Instigator / Pro
0
1320
rating
264
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#5002

Wealth redistribution for people's education, food, house, water, clothes and healthcare should be done

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1468
rating
9
debates
38.89%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Every time you own something, it means that someone else doesnt.


Every time you own something, you steal it from someone else.


Property is all about who came first.


Your ancestors came first on the land. It must be their land then, no?


Wrong!


Land cannot be private property since every human  needs land to live. Giving it all to few humans would deny all others of it.


This is why we need Communism.


Private property has already destroyed all noble ideas from the past. It has degraded human to a mere animal who works only to satisfy most basic urges.


If you look at countries like North Korea, where people dont have lots of private property, we see all the old values of being loyal, being humble, living a simple life come into play. 


People are not greedy by nature. They are only greedy if you convince them that they can own property.


First, we all die, so obviously we cannot eternally own property.


Second, owning property creates class society of those who have and those who have not. Those who are cherished from the start and those who are harmed from the start.


Reality is, the less you own, the better.


The more you own, the more you wish to own that which you dont.


If you saw a starving man, would you give him some food? Yes, of course.


However, is it your duty to give him food? It is.


So food is not your property. Food belongs to the hungry.


How about a house. Do you own your house? No, you dont.


If your son was out in the street homeless, would you invite him in your house? Of course you would.


Now, how about some homeless man who is not your son?


Now you say no?


But he is someone's son. So he should have home.


So no, your house doesnt belong to you alone.


Your money, does your money belong to you? Of course it doesnt.


If your child was dying, and you had to pay 5000 dollars to save him, it would be your duty to do so.


And your child is not more valuable than some child who isnt yours.


So in reality, you own nothing except your body. Property cannot be owned. That would be theft.


There are multiple concepts of property that contradict each other. Thats why property is always theft.


Contradiction cannot be resolved due to different and opposite ideas of property.


For example, food belongs to the hungry, and taking food for yourself would steal it from the hungry


If your son was hungry, you would share the food with him. So still not your food.


And your son is not more valuable than other poor people, by any moral standard. So same standard that you use to share with your son, you must use to share with other poor people. Also, if your son was baby, he would get food for free. So it is not your food. You have duty to share it. Now apply same to education. You would want for your child to go to the best school. By that standard, all children must have best education and you must pay for it, since your child is not more important than other children.


Smart people should not be exploited by the rich.


Its not your food because you have duty to share. The only thing that can be yours is that which you have no duty to share. Parents have duty to feed their children. You as baby were fed, so it would be illogical to think that you as baby were more important than some other baby who is hungry now. Since you were not more important, it is your duty to share with those equally important as you.


 If you cannot watch your child being hungry, how can you watch some other child being hungry? 


 Logically talking, from advanced human perspective, your child has:

1. Same needs as other children

2. Same pain as other children.

3. Same desire for happiness as other children.


So your child is not in any way more important than some other child, from moral point of view.


If you have enough food to provide for some other child who is not yours, you would not provide food. You would let such child starve just because you dont consider such child as important or as yours. That is wrong. Each child deserves to be happy and be provided for, irrelevant of if it is your child or not your child.


Plus, such logic can justify any other horrible crime too, so it is obviously inconsistent logic that should not be used by anyone.


I guess this is what is meant by saying "Society must either evolve to Communism, or sink to barbarism.


You should provide even for those children who are not yours. From a moral perspective, that is the best thing to do.


If your child is important to you, and lets say you die. You would wish for others to help your child, give him best education, best chance, no? You would wish it was their duty, no?


Or what if you were the hungry child? You would wish for others to help you, no?


So yes, even from selfish point of view, society is best modeled if everyone is treated like the family member.

USA and China have highest GDP and they both have lots of socialist policies. They also have strongest militaries. Is there some country without socialist policies that you can show us that is doing well? Or is country without socialist policies impossible? Just where is that capitalism that was supposed to work well, but for some reason no strong country is capitalist? Awkward.


