The Instigator
Johnny_Canuck
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
stephannnnie
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Social Democracy and MMEs are Superior to Minarchy and LFEs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 7 votes the winner is...
stephannnnie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,718 times Debate No: 11255
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

Johnny_Canuck

Pro

Social Democracy and Mixed Market Economies are superior to Minarchy and Laissez-Faire Economics.

Definitions used:
Social Democracy : A moderate political ideology that aims to achieve socialist goals within capitalist society such as by means of a strong social state and regulation of private industry.

Mixed Market Economy : "An economy in which a substantial number, though by no means all, of the activities of production, distribution and exchange are undertaken by the government, and there is more interference by the STATE than there would be in a MARKET ECONOMY. A mixed economy thus combines the characteristics of both CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM." - The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought

Minarchy : A state of small government, where it is used solely for the protection of Individual liberty and property. - Myself

Laissez-Faire Economics - "One of the guiding principles of capitalism, this doctrine claims that an economic system should be free from government intervention or moderation, and be driven only by the market forces." -Businessdictionary.com

Social Democracy VS. Minarchy
Social Democracy is a popular ideology chiefly because it guarantees a citizen basic access to the essentials of Modern Living under an established and regulated system. The Citizens of the state are guaranteed Universal Healthcare, Education, Social Insurance, Freedom of Democracy, Equal Rights, and Access to Social Programs (i.e. Welfare, Employment Insurance and Old-Age Pension). None of which a Minarchist system can guarantee. I do refrain from using the term "Free" for all of these because it is not at all free and the goals are achieved with taxation. Nations who have an effective social democratic system of government are at the top of Healthcare (1), Education (2) and Per Capita GDP (3) lists. This is no coincidence. It is the belief that Citizens of a nation should all help each other and contribute to the greater good of the community. Selfishness and Megalomania no place in a truly equal society. And truly equal societies can only be achieved through social democracy.

Myths about Social Democracy.

Social Democrats are quite often called socialists and are on the far right of the political spectrum of socialism. I personally do not mind being called a socialist but there are often many ignorant views about social democracy and equating it with the tyrannical totalitarianism of communism. and in extreme cases, National Socialism. All communists are socialist but not all socialists are communist and National Socialism is on the radical right of the classic political spectrum and should be treated as such.

Mixed Market Economics VS. Laissez-Faire Economics

The goal of a mixed market economy is to encourage growth and maximize security even in a global economic crisis. Laissez-faire Economics and Lack of regulation on the part of the government of The United States of America and lack of foresight by many world governments caused this mess (2008 - present recession) in the first place (4). Fortunately some nations with economic regulations are making it out strong and are predicted to have their recessions end in 2010. Germany and France's economies have already begun to grow again and Canada's recession ended in 2009 (5). What do all these nation's have in common? They are all mixed market economies. Fast recovery and relative stability are the strong points of a mixed market economy.

(1) http://www.photius.com...
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.usnews.com...
(5) http://www.cbc.ca...
http://www.cbc.ca...
stephannnnie

Con

I'd first like to commend my opponent, with whom I hold no relation outside the bounds of friendly virtual debate, on his admirable opening argument. With that said…

Laissez-Faire vs. Mixed Market Economy:
As you exhibit the strong points of a mixed market economy, let me assert the pro's of Laissez-Faire. This form of economics is fundamentally guided by the prospect of freedom and ultimately dependent on the idea of personal responsibility. This meaning, if a person wants to succeed, they will succeed. They will not need any help from their government, as it is not necessary for personal success in small business. It is ultimately the business owners decision and the business owners obligation to himself to succeed in whatever he has made to be his business. Eh? Aye.
I also can argue in the corner of Social Darwinism. Let me define, for those of you who aren't aware of this philosophy…

Social Darwinism: an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; a sociological theory that socioculteral advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) posses biological superiority in the struggle for existence.

As the Darwinist theory would have it, the idea of economics can be applied to survival of the fittest as well. As it is believed that evolution and progression is achieved through competition. Government intervention would most definitely put a damper on this idea, and if regulated by big business, what hope would there be for smaller business? And if there is no hope for small business, then who is prosperous? Big business, that's who, and if we aren't on our way to being a CEO, what does that mean for the rest of us? Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to "trickledown economics." If they grant us that much, that is. Do you know where that money is going? Do you really trust these men (or woman, of course) to make sure you get your share? I don't. Very fair, eh? Nay. Redistribution won't always work in your favor, middle class citizen. Wouldn't you rather make your own decisions, your own living? I know I would. But by all means, if you enjoy having your entrepreneurships mastered by a socialist puppeteer, then you just go lead yourself to the Peoples Republic of China, they will take mediocre care of you there.
In my humble opinion, the solitary purpose of government within their state is to protect the life and land of the people they govern- nothing more, nothing less.
"I would rather live in a society which treated children as adults than one which treated adults as children." - Lizard

Let us move to Social Democracy vs. Minarchy:
I would like to touch on a point I figure you will try to use the most to your advantage, my anonymous opponent, the issue of "modern living" pertaining to unmerited benefits. Call me crazy, but… I don't understand, how a person that doesn't work for their benefits, can declare that they justly have any claim to them at all.
You don't contribute to society, yet you demand support from your nation? These benefits are taxed. That means that in order for these people, who don't bother to work, who don't find the time to contribute, for them to have these benefits, its going to come out of my wallet. I worked for that money. I spent my time working for that money. But now, what? Your telling me that I have to give a certain percentage so that drunken homeless man can pay the bill when he breaks his leg stumbling down his alley way? How on earth can you rationalize that to the average working class citizen? Even more, what is the point of even working to become a working class citizen? If your government is going to demand everybody else pick up your slack? What's the point of success or education? If I can just mooch of everybody else around me, why on earth would I take the time to go to school and get a decent career and contribute, if I have the safety net of unmerited benefits? After awhile, there won't be anybody to mooch off of.
That is all.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnny_Canuck

Pro

I thank my opponent for her rebuttal and for accepting this debate.

I'd like to open with a Definition; The Definition of a Nation.

"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality" - American Heritage Dictionary.

A Nation is a family, A really big family where everyone is expected to do their part as a member of said family. To contribute, if you will. And we take care of each other. In my Nation of Canada we have a mentality that in order to better ourselves we should take care of our fellow Canadians. And if we fall under hardship, our fellow Canadians will take care of us. Because we would be nowhere without one another. But we, the Canadian people, are an anomaly. Whilst the majority of us are of common heritage, we are by all means, not all of the same heritage. Yet, we all see each other equally and we continue to allow others to become a part of our community daily.

The majority of Canadians believe that we all have the right to the basics. The things we need to live a healthy, happy life. We believe that everyone has the right to be healthy. And this is shown by our embracing of socialized health care, and other social programs which improve the lives of us and our fellow Canadians.

Now you might be wondering, How does Socialized medicine improve lives. Well, there are many reasons. First and foremost is that it enables everyone to be able to afford it. No mater what you're covered, pre-existing conditions aside. That means we can all get treated well and with world-class medicine without having to worry about getting a $10,000+ bill in the mail. And it also gives us the freedom of preventative medicine, which is the ability to stop illness before it happens.

Now, say you're a middle class worker who gets injured. And you get treated. But your insurance company denies you coverage. Well, you're between a rock and a hard place because now you have a huge bill and only make $40,000 annually. How will you be able to afford your mortgage? How will you afford your car payments? How will you afford to make ends meet? It may just get tough.

What if you get a terminal illness such as cancer? And your insurance company won't cover the treatment. Your bills will mount up out of site. How would you feel about telling a cancer patient that they didn't deserve the lp simply because they could not afford it? Do you think that is okay?

Article 25, Section 1 of the Universal declaration of human rights states:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Social Democratic nations have honoured this declaration and I believe it is high time America did as well.

These things were also championed by arguably the best U.S. President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt as seen in the first youtube video I have posted.

Unfortunately President Roosevelt did not live to see the end of the war and to see these great things implemented for the American people. Imagine what a place America would be today. It would be truly envied the world over. But, it never happened and we can only dream of what a place it would have been.

My opponent should ask any Scandinavian, Western European, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Israeli, Italian, Greek, Beneluxer, or Icelander what it is like to be amongst the Stupidest, Laziest, Least-ambitious and Least-happy people in the world. Well I can guarantee you that she would be hard pressed to find a single one, Because they are all among the Best Educated, Happiest and Most-Ambitious people in the world. And the per capita GDP and education indexes reflect this fact. They are amongst the happiest in the world according to the NEF's Happy Planet Index [1]

So I ask my opponent now, If the people are the government then how can the government be wrong?

MME vs. LFE

It has become obvious to me that my opponent has deeply confused A mixed market economy with a Centrally Planned one. With statements such as "guided by the prospect of freedom" to describe the Laissez-Faire economy. Implying that a Mixed market economy is not free. Further fuelled by statements such as "if you enjoy having your entrepreneurships mastered by a socialist puppeteer, then you just go lead yourself to the Peoples Republic of China". Implying that We, the social democrats, are being controlled by puppeteers. Except the fact that there are no puppeteers in a socialist system. The people control everything, that is the very basis of a socialist society. Real puppeteers are those who control the democratically-elected "representatives" of the people wielding the power of their corporations built on the backs of the workers. So my opponent should tell you and I who is truly free? The struggling middle class American whose home is being foreclosed or the middle class Scandinavian who's working to better themselves and their community without the fear of having their home stolen by a bank?

Government intervention does not mean government control and stability is always better than getting rich and losing it all.

"I am proud that my daughter believes, as I do, that hungry children should be fed whether they are Black Panthers or White Republicans." - Tommy Douglas, Father of Canadian Socialism

[1] http://www.happyplanetindex.org...
stephannnnie

Con

Let me use America as an example for the non-socialized system.
It is shown through observations and newspaper articles and surveys and polls and numbers of other sources of the type of hell that can go down in a hospital waiting room financed by socialized benefits. Crowded E.R's and insanely long waiting lists for certain therapies and treatments. Patients having to wait years until they could get into surgery, cancer patients being put on indefinite hold for radiation. The truth is, there isn't even room for all of these people, resources and doctors aren't abundant. People will die from these delays. Why do you think you find people traveling to the United States for medical treatment? They need better access to the resources that aren't available to them in a timely fashion elsewhere.
Quality vs. Quantity:
Studies show that invariably, government run healthcare systems restrict health care supply. There is an overload of people seeking treatment that they cannot afford in a socialized system, and the grim truth, is that somebody needs to draw the line somewhere. It is a fact that these systems are facing physician shortages. As of recently, 1.5 million Ontarians cannot get an appointment with a family physician.
We could also compare these systems by how well sick citizens are served, and American medicine, the non socialized system, reigns supreme. The Leukemia survival rating in the United States is 50%, in Europe, under socialized medicine it's just 35%. America has lower cancer mortality rating then Canadians. It is also a proven fact, that lower income Americans are in better health then comparable Canadians.
Poll's prove, that people in countries with government control over healthcare, believe that reform is needed within their country. More then 70% of Canadians, Germans, Australians, and British people say their healthcare system needs re-designed. Americans, however, according to a recent poll, more then half (51.3%) are satisfied with their health care system.
In America, we spend less time waiting for treatment, we have cleaner hospitals and more advantaged treatments and technologies, we have more preventative cancer screenings then these countries, and America is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
Why? Because there is more room for innovation. There is money for innovation, there is no budget for innovation. Sure, the bill can be higher. But wouldn't you rather take the chance at an more expensive bill for your wife's breast cancer treatment, then run the risk of watching her die in waiting for said treatment?
Now, I am not here to talk purely about healthcare, that's a whole other debate, but I would like to take this as an example and overview of things that can happen in a Social Democratic system when it comes to benefits.

"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality."
-American Heritage Dictionary

This is a wonderful concept to imagine, a nation as a family, and I believe that it does hold true, for most nations. However, it seems that you overlook the fact, opponent, that every society is always divided down to the individual. Human beings, by nature, in my opinion, are selfish beings. If they themselves don't feel as if they can thrive for themselves, what will motivate them to thrive for their fellow citizens? You can't assume that the majority of people find comfort in the success of their neighbors. It wouldn't even be fair to assume that of all Canadians. People succeed for themselves and their families, not the collective.
Does this mean that I don't believe that every man doesn't have the right to succeed? Not at all. Every man in my country is born with the right and the opportunity to make something of himself. If he chooses to throw it away down the road, well that's just not my problem.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.liberty-page.com...
[4] http://www.ncpa.org...
[5] http://www.liberty-page.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Johnny_Canuck

Pro

Is American Healthcare really that high Quality?

Short Answer: No.

I recently read a New York Times article on the State of American Healthcare, And it was embarrassing to say the least. Essentially if you aren't well-off then you won't get the same standard of Care as your "socialist" counterparts. Insurance coverage numbers are great if you don't count the 45 million Americans who now don't have any coverage. On top of that, Millions who do have coverage have poor or very poor coverage. Wait times in America are typically lower than in other nations with the exception of Germany. Also, Americans only get lower wait times if the sun is shining; "But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors."

Other surprising facts,
"Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care."

"We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick"

"America ranks near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care."

"In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema."

"American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines."

"Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor."

"America scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations." - All quotes from The New York times on a Commonwealth Fund Study. [1]

I would prefer to wait a tad longer to see a specialist and have them get it right the first time. But it's not only the commonwealth fund who is showing poor results on the part of America - The Urban institute [2] and health care policy journal Health Affairs [3] also say the same things.

So, My opponent, I do believe you are mistaken in your assessment of American Healthcare.

"You can't assume that the majority of people find comfort in the success of their neighbors."
I don't assume these things. We prove time and again here that we find comfort in the success of our neighbours because if they are successful then so are we. The Idea is to not think about ones self all the time. Because If we all consider the greater good of the people then we will will be taken care of in the process because we are apart of the greater family of humans. And we should care for eachother. Because, He who does not care about another will simply die out.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.rwjf.org...
[3] http://www.ashp.org...
stephannnnie

Con

Well, healthcare arguments aside, as they have been given maybe a little too much attention throughout this debate, I do have a few final points I would like to make.

I stand by my arguments, and by my standing on these issues. I think that humans have the ability to reach their own potential, and I believe that this is the only way that true progress will ever be surpassed, and innovation be achieved. While this system has flaws, as every other system inevitably does, I still believe that its advantages outweigh any flaws it may posses.

I'll leave you with a few quotes:

"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."
-- Voltaire

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
-- Winston Churchill

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
-- Ayn Rand

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-- Thomas Jefferson

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 7 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
I'd just like to point out that while I am not religious that Jesus was a socialist x]
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
hah, we will.
Posted by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
Well you put up a good fight also Johnny Canuck! You two keep up the good work!
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
...uh, i guess you could say that.
Posted by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
Good!! Also

"I'd first like to commend my opponent, with whom I hold no relation outside the bounds of friendly virtual debate, on his admirable opening argument."

LOL, do you two know eachother???
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
hah, well thanks. i wasn't planning on doing so anytime soon.
Posted by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
Yes it does, thank you stephanie! I was just wondering! It is refreshing for such a young and beautiful girl to have insight like you have! Don't ever compromise it!!!!
Posted by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
well, uh ... im not very sure of your question, sir.
but i will interpret it the best way i can...

for a person to be free it means they are free of influence as well. (not that this ever truly happens) so in my opinion, for a man to be free of religious influence, would have to mean that they are essentially free in every way they possibly could be.
sort of a mind body and soul sort of deal.

does that uh, answer your question?
Posted by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
LOL thanks!
I do have a question for you, stephanie.

I see that you are not religious, but you belief so much it seems in men themselves and the idea of freedom. Do you think this has any effect on your religious beliefs???
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
lol, "cum". Nice typo. :P
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grantarp 7 years ago
Grantarp
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by stephannnnie 7 years ago
stephannnnie
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnny_Canuck 7 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
Johnny_CanuckstephannnnieTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60