Instigator / Con
7
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Topic
#4567

The Government Should Ration Consumables

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Slainte
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Pro
3
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Description

BOP, Pro must show that the government should have an inalienable right to control the collection, distribution and sale of any commodity at any time.

Con must show that such a right should not be granted.

I am open to revisions via comments.

Round 1
Con
#1
I am giving 10 reasons why the government should not ration consumables.  Short and sweet, snapshots. Lets rock and roll!!  I will not that there are no contentions on the subject in comments.  Lets let is fly.

The First is on Individual choice:

Rationing restricts the choices and personal freedom of individuals, as when a government control over the distribution of goods and services, those rights are crimped.. This can lead to resentment and dissatisfaction among citizens, political discourse, and frustration combined with the other issues. At the end of the day we need to appreciate the concept of the individual vs the state.

The Second is Inefficient allocation:

Governments have shown a propensity of mismanagement and corruption as it relates to efficiently allocate resources based on individual needs and preferences. The allocation and government instigated rationing can result in misallocation, as it does not account for market demand and may lead to shortages or surpluses.

Innovation is at Risk:

Rationing can and probably does discourages innovation and investment in industries producing the ratined goods. When prices are regulated or fixed, there is less motivation for businesses to improve efficiency or develop new products.  Thats because innovation is not a principal of state distribution.

Black market and Corruption:

It is -pretty evident that rationing can create a thriving black market where goods are sold illegally and at stupid prices. Moreover, it can fuel corruption within the government, as officials will exploit their positions to obtain and distribute rationed goods unfairly, and we have seen this on every dystopian movie created.  (Exaggeration ).

Lack of price signals:

Rationing eliminates price signals that normally reflect supply and demand dynamics. Prices serve as valuable information about scarcity and encourage efficient resource allocation. Without pricing signals, it becomes difficult to assess the true value and prioritize production.

Down with economic efficiency:

It is clear that rationing disrupts market mechanisms, resulting in reduced economic efficiency. We know that market forces help allocate resources to their most valued uses, but rationing distorts these forces and can lead to wasteful utilization of resources.

The Cost of Administrative:

Let's face it, implementing and managing a rationing system requires significant administrative efforts and costs. The government would need to establish bureaucracies, monitor compliance, and address issues such as fraud or abuse, which would divert resources from more productive uses.

Productivity dries up!!:

Rationing crushes productivity by discouraging hard work and innovation. When individuals perceive that their efforts will not be rewarded fairly due to limited access to goods and services, their motivation dries up like a snail in the sun.  We have seen this in Germany, Russia and Zimbabwe.

Social tensions and inequality:

Rationing exacerbates social tensions and inequality. Certain groups may be favored or disadvantaged by the rationing system, leading to conflicts and grievances among different segments of society.  This could be the elite, the entrenched, the influential all of which have the mechanisms to twist the outcome to benefit themselves.

The Psychological and Social Impact:

Rationing has negative psychological effects on individuals and communities. It creates a sense of scarcity, fear, and uncertainty, which will harm mental well-being and social cohesion.

I will add sources when asked!!!   Let get this party going.   I look forward to a retort.













Pro
#2
For those of you that have read on my points before about government, you may know where I'm going.

That is, the role of the government. A government is a people. What is the role of these people that have an effect with law passing?

These people are there to govern , control the land of other people. Why?

Socially, we have problems, objectives, aims , plans all involving a network of people.

For people to continue living , particularly living amongst people, we need order, civility and procedures.

I'll give an example in a modern Hi-Tech setting. All we have to do is start at the basic core foundation at the dawn of civilization to get the entire picture of politics woven in this social tapestry.

We the people travel amongst one another. Each of us are going in different directions. This is a social interaction of us meeting or colliding with one another. The procedure and order is implemented so that we can go on to live carrying out what we do to live which would include traveling and so many of us are, we have road systems. We have road addresses, road markings, signs and traffic lights.

All of this is the governing actions through the laws in place of a people (government) by the people for the people.

Social, social, social.

That's all there is.

All these different agendas are present from all these individuals that make up society that necessitate civility.

In order to live, to exist, maintain and thrive in society(integration), we govern ourselves in our households, workplaces , schools, churches, hospitals and other social settings.

So it is consistent that we have a governing for a large land mass called a country.

It's a big jump from a household to a country. From house to house we can imagine that the governing and or rules therein change like from country to country.

In order for the house to maintain livability habitability, governing procedures are required.

So every rule and procedure thought up and implemented is the effect of a cause and or particular agenda/goal.

So that goal of an individual and or individual persons can be accomplished through do's and don'ts. Therefore this configures rules.

The rules or governing come about from the basis, again the goal(s).