Neither USA nor China are capitalist countries nor have capitalist economy. High taxes are not capitalism. Free healthcare is not capitalism. Minimum wage law is not capitalism. Social security is not capitalism. Social welfare is not capitalism. Government mass interference and regulation of buisness is not capitalism. No. All that is Communism, as by definition given in description. We live in government regulated economy, where government redistributes wealth to those lacking it.

People who have no money to buy enough food, from them you steal, by not giving food. Many are homeless, denied healthcare, denied education, denied enough food, denied clean water, denied proper clothes.

Many are homeless. Not everyone can own the non-inhabited land, since it is not free for taking, nor able to live on it.

No one here said that individual should not own private property. Its the mass private property that sent children as young as 5 to work in factories for 12 hours a day. Then the government (Communism) interfered and saved those children from hard labor.

So yes, Communism restores noble ideas of helping and sharing.

Countries like Canada, Sweden, Japan and USA are mostly Communist, maybe even more so than North Korea. Its the capitalism that doesnt work anywhere, since unregulated economy is a bad economy. Regulated economy is the best.

If I need money for education, but I dont have it, however you do, as long as you dont give me money I wont get education. Same goes for food, medicine, clothes, drinking water and housing. Since the rich have a lot, they must pay to those who have very little so that everyone can prosper. Each child deserves good life, not just the rich kids.


Abundance is better than scarcity only if abundance is properly shared.

The two countries with highest GDP are China and USA. Both are regulated economies that are Communist, since USA has free healthcare for those lacking it, free food for those lacking it, free clothes for those lacking it, welfare policies for those in need, shelters for homeless, free or semi-free education. The only thing that USA needs now is small houses for the homeless and free higher education for the poor. Therefore, we see that USA is very close to Communism, much closer to Communism than capitalism. USA also has high taxes for the rich and president Biden did many things to help those in need.


If we take a look at countries like Sweden and Finland that are Communist, we see that Sweden is one of safest countries to live in.


And Finland is solving homelessness.


"In 2008, the Northern European nation introduced the “Housing First” policy. The concept is simple: everyone is entitled to a small apartment, even those with mental health and financial issues. Since then, the number of homeless people has fallen drastically, and continues to decline.

Like most countries, Finland previously provided short-term shelters for the homeless, but found that the quick fix didn’t help people to get back on their feet permanently and build a stable life. Affordable rental housing providers such as Y-Foundation began renovating old flats, and the NGO even turned former emergency shelters into apartments in order to offer long-term housing."


"Not only does the country now provide shelter to anyone that needs it, but the government also helps support people to integrate into their community. Social workers are available for counseling and to help people apply for social benefits. The extra support helps encourage people to find a job and become financially independent, as well as to take care of their physical and mental health"


Canada and Japan have free healthcare:


"Canada has a universal health care system funded through taxes. This means that any Canadian citizen or permanent resident can apply for public health insurance."


"The standard of medical treatment in Japan is extremely high. People born in Japan have the longest life expectancy of any country in the world. Although not many Japanese practice medicine (studying medicine in Japan can be very expensive), Japan has excellent hospitals and clinics, and because it is the world's leading country in technology, offers highly technical, state-of-the-art equipment. Students can be confident in the proficiency of medical treatment in Japan.

Hospitals are required by law to be run as non-profit and to be managed by physicians.".


Capitalism by definition from dictionary would be economy regulated by private buisnesses. However, that does not happen, since government not only redistributes great amount of their wealth (around 40%), but also places regulations that buisnesses must follow. So that is obviously not economy completely regulated by private buisnesses, as private buisness doesnt have a choice in paying high taxes or obeying regulations. It is economy regulated by government.



Con
#2
In Round 1, I concentrate on presenting my argument. 
Wealth redistribution is very important for leading decent and comfortable life among many people not only in a capitalist country but in a socialist country.
Both government play an vital role to realize and maintain better life for their people all the time. However, unfortunately, in reality both central and local government can not live up to the expectation of all the people in their country.

