The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
I can explain why if you want. I will say this:
I agree with H. Clinton's policies on like everything on her platform so if you are ever in doubt of my stance just look at her manifesto of 2016 and I agree (yeah I literally supported the email diva).
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.
When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel."
In my opinion, socialism is wrong on all levels: moral (I do not see it as just to take control of people's possessions "for the greater good"), economical (it historically has proven to work extremely poorly, and economical theories almost unanimously support this assumption), logical (whether we like it or not, human nature is based on greed, and trying to restrain/defy this nature cannot end well), rational (the importance of individual freedom stems from the fact that human organisms are fundamentally egoistic; it is a rational judgment), conceptual (society controlling individuals, but not controlled by individuals, is logically problematic) and practical (power vacuum will always be taken by someone, and socialism creates the ground for it to be taken by very vicious people). It is not that it is worse than capitalism; it is that capitalism is the natural system, and socialism is the artificial one, not bound by laws of nature. It is the same disparity as naturalism vs spiritualism: the latter involves scientifically suspect assumptions and, hence, leads to suspect outcomes.
It is not that socialism "cannot work"... But it is that socialism is very likely to fail, and even if it does happen to work and to last, then this system will never feel right to those who are subjected to living in it. It is possible to create an illusion of happiness for a pet dog; however, the dog will never be truly happy in captivity, and there will always be something left to be desired.
We only live once. Living our life fully is the only rational choice to maximize our happiness, and we cannot do so in the situation where we work for the happiness of the society and not our own.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Though I agree with the point Rand is attempting to make, that property rights are human rights, I wholly disagree with the statement, "No human rights can exist without property rights." For example, you do not need property to have the right to speak. Saying that you do is a factual absurdity.
Rand says that "if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life", but this doesn't sound like an argument against socialism but rather one for socialism.
The average worker does not own the results of their efforts, do they? The capitalist does. This is the very thing that a lot of socialists wish to get rid of. It appears that Rand has fallen to a very common misconception that asserts every socialist wishes to achieve socialism through the means of a state, viz. by giving the means of production to the state. This is not the case.
To the second clause, an assumption being commonly agreed upon does not make it true. This is an argumentum ad populum.
Do you mean to say that the "majority oppresses the minority"? If you do, in what way to you mean it?
Yet this is the current state of workers under capitalism, is it not? Workers who produce product for others are not working for their own happiness but for the happiness of those who employ them.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Having gotten to socialism is the necessary condition for being in socialism.
I do not think the fact that every single instance of attempted socialism resulting in a horrible failure needs sources. Simply pick any country from this list and compare to its capitalist counterparts at the time it was socialist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
I was referred to theories, not people. Theories refute socialism overwhelmingly; in fact, I have not seen a single mathematical model that would predict socialism resulting in anything but failure.
Compare the number of people who can help a beggar with little to no damage to their finances - to the number who actually do that. Ask yourself and your friends and answer honestly on what you would rather have happen: you getting a million dollars, or a thousand African kids getting $1000 each. I can go on and on, but I do not think further elaboration is needed.
Having to work for the good of the society and not yourself = being denied individual freedom.
Society is a group of individuals. The individual is one individual. If society controls the individual, hence a group of individuals controls the individual.
Not much to explain: if individuals are not in full control of their lives, then the society controls them. And any controlling structure by definition needs a leadership, which necessarily emerges.
I do not go every day to work because my employer becomes richer for it. I go every day to work because I become richer for it.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
Though I agree with you that socialism would be difficult to implement while still retaining as much respect to rights to property, I do not agree with you that it is impossible.
Though you have provided me with a list of states and a possible reason for their collapse, you have not provided me with the proper correlation.
I think you missed my point. Sure, people tend to act greedy, but that does not necessarily imply they are inherently greedy. Furthermore, providing support for people being greedy does not explain why acting against greed would end badly. (My main source of insight for my disagreement with this would be Buddhist monks. The Dhamma, which teaches you to not be greedy among a lot of other things, is something Buddhist monks live by, and I wouldn't really say their society has collapsed.)Furthermore, if I recall from memory correctly, a lot of socialist states dissipated due to outside forces, such as the French Commune, and some socialist states dissipated due to capitalist reform, such as the U.S.S.R. To say they collapsed due to socialism, to the extent of my knowledge, would be inappropriate.