So a rule in the house should be in effect in order to accomplish the maintenance or sustainment of that house which is part of a society. There is the greater society that is made up of many houses of people including the white house with the people in there.

So the governing rule should be in effect due to what would cause it. The cause would be the goal of the people, the society.

The government a societal station should do whatever it is caused to do because when you get an effect, it's because of a cause.

So what causes the government to do what it does? The votes, the people, social combustion, politics.

So if the goal of the people is to limit a population, limit social assistance based on household income or ration goods like what was done during the so called pandemic, then the government(people) are expected to facilitate the governing order of all that.

We as people have agendas for certain purposes and rules that are used to carry them out.

Rules, regulations, government ordinances are only reflections of the aims of people. Simply what you put in is just what you get out.

"I am giving 10 reasons why the government should not ration consumables.  "

The government should not do such a thing if there has been no vote for such a thing. Even if there was, the votes for those reasons provided have to be high enough.

The should only do what is put into to do by the people. The government is just a reflection of the people. The government is a people. The government is a reflection of themselves, society, country and the world.



Round 2
Con
#3
Pro starts their position arguing about what the role of a government is.  As it relates to governance, I agree that governments put in rules for a particular agenda/goal.

a cause and or particular agenda/goal.

I am arguing that the government should not put in rules for rationing consumables, because the agenda or goal outcomes do not outweigh the negatives.

Con is arguing that conceptually, if the population want the government to ration, they should have the right to demand their government to do such.  The problem with this argument is that governments are elected to make broad policy, as well as micro-laws.  The people do not vote for each act the government takes.  The people as a whole, do not understand the broader implications of certain policies.

Governments reject the will of the people all the time, in part because of the complexity of the issue.  

I want to remind Pro, that the BOP is

Pro must show that the government should have an inalienable right to control the collection, distribution and sale of any commodity at any time.
Pro has not come close to meeting that burden, by arguing "if the people vote for it, the government should do it". Governments, while elected, are also stewards, and have an obligation to act responsibly.  

I have shown  many reasons why the government should not ration consumables.  All arguments are extended.  I urge Pro to address the BOP in the description, and refer to the comments.
Pro
#4
"The people do not vote for each act the government takes.  The people as a whole, do not understand the broader implications of certain policies.*

I want you to keep in mind when I say people, making this abundantly clear, who is the government?

People. "The government is a people. The government is a reflection of themselves, society, country and the world."

I think I said this twice . The government is a people. I think this is the third time unquoted. The government of people by people for the people. We the people.

So every vote which a vote is nothing more than a supportive decision put forth whether the house is white or any other color. No matter the house, government house, in house, outhouse, even doghouse. I can prove in the doghouse specifically when voting by proxy. It's up to the opposing side.

"Governments reject the will of the people all the time, in part because of the complexity of the issue."

Of course, it's called having the losing vote.

"Pro has not come close to meeting that burden, by arguing "if the people vote for it, the government should do it". Governments, while elected, are also stewards, and have an obligation to act responsibly.  "

Since you're meeting it for me, why not just roll with that? You said "Governments, while elected, are also stewards, and have an obligation to act responsibly. "

The stewards are who? People that govern themselves, in position to govern themselves so based on that the government should do what they govern themselves to do. Do you follow?

Not only that, you said"elected". Elected by who? The people. So every decision made by that ELECTED official was voted for in advance by electing that official in general. See no matter where you go with this, you always get a socially constructed effect which should be because it was a social initiation that caused it.

On top of that, an autonomous decision can still be shared and supported by another even in a non democratic circumstance. Do you follow all this?

So you're meeting my burden along with me. I'm just walking with you, talking with you on it.

"I urge Pro to address the BOP in the description"

We have done so together 

"and refer to the comments."

I don't know what reference am I supposed to get from the comments. I do urge you not to be conceptually broad going into the error of the clarity ambiguity fallacy.

Next round, I ask you to actually challenge and QUESTION my points line by line which may include yours being that I demonstrated the parallel. Don't commit the invincible ignorance fallacy.






Round 3
Con
#5
I am confused as to what  Pro's argument is.    Pro is asking for me to go point by point, line by line.  I  summarize Pro's position, which I think is "if the government does it, that means people voted for it, and the people are always right.   Does that logic mean if the government launches a nuclear attack, because they were voted in, that makes it ok?  If the government put a law together that euthanized everyone over 65 to save money, should they do that because they were voted in and therefore have the mandate?

Pro has not refuted a single point of the 10 I brought up in the first round, and has now danced through the fields of obscurity, implying that an elected government can do anything they want.

Even if that is the case, the resolution says. SHOULD  not can.

Pro has not addressed this significant gap in their logic, or any of my points.

I extend all arguments.