 
For example, even in the wealthy countries like Japan, the U.S. and Germany, people are not satisfied with their education , healthcare, economic and social policy. 
We can see many homeless, parents and child who are looking for cheap and discounted foods in the supermarket  in the big cities.  This can be seen in a communist
country.  Unfortunately, government can not help them.  What is urgently needed in coping with this situation ? 
Offering the spirit of love for others who are facing dire situation  is the most important action.   For example, in the U.S., self-center oriented culture and behavior
among people penetrated deeply in the last 50 years.  This caused income inequality, political polarization. Furthermore, social trust has cratered.  1)

David Brooks argues that ``the crucial change was in mind-set and culture. As Putnum and Garrett write: ` The story of the American experiment in the 20th century
is one of a long upswing toward increasing solidarity, followed by a steep down -turn into increasing individualism.  From `I`to `we`and back again to `I`. `` 
The frequency of the word ``I``in American books, according to Putnam and Garrett, doubled between 1965 and 2008.`` 2) 
 
Offering our spirit of love means offering kindness for others.  This is closely linked to the Bible. 
``Throughout  the Bible, two qualities are often associated with kindness. love and mercy. `` 3)   
And ``basically kindness means a way of thinking that leads to doing thoughtful deeds  for others.`` 4) 
I point out one example here.  A Japanese doctor named Tetu Nakamura who played a very important role in building the irrigation system in Afghanistan. 
His effort and dedication to improve the poor food situation contributed to increasing agricultural production greatly for the country.
Without his love and kindness for the people of Afghanistan, his great plan and dream would not have been realized. 
However, unfortunately he was killed in the country a few years ago. 

 When we think about wealth redistribution, we must always keep in mind the importance of the teaching of the Bible.

    References:  1), 2)  David Brooks, `U.S. needs unity to be great again`,   The New York Times International Edition, October 19, 2020. 
                              3), 4)  https://lifehopeandtruth. com.    
 
Round 2
Pro
#3
European Union and many other countries and places engage in price limits and controls. This further proves that capitalism doesnt exist anymore. Also, high taxes mean that market is not free market nor capitalist market, but government regulated market. Many laws about employment and workplace prove that capitalism is non-existent in today's markets.


Countries that give each citizen education are countries that are more advanced, since the more educated the people are, the better the country is with more available researchers, inventors, educators and rational thinkers.


Countries that give each citizen healthcare are countries that have healthier citizens, which results in better mental health as well, causing more innovation as a result, and reducing crime.


Countries that give each citizen food and clean water are countries where compassion is being taught, which further reduces violence in society.


Countries that give each citizen a house are countries where each citizen lives with more comfort and a sense he is being cared for and being treated as important.


Countries that do all this and care about their citizens become the best countries to live in, which causes people to further cherish their country, causing sense of unity and cooperation towards common goal.


You cannot have democracy without Communism since majority wants for rich people to pay for society's improvement. Democracy is the path to Communism.

Nothing prevents people in Communism from owning stock. However, as explained, you have to pay taxes so those less fortunate ones are helped too. We have already seen that USA has very high taxes, welfare policies, food stamps, government paid healthcare, homeless shelters, and somewhat free education. So yes, USA is already close to Communism. Canada, Finland and Japan are even closer, as explained before.


Conclusion

Communism still wins

How about we look at examples of Fully and Totally Communist countries and see if crime is high there.


Communist Canada - very low crime


Communist Sweden - very low crime


Communist Finland - very low crime


Communist Japan - very low crime


Now lets look at examples of capitalist countries. Oh wait, there are no any. Because capitalism doesnt work.


Imagine two tribes.


One is Communist. The other capitalist.


In capitalist tribe, certain person makes spears. One day, that person discovers new way to make spears much faster and easier. Due to being selfish, that person keeps his knowledge a secret. That way, he earns more than others in tribe.


In Communist tribe, certain person also makes spears. One day, that person discovers new way to make spears much faster and easier. Due to being raised in Communist values, person shares his knowledge with everyone. Now everyone in Communist tribe makes spears  much faster.


As a result, Communist tribe has much more spears.


Now compare this to today's societies. 


In Capitalist society, rich man doesnt want to pay for education of the poor people. That way, the rich man keeps more money for himself.


In Communist society, rich man pays for education of the poor people, and society ends up having more educated people, more scientists, more inventors, and less crime.Entire society profits.


So in short, Capitalism is about profit for individual, where Communism is about profit for society as a whole.


This is why Communist societies always win. Its simply irrational to assume that individual's profit is more important than profit of society as a whole.


In Capitalism, the more wealth one has, the easier it is for him to create more wealth.


Thats why in Capitalism, wealthy ones always have advantage over poor ones.


The starting point is not same either, since rich kids have more resources than poor kids.


Capitalism is a class society. Rich class gives birth to rich kids. Poor class gives birth to poor kids.



Con
#4
 In Round 2, I present rebuttals concerning the arguments posted by Pro so far. 
It seems to me that Pro thinks that a communist society is superior than a capitalist society from political and economical perspectives.
However, I believe that a communist society has a number of disadvantage compared with a capitalist society. 
Firstly, freedom of expression is strictly prohibited among people in a communist society. 
They can not criticize the policy and opinion presented by the top leader of the communist party. 
Therefore, a very oppressed society is created.  A person who committed  anti-government action is sent to the prison or heavily  punished.

Secondly,  individual action is always watched by mainly AI  device as we can see in China these days.   So, human freedom is strictly controlled by the communist 
party. 

Thirdly, a socialist party prioritizes the profit and power of the leader of the government led by the communist party. 
Therefore, the idea of `the government for the people, by the people and of the people ` presented by the U.S. president , Abraham  Lincoln does not function 
in a communist country. 
However, capitalism has a potential power to make a society thrive dynamically.  Mark J. Perry argues that  capitalism ``nurtures the human sprit, inspires human 
creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise.  By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work and efficiency, capitalism creates 
wealth.  The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works. `` (` Why socialism failed ` ,   https://fee.org.)
Individual spirit, full use of individual`s potential and skill are highly evaluated in a capitalist society.    


Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you for the debate.
Con
#6
 Unfortunately, no argument has been posted in Round  3. by Pro.
 I present my last arguments in this Round. 
 The important thing is that neither communist countries like Russia and China nor capitalist countries like the U.S. , Germany and Japan can offer welfare, economic 
and social policies which are fully satisfied and widely accepted for all the people among them. 
What is the main reason ?   It is that those countries , particularly the U.S. , and Russia are facing huge government debt caused mainly by the huge military expenditure
triggered by the Ukraine war. Furthermore, in the U.S. with the rapidly rising speed of the aging population, spending for the welfare program is growing
these days.   ``If borrowing costs clime further- or simply remain where they are for an extended period- the U.S. government will accumulate debt at  much faster 
rate than officials expected even a few months ago.``(` High rates stoke fears of soaring U.S. debt`,  The New York Times International Edition,  October 7-8, 2023)

Taking those situation into consideration, new economic and social policy are urgently required.  They are based on new economic and social way of thinking.
They are new type of society which are less dependent on central or local government.  They are community-oriented or community-based society. 
The benefits of them is that people can understand what kinds of problem they are facing at local and daily basis. 
For example, a person who has a kind and mercy mind  visits an old man living alone and listen to his healthy condition and other problems in daily life. 
If he or she can not take care of him, they contact with a local doctor or a police office in the neighborhood as soon as possible. 
His or her action contributes to helping the life and health of the old man. 

Let me introduce  a new way of marketing strategy emerging in small local cities where many older people are living in Japan.     
`` While Japanese cities are filled with supermarkets, convenience stores and other places to eat, older people in the countryside are facing a tougher time trying to 
get the basic necessities.  This has led to an increase in mobile supermarkets that bring the grocery shopping experience to people`s front doors.`` ( The Japan Times,  October 7-8, 2023) 

 The important thing  is that a community-oriented society is based on the dialog, friendship, love and humanitarian mind  among the member of a society.