my response here.
"Where did the pro side arrive at this conclusion? "
I arrived at that conclusion through sheer logic.
Before A claims the land, A has no right to keep B and C from working on the land.
It only becomes a problem when A says that B and C can't work on the land.

"If not it wasn't his property because property is a legal concept."
Property doesn't have to have been codified in order to have an equal claim.
Freedom doesn't have to be legalized in order for slavery to exist.

"So what would prevent individuals from fighting over the same piece of land?"
Nothing. That's why landed property became the solution to the problem of fighting over the use of land.
Now that landed property has been used as a solution, other problems have arisen. Namely, that someone doesn't have the same claim (legally) to that land as the person who legally owns it under the current system.

"If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that is not equal. "
Yes it is. As I've explained, any individual can USE any piece of land. That doesn't mean that that individual can keep OTHERS from using that land. It is at that point that problems arise.

"Therefore his equal claim that he mentioned in the first round was refuted by his own claims in the second round. "
Only if the reader isn't paying attention.

"There is no authority to make the claim that every has an equal claim to any land that they choose as the pro suggests. "
There was no authority that informed everyone that slavery was wrong before it was made illegal.
Does that make it correct?
No. Not to the rational observer.

"it is inherently not equal because people could claim any piece of land as says in the second round. "
...
Posted by ax123man 3 years ago
ax123man
It seems to me the funding and the effects are inextricably connected. The amount you have chosen, $180,000, seems to be driven more by thoughts like "an amount that would pay for stuff I want when I turn 18" then by anything else. Where would the funds come from and what would the effect of this redistribution be? Who is the loser in this transfer of money and what damage will this cause to the economy? What about inflationary affects if the funds come from debt creation (by banks or the federal reserve), the negative effects taxation has on capital growth, the difficulty in raising taxes both politically and due to the Laffer curve?

French economist Frederic Bastiat, in 1850, wrote of the "Seen and the Unseen":

"Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee."

By stating that "This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund", you have effectively removed the strongest argument against such a fund. This is not just a matter of the financing of the fund. It is a matter of the negative (unseen) effects of that financing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.