Pro
#6
"  Pro is asking for me to go point by point, line by line. I summarize Pro's position, which I think is "if the government does it, that means people voted for it, and the people are always right. "

Totally incorrect. This is why you were to go line by line because evidently I put forth MORE than one line of a point. 

When you summarize,you leave out several points that could of prevented you of misrepresenting. I believe you just glossed over much of the details and then stepped back to dismiss the very little you comprehended.

" Does that logic mean if the government launches a nuclear attack, because they were voted in, that makes it ok?  "

I can't answer about what's ok or RIGHT. I NEVER said anything about what's right and wrong. You can re-read my actual position. You can read ALL my points as well as others that can read them.You'll never ever ever never but ever find a statement presented about right and wrong. This was something presupposed on your part.

I think you can comprehend that when something is voted in like for whom to be the next President, the government should elect whom was voted in . That's what the government set up the election system forrrr. Nobody is talking about was it right or wrong. When talking about what "should be", it's how things work at the core.

I SHOULD get burned putting my hand in the fire. I SHOULD get wet putting my hand in the water. The government should legalize all institutions and facilities with the use of a fire code in the matter of safety from putting a hand in the legal process to legislate . The government should legalize and legislate whatever it is that has been processed in the administrations and congress.

When talking about fire, water, congress, that's the effect of what these ENTITIES do. Maybe this is or is not the third time I'm breaking it down like this. But it seems you could not get this as the takeaway but instead came up with that erroneous conclusion of yours for a summary of what I've been presenting.

"If the government put a law together that euthanized everyone over 65 to save money, should they do that because they were voted in and therefore have the mandate?"

If it's as straightforward as that, why not? Was slavery a straightforward process to legalize? What about abortion, certain drugs, chemicals in food?

See the problem is, you're just now realizing what the government is and how it works. Back to that fire code illustration, that started with the goals of people like anything else. So with that, there are governmental ordinances. A government is an ordinance, an order to what people want. 

You haven't challenged me on how government works. You ask perhaps rhetorical questions really. You haven't disproven what I said. You questions gear towards a hypothetical sense.

You haven't challenged the point that people do in and outside the government house have goals, place votes, install rules to accomplish their agendas. 

You haven't challenged the point that this works from different areas of society whether in the household of any color including the white one.

You haven't challenged the point that people vote in a republican government so people still have a cause to a government to get an effect.

You haven't challenged that the government is a social system. What you get out of it should be from what was put in. 

All of these points, you drop. You dismiss and come back with rhetorical/hypothetical questions thinking it's refuting anything. Still commiting that invincible ignorance fallacy.

"Pro has not refuted a single point of the 10 I brought up in the first round, and has now danced through the fields of obscurity, implying that an elected government can do anything they want."

All of the 10 or whatever number you have should not be done or carried out by the government with no due process through congress, supreme court, petition, whatever legal process that it takes for the government to do any of what you put forth that can be the equivalent of a vote or petition.

The government is whatever is put in to what you get out. The government is whatever is put in to what you get out. 

I never made any such statement as "that an elected government can do anything they want" and that's what the correct approach is. Actually go by what I say verbatim versus implications. 

You say imply . Implications are just a figment of your interpretations based on an opposing defensive thought process because you're in a debate. It boils down to assumptions instead of facts. Unless you can go by an actual statement, I'll defend my position by pointing out things that I never said. I don't state what you think is being implied.

"Even if that is the case, the resolution says. SHOULD not can."

Going right back to round one. 

"So the governing rule should be in effect due to what would cause it. The cause would be the goal of the people, the society.

The government a societal station should do whatever it is caused to do because when you get an effect, it's because of a cause."

See if you actually stick with what I say word for word and quote me, you'll either actually challenge my exact points or concede my points stand irrefutable.

I said the governing rule SHOULD BE. I said the government a societal station SHOULD do. You don't see the word CAN in any of those points. 

The role of government operates by people, true or false?

With people being the cause, SHOULD there not be an effect?

This role continues to demonstrate itself over and over via the midst of all different crises and turmoil  by social fireworks which we'll call politics.

"Pro has not refuted a single point of the 10 I brought up in the first round, and has now danced through the fields of obscurity, implying that an elected government can do anything they want."

Here's my initial response from the first round.

"The government should not do such a thing if there has been no vote for such a thing. Even if there was, the votes for those reasons provided have to be high enough."

I made this response to the following:

"I am giving 10 reasons why the government should not ration consumables. "

I ask, are you reading through everything I put down? 

That first established an all inclusive address of details concerning the topic. Before making another statement, check the first round and then challenge a statement made.

"Pro has not addressed this significant gap in their logic, or any of my points."

Read over all the information, not just a few words, all the information in all of these rounds and challenge them this time.

Due to the number of rounds selected, bring them forth perhaps in a part 2.