Sure, if you were forced to work for the good of society and not yourself, it would be a denial of individual freedom, but I'm not sure how socialism entails this coercion.
Going on a brief tangent, the form of socialist society I advocate is one in which companies are collectively owned by the workers. (This is one of many ways socialism could be implemented.) I don't see how giving more power to the workers in this scenario entails the coercion elaborated in your statement.
Exactly my point though. What you are describing here is "the majority oppressing the minority" and not what you initially said, "society controlling individuals, but not controlled by individuals, is logically problematic."
This first statement supposes that "society" would be the controlling power which contradicts your original statement, that the lack of a controlling power would lead to vicious people taking power.I will still refer you to my second question, in what way would the minority be oppressed?
I must ask, what is this "controlling power" that we are even talking about? Are you talking about those who own the means of production? You have to be more specific.
This is not a concept that's necessarily alien to socialism. Socialism does not advocate abolishing money or the establishment of equal pay.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
Any system in which individual freedoms are respected is based on the concept of "consent", which can be conveyed through a "contract". "Consent" is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties that prescribes to what extent they gain rights to each other's property (including body, which, as Ayn Rand reasonably states, is the most important unit of property one can possess).
From this principle, capitalism naturally follows, and everything else is naturally excluded. Capitalism is simply an economical system based on voluntary contracts that are signed (or implied) as a result of mutual consent to the activity. I say, "I need some money". The employer says, "I need some work done". We shake hands, sign a contract, I do the work, he gives me the money. That is it, that is the whole economical system in a nutshell. There is no need to even call it "capitalism"; it is simply a society in which individual freedoms and rights are respected.
---
Socialism does not allow such a system to exist. Socialism fundamentally violates the principle of consent by not allowing people to own capital, property or means of production. In socialism, the society owns everything, and it is the society that defines the terms of every economical activity. Individual freedom is stomped upon in a very brutal way.
It does not matter how "fair" or "benevolent" the society is; it does not matter what excuses it uses to justify what it does in the name of the "greater good". What is important is that I am literally being economically raped by the society, that does not give me the freedom to accumulate wealth which belongs to me and me only.
Just imagine a society in which one's body belongs to the collective. The collective can decide that two people should have sex, and the people cannot object, because they are not the owners of their bodies. Socialism is the same matter of affairs, only with regards to other types of property. The economical activities are non-consensual, hence rapist.
---
Companies should not be owned by workers. The facilities the employer provides belong to the employer. If the workers want to be independent from the employer, they are always free to open their own business and do the same work for other people, in a freelancing manner. In this case, demanding that the employer forfeits their right for the property would be the same as me inviting guests to my apartment and losing this apartment as a result.
Socialism, plainly speaking, is a system based on robbery (i.e. appropriation of property through coercion). In order to avoid violence applied to you, you have to forfeit everything you own (in the socialist extreme - including your body) and to conform with the societal urges. It should be easy to see why most people do not want to live like that.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
So something I might concede to you is that consensual land ownership rules must be somewhat subjectively specified, and there is an argument to be made for shared land ownage in a system based on the concept of individual rights. Same, I suppose, goes for natural resources.
Property that was not created by a human, but existed in the world on its own, is difficult to attribute to someone without installing some sort of legal framework defining who can claim their rights on it - and if nobody, then on what conditions it is shared. Obviously nobody can claim a lake just by coming over and building a fence around it, that would be ridiculous - but on the other hand, a lake that already belongs to someone is a settled matter.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
My biggest problem has always been the vague definition, but that's not your fault. By "public ownership" I assume you mean the entire community owning the land, machines, raw materials and what-not. So if someone has his own stove in his own house, and he cooks and sells food with it, would all that have to be taken from him? How would this system work without a government, unless it's on a small-scale?
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Some socialists believe that these things should be given to the state, while others, like myself, believe that they should be given to the laborers who use them.
In your example, since the guy is the only one using his stove, he would be the only one to own and decide what is to be done with it. Something like Walmart would probably be broken up into smaller, self-sufficient companies, each owned and controlled by the workers equally. (As mentioned in my conversation with MayCaesar, this process of "breaking up" would admittedly be a difficult one to do properly.)
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is something I care deeply about, and every time I try to reply to your response, it deeply upsets me. (This is not necessarily your fault. I, like any other person, have my own biases.) In fear of letting my anger corrupt my own response or reasoning, I can't bring myself to complete or post a reply.
Hopefully, in the near future, I will be able to take this argument up again with less passion and properly consider the things you have to say. (If it's worth anything, you've already made me more critical of my own position.) I wholeheartedly hope you can understand and forgive me for failing to be a proper interlocutor.
P.S. I hope I never came off as rude during our discussion. I never intended to, but sometimes I give that impression. :P
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, not at all: we are having a good discussion, and I see no problems on either side.
That said, I grew up in a very authoritarian and collectivist society, and as a person who strongly values independence and freedom, I have learned to be very sensitive to any advocacy for restriction of individual rights. I see disrespect for individual rights and freedoms as the main cause of all conflicts in the history of humanity, for a man rarely takes arms against a large group of people to defend his own interest, and almost always it has to do with certain collective interests triumphing over the individual interests.
While the desire to eliminate or reduce instances of undesirable behavior, such as those which increases wealth inequality, by strong means is understandable - I see it as a harmful way of thinking. In my experience and knowledge, the ends never justify the means, and even those cases where it seems it does, there is always a logical caveat appearing from the very act of dismissing the importance of the effects of the means.
If we want to solve our economical problems, then we need to do it in the framework based on divination of the individual human freedom and dignity - for all humans, even those we hate with the utmost passion, even those who seem to have much more than they "deserve", while others have much less than they "deserve". Once the collective interest is put before the interest of even a single individual, no matter how wealthy and successful - our species has failed that individual.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's also superficial and naive to treat employment as voluntary and consensual in the sense of it being free of coercion. Work is required to earn money to both buy basic human necessities and have money to self-actualise and be more than a producer-consumer by following wants, desires, etc. This gives the employer far more coercive power in the relationship that the employee. I don't want to work in a Capitalist country but it is the best of the available options so I do. The situation is worse for others, for instance in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the choices available are often so poor that they or their children will needlessly die from malnutrition or preventable disease because even though they work they are paid so poorly they can't afford essentials. The standard of "consent" being used is childish and often has little to no implications for real freedom of action.
If the best you can honestly say about Capitalism in terms of consent is that on average society as a while begrudgingly accepts it and even those who don't like it and would prefer an alternative (like me) are forced to work within it despite our wishes if we want to have a halfway decent standard of living; then wouldn't that implicitly mean that any democratically accepted implementation of Socialism would be at least equal to Capitalism in terms of consent?
Also as you have note consent is not unique to Capitalism and can be applied to socialism too. See for instance market socialism which tend sto be the nice gentle introduction to socialism for most capitalists.
False, Socialism allows people to own capital, property and means of production. The difference is that for the first and the last they own it communally with the other workers with the aim of democratising production.Society does not own everything (the change in ownership is centred around the means of production (e.g. factories, offices, etc) and doesn't extend to your personal stuff.
Even when it comes to the means of production, socialism enhances the individual freedom. Currently I, like almost all employees, am not a shareholder or the MD of my company. I have no say in the overall running of the company, despite it only running because of me and people like me. In socialism I would have a say in how the company I work for and help run works. That's more individual freedom, not less. Even when you consider the loss of freedom exhibited by Managing Directors and rich Capitalists, they're so outnumbered that the net gain in freedom is enormous.
This is histrionics, not a rational argument. i can't even tell what point you're trying to make besides "Socialism is bad because I say so".
"Just imagine a society in which one's body is a resource to be bought and sold. People can by and sell other human beings, treating them like chattel because they are not the owners of their bodies. Capitalism is the same matter of affairs, only with regards to other types of property. The economic activities are non-consensual, hence slavery."
How about instead of making weird meaningless analogies based on strawman hypotheticals that have nothing to do with socialism (and if you believe otherwise, please note you have done nothing to show they do), how about you argue against actual Socialism as it's being advocated?
Logically fallacious. You argue that the capitalists should own the 'facilities' because "The facilities the employer provides belong to the employer". This is circular reasoning and doesn't matter in the slightest. that's just what the situation is now - the question is whether we should replace that system entirely with a different one. Simply saying they own it under the current paradigm in no way gives us a reason we shouldn't institute a different paradigm.
You also seem to miss the point entirely with your suggestion about freelancing. Socialism involves giving people control of the means of production because this is viewed as a way to give them greater income and more ability to self-actualise. Freelancing does neither of those things.
Feel free to quote where Marx stated the community should have control of your body - I'll wait for you to dig up the relevant quote. At this point I feel we're entering "Old man Yells At Cloud" territory.
Also robbery is actually "take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force". You'll note that is we actually used your metric then not just all capitalist and democratic societies but literally every single society on earth that isn't just pure lawless chaos counts as robbery if you actually bother to apply your metrics for "robbery". I mean what society doesn't expect you to confirm to societal norms and laws, even without getting into the coercive nature of Capitalism.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.58  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Capitalism is based on consensual economical activities. In your case, your employer (or group of employers, in case of shareholders) offered you a job contract, with clearly defined terms on their and your part - and you voluntarily accepted it. Now that you are in the company, suddenly you want more than the voluntarily agreed terms; you also want to own a part of the company. However, you cannot get it on your own, because you are just one person - hence you want the society to support you and take the property away from the employers by force.
What is taking away property by force usually called? Robbery. However, when it is not a single person or a group of people doing that, but a society as a whole - then suddenly it is called "freedom". No, my friend, freedom applies to everyone, not just to the workers, but to everyone, including your employers - something you do not consider, since you are only in it for your personal gain at the expense of others.
Someone a long time ago started a business, involving a lot of risks. They invested in that business, they developed it. Now they (or their successors) are enjoying the fruit of their labor, much like someone who grew an apple tree enjoys fresh apples. And now you come in and, in addition to what you are already getting from the company as a result of consent, want to have the company as well, for no reason other than "The company runs because of me, so I deserve it".
You are like a man who, after a pleasant evening with a woman, says, "You only had a pleasant evening because of me, so now you cannot reject my request for sex". Except, you also want the government to assure your right to that sex by force. I am sorry if many people see it as nothing other than utterly sickening and disgusting.
---
A good principle to live by is, "Stop looking in others' wallets and focus on your own instead". Focus on satisfaction of your greed through constructive economical activities, and not through taking away from others. Until then, there really is nothing to talk about: builders and conquerors speak different languages.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
So somebody can be completely self-employed under your system, good. Why would Walmart have to be broken up though, why can't control just be given to the workers? This also seems more like a business model and not an economic one. So the difference between this and capitalism is that the workers own the business whereas in capitalism there is a manager or CEO.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A more nationalized company would be better for helping regions that have a hard time operating in the green, but individual, regional companies would allow for more specific decisions to be made by the workers. Basically, it makes decision making for the company - or companies - less abstract.
(Honestly, I think a more "federalist" approach, like that of the U.S. government, would be more appropriate to get the benefits of both.)
Also, yes, my ideal economic system would be very similar to the one we currently have.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra
The reason people oppose socialism is not because they do not want to see cooperative-orientated economy. It is because they do not want it forced - regardless of whether they oppose it or not.
I spend a lot of money on charity (probably much more than I should, he-he), so it is not like I am an utterly selfish person. However, I am strongly against "forced charity": I want to help people because I feel like it, not because I will be thrown in jail if I don't. I hate to bring Ayn Rand into this for the 3rd time, but her works are really full of quotes perfect for this discussion:
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal."
Charity, cooperation, volunteerism - all these things are much more precious when they are done from the heart and not from the whip. Capitalism already has all the tools one needs to create a small socialist heaven in a larger free market framework. People need merely to agree on terms. It is the forcing of socialism on everyone that we oppose, not necessarily a socialist model of economical organization per se.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, looking back now, I think we just misunderstood each other's points. I have nothing against a socialist model arising naturally, and it has a pretty good chance to eventually occur due to the abundance of resources in the future technologically advanced humanity. An interesting aspect here is that, when the society is inclined to follow a socialist model, then socialism is not needed: it already exists. Socialism is only needed to be instituted when people do not want to live like that and have to be forced to.
It is the same situation as with women in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian government claims that them having to cover their heads is simply a part of the culture - which is obviously not the case: if it was a part of the culture, it would not have to be enforced, since women would follow it by default; having to force it and institute punishments for not following the rules means that there is significant opposition to the notion, hence it is definitely not an inherent part of the societal culture.
When everyone wants to behave as socialism prescribes (and maybe people will one day), socialism will de facto appear naturally. Socialism is good when it is accepted and followed peacefully; it breaks when it has to be forced on the society.
Many of us love sharing goods. We do not love being forced to share goods, but we see nothing wrong with voluntary sharing and we do so regularly in a consensual peaceful cooperation.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yea an economy where businesses are owned by the employees could still be capitalist, because that would still be a private business with just a few more people taking ownership. Side note, given the stock market allows people to buy shares and “own” part of a company, it sounds like a stock market is against capitalism
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is compatible with our current market, yes, but it is not compatible with capitalism, as the notion of cooperatives is a socialist one. The ending arguments between MayCaesar and me better elucidated a potential way that a cooperative economy would come about: through mutual agreement. This is what I now advocate.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I, as I have already said, advocate the idea of worker cooperatives in a free market.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Theocrat
IMO what they are advocating for is charities, which is a good thing so long as they aren't government mandated. Could society encourage and better enable charities to exist and thrive? Of course we don't need government for that, we need government to get out of the way of that.
Charitable giving by individuals as a percentage of GDP in America was recorded at 1.44%, in New Zealand at 0.79%, in Canada at .77% and in the UK – which came fourth globally – at 0.54%.
(U.S. ranked #1)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-new-zealand-and-canada-top-list-of-world-s-most-generous-nations-a6849221.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations
Wealthiest charitable foundations
seems Capitalistic nations far exceed socialist in their charity.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
This isn't an argument, and is frankly wrong.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sure, there's an argument to be had that this would be difficult or unlikely, but it's a means without a state.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no charity in a socialist state, so of course capitalist states will have much bigger amount of charity: anything is bigger than 0.
In a capitalist system, people give money to organizations or individuals of their choice. In a socialist system, people put the money into a gigantic lifeless bureaucratic machine that then distributes it based on some abstract laws.
One of my best friends had a real financial hardship recently. I sent her over a lot of money, and that helped her tremendously. In a socialist system, I would not be able to do so, and she would have to rely on an infamously ineffective bureaucracy to support her - and even though she lives in a "welfare state", the system failed her and she needed help from elsewhere.
---
The truth is, charity is only possible by people/organizations that own property. You cannot do charity if you do not own anything, since you have nothing to give to anyone. While people tend to advocate for a socialist system as based on the principles of compassion and mutual help, in actuality it is anything but. Instead, it tears compassion and mutual help out of people's souls and converts human needs and desires into raw numbers.You are no longer a person in the eyes of this system; you are just a statistics.
On the other hand, people willingly putting their property together in order to build something grand with mutual effort in a capitalist system - this is an ideal worth striving for. And this willful mutual help was how this country started and how the Independence War was won. The British fought for the kingdom; the American fought for Americans. The outcome was predefined by the very cause for the war.
State capitalism is a system based on compassion, because it respects and loves the individual, with all their strengths and shortcomings. State socialism is a system based on the absence of compassion, because the system vilifies the individual and seeks to "cure" their shortcomings by force.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I never said, nor meant, "the public". I said "public ownership". It being publicly owned by a cooperative does not make it less public.
Also, though I want to chat with you about this, if you continue to be condescending, I will no longer respond.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you've ever made even a single evidence based rebuttal against me feel free to link to it, it'd be interesting to see. I mean here for instance you just give your opinion, don;t back it up and really just repeat your previous post in different words - ignoring the fact your claims have already been rebutted.
Also I'd probably take a pay cut if salaries were equalised, I'm management so I earn above the mean and media both in the company and society as a whole. This is because people are wiling to sacrifice for what they think is right. Good job showing your biases by ascribing motives to me for rationales which existed only in your imagination.
Wrong.
Not off to a good start when you don't even know basic definitions.
http://bfy.tw/10Jr
"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
Capitalism is defined by the economic basis through which the means of production are owned. There have in fact been famous examples of slavery based Capitalist states such as the USA. Even today tens of millions of people are enslaved working for the profit of others.
Already rebutted in my previous post where I explained the circular reasoning inherent in this part of your argument - a logical fallacy. Please don't mindless merely reiterate your already rebutted opinion which is what you are doing, actually respond to feedback to have the "constructive discussion" you claim to want but seem to be trying to avoid.
Again, already rebutted in my previous post. You seem to be be just repeating yourself like a child going "Nuh-uh, I so am right". In case it wasn't clear the definition of robbery of "take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force" which counters your one is literally the first thing that comes up if you google the definition of 'rob'. Meanwhile the definition you gave of "appropriation of property through coercion" shows up in only a single website in the entire internet - a single random person's blog from 2013.
You understand why it is bad of you to just make up definitions of words? Robbery has very negative connotations. Randomly trying to ascribe acts which are not robbery as robbery just shows the lack of depth to your argument.
I mean it's not even the only argument I could make, the most hypocritical argument is that you only recognise consent in relation to businesses and employees. The businessman chose to start up a business in a democratic country where people are able to vote and elect representatives to carry out their wishes. he consented to this situation by found this business. Even your own ideology shows you are wrong. there are plenty more bases for calling out errors in your thinking, but why bother if you don't respond and just go off on a juvenile rant?
I notice how you sneak in "or their successors" and then try to ignore it. Except you are trying to make an argument based on someone's profit being just based on the hard work they put in. If someone didn't actually put in the hard work and just got Capital handed to them - which is often the case in capitalism - then that undermines the entire basis for your entire argument. Rather than looking at Capitalism as a while, you have tried to cherrypick and take a very superficial look at Capitalism in the best possible light. You are obviously not interested in debating seriously and just looking to push your ideology.
The other unfounded assumption is that the original founder developed it - that there weren't other people working there and building up the business working just as hard or harder but without the benefit of having money invested n the company and being able to profit from the fruits of their labour. Again, completely contrary to the fundamental principle you are trying to evoke.
Don;t be an utter moron. You're comparing someone using their democratic rights to advocate for political parties whose economic policies you don't like to the rape of another human being. To compare a ideological preference to rape is utterly peurile at the best of times, but even more so when you don't provide a single iota or argument and just make it as a baseless statement.
I've already rebutted the underlying claim multiple times above and in my previous post with no response from you.
I don't take advice from children or people who argue in the manner of children. Simply giving your opinion is meaningless. You need to back it up.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 37%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Lefties take correction to be condescension.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Essentially you go into work tomorrow, do the same work, but you'll have some form of control over the workplace - which may be something as simple as every year your workplace elects a director to sit on the board of the company and the directors from all your offices/stores/whatever collectively make decisions to benefit the business and the employees rather than shareholders. As you're the owners you also get a share in the business. It's a co-operative business model - you can find a prominent example in John Lewis, a multibillion pound workers owned co-operative that's been running for the last 150 years. All the workers are the joint partners and all take a share of the profits along with their salary. They have decision making power spend effort into making it a good communal place to work.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
"YOU lefties hate English."
Yep, just a case of me getting corrected. Well crud.
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
though there's not many, there are some employee owned businesses, one locally is a manufacturing plant. I do really like the idea of it, I just don't want the government to mandate or otherwise control it. However they could "encourage" these business especially on a state level. Profit sharing to employees as a tax benefit to the company I could probably support.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Idk much about the stock market so I was just wondering. So if you're advocating for minimal state intervention and mutual agreement then I can't really be against it. However, what do you plan to do to get there? If a business is run by the workers, a democracy basically, that could probably lead to gridlock though, similar to our current congress sometimes, and if a business shuts down because of that then there'd be problems. So what's our plan for that.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Socialism is a political system where the state owns and controls the means of production.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
without apply cause, wouldn't it be fair to say capitalistic counties are richer and their citizens have higher standard of living compare with socialist countries? This is only to show a common denominator not the root cause.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra