Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market is Evil because People are evil.

KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:44:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is sort of a feeler for what people would say about the above resolution.

First I recently saw the following video which attempts to make the claim that US corporations are economic "terrorists" or hitmen:

I found the video interesting. It's content, it seems to me, is spot on, however it's conclusion is somewhat flawed. It appears to put the entire blame on corporations, when, in fact, the ACTUAL perpetrators are the general public. The general public, through it's free market economy demands cheaper products and the public does not care how those products are delivered. These so-called "evil" corporations are merely giving the public what they want.

So I would contend that the free market is only evil because people are inherently evil, i.e. people inherently do not care whether or not their actions have negative effects on others so long as those negative effects are not directed at people in their immediate circle of acquaintances. In a nutshell, if people are not able to directly witness the evil of their actions, then they will a) not consider their actions as evil and b) continue those "evil" actions. The free market facilitates the separation of people from the effect of their actions and thus facilitates people doing evil things.

I'm particularly interested in how people might phrase this type of argument as a resolution appropriate for a debate. I'm also sort of interested in, if people agree with this point, where else it might be applicable (for instance, our current US government is a good example of where we are complacent in doing things that may or may not be "evil").
KroneckerDelta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 10:51:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This reminded me of a T.S. Eliot quote that I rather like:

"They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
But the man that is shall shadow
The man that pretends to be."

It is true that people, by and large, are neither moral nor exceptionally intelligent. More than anything this is an argument against both pure democracy and a powerful central government, not necessarily capitalism. Democracy extends the will of the overrated public and a strong central government extends that will globally. When you have a democratic and militaristic hegemon like America you end up with the rather nasty mix that we find ourselves in. A smaller government which is crippled by a functioning separation of powers and system of checks and balances prevents government force from being used in this way. Notice that if such wars actually had to be declared it would be much more difficult to abuse innocent people in this way. But I think that trying to devise a system 'so perfect that no one will need to be good' is an exercise in futility. We have to accept people for what they are and act accordingly.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:12:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmmm, it would seem that since trading with other countries is so evil, it would seem as if no longer handing out foreign trade and trade embargos would benefit third world countries. Yet somehow that didn't work when we did that in Iraq. Interesting how it didn't work.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:19:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Generally, as an (aspiring) economist, I'm always extremely skeptical of anyone who tries to make an argument using platitudes without even using concrete examples to demonstrate their point.

To use one concrete example of my own, let's talk about Osama Bin Laden. He rather clearly defined his motivations and his goals for attacking the United States. He wanted to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, and his grudge against the United States was motivated by
-Our support for Israel
-Our enforcement of sanctions against Iraq between 1992 and 2003
-Our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them against Iraqi invasion.

These actions could hardly be called mis-deeds. He wasn't some freedom fighter who wanted liberation from the clutches of global capitalism, he was a theocratic, islamo-fascist thug. He and most of the other insurgents in the middle east are nothing more. Leftists have this romantic image of insurgents in Iraq fighting against foreign occupation, and justify this by asking Americans how they would feel if a foreign power occupied our territory.

But then you have to ask why the insurgents so often attacked humanitarian targets (like the UN headquarters) or their own democratically-elected government.

The only concrete example in this video was Iraq, but even a cursory glance at the arguments for and against the invasion in the run-up to the invasion in 2003 would reveal that we didn't invade them to "get their oil." The entire world, including Russia and China, voted for the sanctions against Iraq. If we wanted their oil, we could have simply stopped enforcing the embargo against Iraq.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:38:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:44:34 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
This is sort of a feeler for what people would say about the above resolution.

First I recently saw the following video which attempts to make the claim that US corporations are economic "terrorists" or hitmen:

I found the video interesting. It's content, it seems to me, is spot on, however it's conclusion is somewhat flawed. It appears to put the entire blame on corporations, when, in fact, the ACTUAL perpetrators are the general public. The general public, through it's free market economy demands cheaper products and the public does not care how those products are delivered. These so-called "evil" corporations are merely giving the public what they want.

So I would contend that the free market is only evil because people are inherently evil, i.e. people inherently do not care whether or not their actions have negative effects on others so long as those negative effects are not directed at people in their immediate circle of acquaintances. In a nutshell, if people are not able to directly witness the evil of their actions, then they will a) not consider their actions as evil and b) continue those "evil" actions. The free market facilitates the separation of people from the effect of their actions and thus facilitates people doing evil things.

Even if we lived in a perfect communist society, that would still apply: http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 12:19:30 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
The entire world, including Russia and China, voted for the sanctions against Iraq.

Even two oil exporters supported sanctioning a rival oil exporter? I guess that settles it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 5:42:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 12:56:32 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/3/2013 12:19:30 PM, Jake-migkillertwo wrote:
The entire world, including Russia and China, voted for the sanctions against Iraq.

Even two oil exporters supported sanctioning a rival oil exporter? I guess that settles it.

They are both net importers
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:07:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is why we should use the government to just force everyone to take a crazy load of oxytocin. Then we can all play nice without any other regulations.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
UH.......... everything is evil because people are evil. You lose debate. End of story.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:53:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 7:12:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
UH.......... everything is evil because people are evil. You lose debate. End of story.

I agree with you. What I stated was way too vague and therefore would be applied to anything. I think more of my point, was that people do not realize they are immoral and instead tend to point fingers at everyone but themselves. E.g., a lot of people see corporations as being evil, when in fact corporations only provide what people want.
KroneckerDelta
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:55:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So perhaps a better, and even more pointless point would be all people are hypocrites (I am obviously not immune to this accusation).
KroneckerDelta
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:05:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 10:51:08 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
More than anything this is an argument against both pure democracy and a powerful central government, not necessarily capitalism.

First, this wasn't addressing capitalism, that's a different issue (I could do a rant on capitalism). A free market economy and capitalism, while most equate, are not the same thing. A free market certainly doesn't require capitalism, and I don't think capitalism requires a free market.

I timidly disagree about a powerful central government. A powerful central government can go either way: it can be super evil or can be extremely good. One might argue, since I said people are evil, the former is more likely than the latter.

Also, let's not make the mistake of equating a powerful central government with totalitarianism. In fact, a pure democracy is probably most likely to create totalitarianism: tyranny of the majority. I think civil rights, gay rights, smoking bans, drug laws, etc. give good examples of this in the US.
KroneckerDelta
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:56:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lol... Wtf? Evil, in the objective moral sense, doesn't exist. Don't try to impose your own definition onto everybody else.

The free market allocates resources in the most efficient way possible. Without an objective standard for measuring what is good and what is bad, the only other real measurements that you can use to determine the consequences of an action are 1) efficiency and 2) satisfaction The free market is inherently the most efficient allocation of resources due to the price system, and this allocation of resources has consequently imposed a high level of satisfaction for the consumers, i.e, developed countries.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:05:47 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
free market certainly doesn't require capitalism, and I don't think capitalism requires a free

This is some really stupid sh!t.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 8:06:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/3/2013 5:42:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
They are both net importers

Not in 1990.

source? Embargo lasted longer then 1990 as well
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 9:57:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:05:47 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
free market certainly doesn't require capitalism, and I don't think capitalism requires a free

This is some really stupid sh!t.

I don't think you understand what a free market is or what capitalism is, but obviously you do not believe I understand it either.

A free market literally means completely without control (i.e. regulations, etc.). It is generally based on an idealistic notion that buyer and seller will act in good faith and not try to deceive each other. Which doesn't happen in practice and, by definition of a free market cannot be enforced.

Capitalism has a few features, but the main one (imo) is the idea of profit.

You can have a free market where buyers/sellers have an unwritten agreement that every transaction will be not-for-profit thus you can have a free market without capitalism.

On the converse, you can have profit in a controlled system. Perhaps the government sets regulations on how much capital an industry may hold or set limits on the profit margin in transactions. In fact, this is much closer to the capitalism that is actually employed in the real world. So our current system is a perfect example of capitalism without a free market.

Furthermore, a free market is an idealistic view that cannot actually be realized and never has. The closest thing to a true free market is the black market which is free from regulations (although governments may put up barriers to curb the black market, ultimately prices are set freely without direct government intervention or control). However, the black market fails the ideal that buyer and seller do not attempt to deceive each other.
KroneckerDelta
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 11:56:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:44:34 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
This is sort of a feeler for what people would say about the above resolution.

First I recently saw the following video which attempts to make the claim that US corporations are economic "terrorists" or hitmen:

I found the video interesting. It's content, it seems to me, is spot on, however it's conclusion is somewhat flawed. It appears to put the entire blame on corporations, when, in fact, the ACTUAL perpetrators are the general public. The general public, through it's free market economy demands cheaper products and the public does not care how those products are delivered. These so-called "evil" corporations are merely giving the public what they want.

So I would contend that the free market is only evil because people are inherently evil, i.e. people inherently do not care whether or not their actions have negative effects on others so long as those negative effects are not directed at people in their immediate circle of acquaintances. In a nutshell, if people are not able to directly witness the evil of their actions, then they will a) not consider their actions as evil and b) continue those "evil" actions. The free market facilitates the separation of people from the effect of their actions and thus facilitates people doing evil things.


I'm particularly interested in how people might phrase this type of argument as a resolution appropriate for a debate. I'm also sort of interested in, if people agree with this point, where else it might be applicable (for instance, our current US government is a good example of where we are complacent in doing things that may or may not be "evil").

These are excellent points...

...however, whereas the political economic machine is generally condoned by the public, making the public similarly guilty of the atrocities that result, I still don't consider the public directly responsible. It's not only demands for cheaper products that drive defunct foreign relations, forced class disparities domestically, and environmental crises, but also demands for more money by proprietors. In fact, I think that this greed is a far greater impetus for the general grievances outlined in the OP than societal conformity and complacency.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 4:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 6:44:34 AM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
This is sort of a feeler for what people would say about the above resolution.

First I recently saw the following video which attempts to make the claim that US corporations are economic "terrorists" or hitmen:

I found the video interesting. It's content, it seems to me, is spot on, however it's conclusion is somewhat flawed. It appears to put the entire blame on corporations, when, in fact, the ACTUAL perpetrators are the general public. The general public, through it's free market economy demands cheaper products and the public does not care how those products are delivered. These so-called "evil" corporations are merely giving the public what they want.

So I would contend that the free market is only evil because people are inherently evil, i.e. people inherently do not care whether or not their actions have negative effects on others so long as those negative effects are not directed at people in their immediate circle of acquaintances. In a nutshell, if people are not able to directly witness the evil of their actions, then they will a) not consider their actions as evil and b) continue those "evil" actions. The free market facilitates the separation of people from the effect of their actions and thus facilitates people doing evil things.


I'm particularly interested in how people might phrase this type of argument as a resolution appropriate for a debate. I'm also sort of interested in, if people agree with this point, where else it might be applicable (for instance, our current US government is a good example of where we are complacent in doing things that may or may not be "evil").

If a corporation were a person (which I've heard they have been, legally, since like 1886), that person would be classified as a Sociopath. They are not people, however, in that they can live forever, and also in that they are residents of no country.

So - immortal sociopath with no allegiance to anyone...

This makes them analogous to a vampire.


People who pay tribute to the vampires by supporting them are stupid, lazy, thoughtless and selfish.

I don't know if there's evil in the world, but f*ck it...close enough.

Capitalism is the most efficient model we have except when it isn't. It works wonderfully hen there is a homogenous product with a relatively elastic demand curve.

It can work in other situations as well but not typically without some sort of law to control it.

In the case of power distribution, it needs to be HEAVILY regulated because a free market in that industry is currently untenable. Why? Well, since Black Vulcan or Electro aren't around to shoot your homes with the power they need, and no power distribution technology we have can send power from a transfer station to your home, and your home only, that industry has2 possible ways to operate:

1. monopoly
2. multiple sets of power lines, all separate from one another and all with leads into each home such that people could switch off Power Company #1's feed and turn on #2's feed, or #3's...and so on.

In this instance, an unregulated market is NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT, and is, in fact, the least efficient. Therefore, HEAVY REGULATIONS are needed.

Same for the banking industry, or any financial industry
, because it is so easy to think up new rackets in finance which are technically legal, but only because our legislature doesn't spend time thinking of these rip-off schemes before the financial institutions have a chance to.

Healthcare is YET ANOTHER industry which is less efficient in "free market" model, and that is because the goal of healthcare, which is, or should be, health, goes against the principle of profiteering.

The most efficient thing to do with someone when they come down with cancer is to shoot them between the eyes. This stops resources from being wasted on their treatment so the corporations involved can make a profit for their shareholders. It doesn't do much for the person's health, though.

Government is YET ANOTHER service which should be free from the market system. If I have to explain why to anyone, they're retarded.

ANYONE who says that Capitalism/Free Markets are ALWAYS the best, most efficient use of resources is ALWAYS a RETARD.


Even in hard science the laws of thermodynamics are the only absolutes we know of, and we can't even truly be sure of those, but somehow in a science that involves 7 billion idiots making "rational" decisions, this type of absolute also exists?

If you really believe this, I've got a bridge for sale. Have your people call my people.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 10:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:48:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:06:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/3/2013 5:42:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
They are both net importers

Not in 1990.

source? Embargo lasted longer then 1990 as well

Well, Russia was a net exporter throughout the sanctions regime and still is, the world's second largest in fact. China became an importer in the mid-'90s, by which time it was a moot point; repealing a UNSC resolution requires unanimity among permanent members, not just a single change of heart. Source? None of this is classified or even controversial; go to Wikipedia or something.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 12:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 10:54:05 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/3/2013 11:48:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:06:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/3/2013 5:42:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
They are both net importers

Not in 1990.

source? Embargo lasted longer then 1990 as well

Well, Russia was a net exporter throughout the sanctions regime and still is, the world's second largest in fact. China became an importer in the mid-'90s, by which time it was a moot point; repealing a UNSC resolution requires unanimity among permanent members, not just a single change of heart. Source? None of this is classified or even controversial; go to Wikipedia or something.

I asked for a source from you, not a restatement of what you said and telling me to find it myself. If this is true, you should find this information no problem.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 7:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." ~ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 7:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 7:19:25 PM, DanT wrote:
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." ~ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith

But the OP didn't advocate altruism. It advocated an end to the system that facilitates externalities. Smith knew nothing of externalities, so he's irrelevant.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:13:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 11:49:22 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
At 2/3/2013 9:57:57 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/3/2013 8:05:47 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:
free market certainly doesn't require capitalism, and I don't think capitalism requires a free

This is some really stupid sh!t.

I don't think you understand what a free market is or what capitalism is, but obviously you do not believe I understand it either.

A free market literally means completely without control (i.e. regulations, etc.).

No it doesn't. "Free market" is not a set definitive term; it exists as a gradient for measuring the amount of government intervention in the economy. Hence, terms such as "relatively free market."

It is generally based on an idealistic notion that buyer and seller will act in good faith and not try to deceive each other.

No it doesn't. It is based on the notion that both the buyer and the seller are capable of mutually benefiting from the transaction and thus have no incentive to deceive each other.

Which doesn't happen in practice and, by definition of a free market cannot be enforced.

Something that isn't meant to be enforced isn't to be favoured with an enforced version.

Capitalism has a few features, but the main one (imo) is the idea of profit.

I really don't care about your "imo." Definition of capitalism:

An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

http://www.google.ca...

You can have a free market where buyers/sellers have an unwritten agreement that every transaction will be not-for-profit thus you can have a free market without capitalism.

A free market is based on the inherent principles of supply and demand leading to changes in price. If you disregard those, then you are talking about an anarcho-communist society.

Capitalism is based on the idea of profit.

On the converse, you can have profit in a controlled system. Perhaps the government sets regulations on how much capital an industry may hold or set limits on the profit margin in transactions. In fact, this is much closer to the capitalism that is actually employed in the real world. So our current system is a perfect example of capitalism without a free market.

Again, the term free market exists as a gradient. Capitalism is based on the principles of profit between individuals, which requires some degree of a free market.

Furthermore, what's happening now is closer labelled as crony capitalism.

Furthermore, a free market is an idealistic view that cannot actually be realized and never has.

Errr.... Middle Ages Ireland, Hong Kong, industrial period Britain, and Singapore.

As long as there is a government, there can never be a 100% free market. However, these places are as a close as you have every gotten to them.

The closest thing to a true free market is the black market which is free from regulations (although governments may put up barriers to curb the black market, ultimately prices are set freely without direct government intervention or control). However, the black market fails the ideal that buyer and seller do not attempt to deceive each other.

The black market is caused because of government intervention. What do you think would happen if the government legalized all the things that the market was selling?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*every should be ever
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 9:02:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 8:13:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

The black market is caused because of government intervention. What do you think would happen if the government legalized all the things that the market was selling?

EVERY investment/endeavor/market/whatever has risk. If something is illegal, that simply means the risk is greater. Once one gets past this and enters the market, the black market is completely unregulated.

you have no clue what you're talking about because you lack the prerequisite knowledge to properly analyze the data/facts.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:30:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your personal opinions about human nature are irrelevant to what system of social organization is superior. Regardless of what you think human nature is, in general would a system that incentives serving people be preferable to a system that incentives constant plundering? Yep.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:30:59 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Your personal opinions about human nature are irrelevant to what system of social organization is superior. Regardless of what you think human nature is, in general would a system that incentives serving people be preferable to a system that incentives constant plundering? Yep.

Which system incentivizes SERVING people, and which system incentivizes SERVITUDE?

Obviously your statement is correct, but only because you fail to name which system accomplishes what you feel the end goal of a society should be, and the fact that you abstain from naming which is which, and thus from the obvious arguments which would refute a world solely in the Capitalist model, simply proves that outside of trite, obvious statements, you are completely unable to back your assertions.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 7:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 7:37:45 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/4/2013 7:19:25 PM, DanT wrote:
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." ~ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith

But the OP didn't advocate altruism. It advocated an end to the system that facilitates externalities. Smith knew nothing of externalities, so he's irrelevant.

The invisible hand is still relevant.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle