" However, as I have stated numerous times, there are some things that are almost impossible to fund without taxes. I mentioned the military. Roads are another good example."
- Very obviously a good healthcare system is near impossible to fund without taxes, otherwise, our life spans would be the highest, millions wouldn't be uninsured, and thousands wouldn't die every year.
Also whatever happened to your argument about the private military?
The millitary I'm sure could be funded through private means and perform " better " than a nationalized one so why not fund the military privately?
" I'm sure you'll make up another insane hypothetical. Make it realistic if you do try to justify that. Don't waste my time with another "save the whole world" argument"
- This is an irrelevant point since earlier I made up a more realistic hypothetical concerning a snow storm and economic positions.
" I said if someone pays more than they consume in taxes, it removes tax burden from people. This is why I think some redistribution is justifiable. I just find it hard to believe that a few less sick days is equal to thousands in medical bills(even if sick days were prevented). "
- Do you not believe less sick days, happier workers, and less sick workers don't benefit companies?
Do you REALLY not believe happier workers wouldn't work harder than miserable workers?
Do you REALLY not believe a drastic decrease in sick days would boost productivity?
Do you REALLY not believe workers would have an easier time working without coughing, gagging, or vomiting?
Do you REALLY not believe more alive workers would increase output?
Even if there wasn't an economic return ( which I am convinced there is ) you REALLY value a slight economic slow down over human lives?
This wouldn't even be a slow down considering national healthcare is cheaper than privatized healthcare anyways thus debunking your argument.
" We shouldn't be able to harm minorities at will. "
- Another quote which clearly demonstrates you are taking a 100 % individualistic lens since once again by this logic you should be against taxes/redistribution of wealth.
" Your organs could save five lives. That is five lives versus one. That is promoting that social good we talked about. "
- The problem with this hypothetical is that it actually doesn't promote the social good when you stop and think about it.
If people knew they could be killed in their sleep at a hospital, they wouldn't show up to hospitals thus ruining the social order.
You may bring up this as me being logical inconsistent and stating " well what about taxes "
Taxes are different, they very obviously haven't destroyed the social order at all as exhibited by literally every country with taxes.
" You did nothing to prove that I take a 100% individualistic view of the world. I do have very individualistic tendencies. But, you obviously(and dishonestly) exclude my advocacy for schooling(I have said to an extent throughout. That means k-12 with some government college grants), I say we should have a military, and police. Those aren't even the only things I advocate for along these lines."
Earlier in the conversation...
" Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves."
- By this quotes logic, you are taking a 100 % individualistic stance since you're advocating for an anrcho capitalistic world free from taxes/redistribution of wealth.
This is an obvious contradiction in your entire world view, you claim to not be in favor of a 100 % individualistic mindset and yet as demonstrated by this quote you value the individuals right to keep their money over the collective good.
Not only this but also earlier you expressed concerns for socialized healthcare on the basis that it was stealing from healthier people and that you'd rather see people die than to see the system be taken advantage of.
If you aren't taking the 100 % individualistic standpoint, that's fine however you need to give some ground on your previous statements.
Quotes which signify you are taking the 100 % individualistic position:
" If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen"
" Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?"
". Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves."
" Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy?"
" My definition of getting more out is paying more in taxes than we invested in you. I'm okay with paying $10,000 in taxes to fund someone's education if they grow up, get a job, and pay more than that much back in their lifetime. "
Quotes which signify you're anti redistribution of wealth:
" My view is and has been throughout this discussion that taxing is bad and should be kept to a minimum. I never once said(and you know this) that we should have zero taxes. I argue for low taxes."
- You admitted earlier in the discussion that you were anti redistribution of wealth, this is an obvious shifting of the goal post.
" I am not taking a 100% individual lens, as I said taxes should pay for schooling(to a point), the military, and police already. Stop blantantly lying."
- You have expressed numerous times that you are against the redistribution of wealth as an argument made against other social programs.
I asked you why these programs are different.
You claimed they promote social good.
I brought up arguments in favor of the fact that socialized healthcare and redistribution of food would also promote the social good that you've still yet to debunk.
If you are so against the redistribution of wealth unless it promotes social good than I am having trouble finding your disagreement when I agree.
Your problem isn't against the redistribution of wealth, it is what we use to fund that wealth from which is separate.
By taking this route of being an anti redistribution of wealth ( which is contradictory to your world view ) you are essentially taking a 100 % individualistic lens as seen throughout your world view where you literally demonstrated that it's more important to keep people from abusing the system than to let innocents die.
" this whole discussion began because I disagreed with your definition of evil, not because i though socialism was a "completely evil system". Otherwise, I would have accepted the debate."
- Actually, that is exactly what you began to state when the conversation started, I clarified the definition and used an example of a snowstorm.
You then brought up arguments against it and the argument began to delve into the collective good and socialism and capitalism.
Very obviously you have disagreements on my world view and socialism in general otherwise you wouldn't have had many disagreements with my world view.
It may have begun surrounding the definition but then delved into the principles of socialism.
Firstly, ok that actually makes a lot of sense can you provide to me an example of a better definition of evil that takes into account a collectivist lens and individualistic lens?
Secondly, the declaration of independence and the constitution are almost irrelevant to me and I don't take these documents too seriously.
These documents were made a few centuries ago and are outdated and honestly need to be updated.
" He can say we use a "100% individualistic lens" but when we say he uses a 100% collectivist lens, THEN that is a strawman."
- Because that is the lens you're taking.
You have very obviously displayed you are against the redistribution of wealth and have displayed through your world view that you value the individual over the collective good.
I have demonstrated through my world view that we need to take into account 70 % of a collectivist lens and 30 % of an individualistic lens.
Very obviously this is a misrepresentation of my world view and I did not " strawman " your position when that is exactly what your position has been exhibiting throughout this entire debate.
The debate previously was titled " Is socialism a completely evil system " after all and you very obviously had disagreements.
From these disagreements, it's obvious you did, in fact, believe socialism was a completely evil system and combined with this and your world view I assumed this was your world view.
Firstly I took your previous comment as dodging my points as you pretty much admitted I was a waste of time for you. If you will respond than great I can't wait to see your response.
Secondly, if you claim to not be 100 % capitalistic than I am having trouble deciphering as to why you have major disagreements on the premise of socialism and are even arguing against the redistribution of wealth/taxes.
" I asked what 30% capitalism you wanted and you just said "mixed market". I want to know what you think the free market does better."
- Thirdly what I meant by this was that I am in favor of some capitalistic ideals.
I am not completely against private property, however several sectors I believe should be nationalized and other sectors should be more regulated either through the government or collective bargaining.
When you push for capitalistic ideals which oppose your own interests IE Ilegal immigration and buy unrealistic axioms forged by the alt-right, of course, I am going to call you a shill for the capitalists and the alt-right.
The obvious strawman of my position, I do not support the killing of anyone at all nor forced labor.
I believe we should take into account the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
We must put the collective good above all else while also taking into account the individual somewhat.
The killing of innocents isn't very helpful to society, the forced labor of individuals isn't helpful to society, and the redistribution of wealth/income, for the most part, would be helpful to society.
People need to stop looking at concepts with a 100 % individualistic lens and instead take into account the social good and the individual.
This comment of yours is a very obvious dodging of my points.
I am not stating I am not open to changing my mind, I am stating that for the most part my views are pretty much set.
I haven't changed my views in a while and it's unlikely my mind will be changed, this isn't to say I am not open to my mind being changed, however at this point I mostly do debates to sharpen my debate skills or to educate other people rather than to change my viewpoint as it hasn't changed in a while.
If it appeared that I wanted you to concede everything, that is because I believe your almost 100 % capitalist brand of conservatism is bad for the country.
If you are concerned with illegal immigration aligning yourself with the capitalists is the wrong move since they're the ones pushing for more open borders and illegal immigration to shrink the native wages.
However, if we had more socialization and instilled a 15 dollar minimum wage, we wouldn't have this problem and we wouldn't have to worry about the native wages shrinking.
The bottom line is you aren't going to get immigration reform if you continue to shill for the capitalists.
" I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us."
- Completely ignoring my claims and happily casting them side.
Just for fun, I'll re-explain them
society isn't PERFECT, people start off in DIFFERENT positions.
Corporations aren't SAINTS, they have very greedy policies such as throwing away food which could otherwise feed the homeless, let people die due to medical costs, and refuse to educate bright individuals due to costs.
" Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare."
" Notice how healthcare prices began to rise above normal CPI at the same time medicare and medicaid were implemented"
- You've brought up ONE example of nationalized healthcare causing rising costs and are ignoring literally every single country with socialized healthcare which has LOWER costs.
Never said the US is the worst country, still in top 5 due to its military and economic power. However not the highest due to its weak education system and laughable healthcare system.
" I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged."
- How would cheaper trade schools and " more populated " colleges NOT provide an incentive to choose trade schools? This is yet another point you so happily cast aside.
" Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory."
- I am comparing ideology. Ideologically wise, imperialism which advocates for radical self-interest and natural selection same as capitalism.
Socialistic countries have enacted imperialistic policies.
The problem is that you are acting as though countries have to be 100 % a certain ideology which isn't the case.
Communist countries such as the soviet union did have some capitalist ideas such as imperialism.
" How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation...."
- So basically natural selection which is a form of imperialism.
You'd rather see people die than see the system be taken advantage of.
What about mentally deficient people, the elderly, or the disabled?
" For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience."
- Considering that the majority of society in this scenario would be college educated, this negates why they cost more in the first place since people with masters degrees only cost more since they're in higher demand.
This negates your point, the fact is that in this scenario we'd have more qualified workers.
" Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)"
- But again this is ignoring the survival of the fittest and radical self-interest side of capitalism that I previously brought up that you also happily cast aside.
" NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat."
Keyword SPENDING.
Spending does not equal innovation.
Especially when according to my source the NIH was leading in innovation in 2017.
" we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally similar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV."
- Anecodotal claim. Other countries hell even Russia has fast food as well. And again you are once again ignoring other countries such as Germany which have similar cultures and other poorer countries such as Spain and Cuba.
" You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap..."
- Considering there are people exactly like you who are taking an almost completely 100 % capitalist approach and other Republicans similarly, it sadly isn't uncommon to find people who are against mixed markets and are anarcho-capitalists.
" Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits."
- This is a very common business practice, I provided to you a study done on the subject which you so happily cast aside. In fact, it would actually cost more money to ship food to starving countries or areas than it would be to simply throw the food away.
" We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid?????????????"
- Not calling the US a capitalist utopia, I'm simply stating it is the closest to your view of a utopia.
Even if they weren't similar, what about countries in the industrial revolution? This would be seen as you as a utopia as it has very little regulation and little taxes.
" It probably shouldn't be this close, but your claim was false."
- The fact that Cuba's life expectancy is that close considering how horrible of a country Cuba is and how in your point of view how successful privatized healthcare is, this point still stands.
How is it that even though the USA arguably has the strongest economy and military and superpower, is falling behind on healthcare so much to the point where one of the worst countries in the world is only slightly behind it.
This is also ignoring other ( arguably ) bad countries or less developed such as Spain, Iceland, and Israel.
" Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree with that."
- Again vocational schools in this scenario would still exist and would also be free.
I am sure with the abundance of college-educated students that many would flock to vocational schools to fill the demand.
The difference is that now that vocational school is free, they can handle the drop in wages.
So if anything, free education would actually stop this shortage.
" I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc."
- Ok great so then you concede the point on how the schools would be overflowed.
I only believe in affirmative action in tiebreakers, and in the cases where one student started from a worse position.
" I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism."
- Like what, you criticized it for its imperialistic nature and blamed this on socialism when imperialism is more rooted in capitalism than imperialism.
" You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them."
- Not true, this is nothing short than a baseless accusation.
I am simply responding to what you're stating as quickly as possible, earlier you were doing the exact same thing.
" Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? "
- I'd personally rather see workers be overqualified and bored than to see workers who are underqualified and struggling which overall hurts the economy.
" Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns?"
- One person isn't going to cause a million dollars in cancer treatment.
How much economic and even humanitarian loss do you believe we lose with let's state 50 people dying from cancer?
Let alone experienced workers which would be more achievable in a nationalized education system.
" No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. "
- Interesting that the economy matters so much to you that you'd be willing to let tons of people die than to see the economy stagnate, this is even assuming it would which I'm convinced it wouldn't.
" Notice that Scandinavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation."
- This is a poorly constructed hypothesis that isn't backed up by statistics at all.
According to the world economic forum, overall the Scandinavian countries and more socialized countries are leading in overall innovation such as Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark are leading.
Not to mention other nonnordic countries such as Singapore, Japan, and France which have higher levels of socialization than the US.
" Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. "
- Monopolies are seen as actually being virtues in capitalisms point of view as it believes in radical self-interest and survival of the fittest.
In capitalisms view, the monopolies were simply the strongest and followed their self-interest.
" I think it is incredibly naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. "
- Considering they are leading in medical innovation, it's likely that with proper funding nationalized systems perform as good if not better than privatized systems.
" I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. "
- And yet you openly express your critiques of my argument in the comment section.
Very obviously, at least in your view my argument is flawed and isn't an easy win.
" They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?"
- Interesting you believe the billions of food they throw away is " rotten ".
Even if it was " rotten " I am sure serving people rotten food would be better than allowing them to starve to death.
Either way, a good portion of food insecure families or the homeless would eat this " rotten " food anyways.
This is even assuming this food is " rotten " which isn't very accurate.
" . My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise the quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. "
- I have cited several countries which perform better than the US due to socialization.
You've provided me no other country to prove your capitalistic utopia to be better to society.
The only close country that resembles this is the United States which are currently falling behind on a lot of key aspects such as education and healthcare.
" They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for the military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper)."
- No citation to back itself up nor any examples of this system actually working.
I have actually provided examples and statistics to back up my claims, you have not quite simple and have instead relied on unrealistic and unlogical alt right talking points.
" Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods."
- This is once again ignoring similar cultures such as Germany which are very similar to the US on almost all levels.
Even if you want to argue these countries are just " naturally " healthier, how do you explain the fact that even poorer countries such as Cuba and Spain have better life spans than the US.
This is just downright pathetic that Cuba which is a communist dictatorship and is in poverty is performing higher than the US.
Culture does play some role into it, however, you are acting as though this is the ONLY reason why the US is falling behind and are ignoring the fact that millions are uninsured and many die due to the privatized healthcare system.
" Number one cause of death in US: heart disease "
- Again, do you really not think more check-ups among patients would benefit heart disease at all?
" Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors."
- This is actually because of a government-run agency that specialized in research called the NIH which contributes the most to medical research in the world.
" You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare."
- This isn't " unanbased "
Look at almost any country with socialized healthcare such as the Scandinavian countries and more likely than not they have very robust economies.
" r. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic"."
- You have constantly argued against the redistribution of wealth as an argument against socialized medicine on the basis of it being unfair.
Therefore you must want to abolish taxes which is a form of redistribution. Which is known as anarchism.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves."
- Once again ignoring the fact that rich people benefit from their workers being more educated and healthy.
" One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone as the military does."
- Healthcare stops sick days, prevents people from dying, and increases worker productivity.
Very obviously this does benefit the social good.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more"
- This would also include vocational schools so this point is irrelevant.
" There would be shortages of college spots."
- This would ensure the smartest and hardworking students get into college and not just the richest.
I'd personally rather see college acceptance be measured solely on grades and work ethic than by wealth quite frankly.
" So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not."
- Not saying it was mostly capitalistic, however, you are criticizing it for its imperialistic policies which is closely linked to capitalism than it is to socialism or communism.
" You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals."
- You do understand when I throw around words like altruism I am using it to explain the ideology of socialism right?
Socialism is an ideology similar to altruism in the sense that they value the social good above all else.
The capitalist in ideology is similar to imperialism in the sense that both promote self-interest above the needs of the collective good.
" The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income."
Ok, so that really you are almost in favor of the redistribution of wealth and are against this 100 % individualistic and capitalistic attitude you are exerting.
" Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. "
- And what is wrong with that?
Do you not want to see everyone with the basic needs to succeed?
Would you really rather see the majority of those in poverty suffer than see a selective few take advantage of the system?
" Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. "
- Another strawman, I'm not arguing for a 100 % socialist state, simply for a more socialized state which puts the common good above all else.
Capitalism is good for production, not distribution.
Socialism is good for distribution, not so much for production.
Therefore how about we combine the systems and take the pros of both systems instead of keeping America as this 100 % capitalist utopia that it tries to be?
" You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. "
- Statistically, this is inaccurate, as of right now the United States spends the most money per capita on healthcare and yet compared to the other developed countries with socialized medicine, we have the worst outcomes.
Bernie's healthcare plan would actually save money than our current model contrary to the rights belief.
" You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce the time needed to get groceries and go to work."
- I call most of these corporations evil since they constantly throw away tons of food which could actually stop world hunger, bury students in debt, and let people die to save money.
The companies have done some great things, however ignoring the underlying evils that they have done is disgusting.
" Just curious, what is 70% socialism and 30% capitalism?"
A mixed market which is what I'm advocating for.
We take a lot of socialist policies and some capitalist policies.
Similar to Scandinavian countries.
" I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. "
- Because that's the stance you are taking.
You have been arguing pretty much against every single socialist policy I've proposed to you and have been arguing for an absurd anarcho-capitalist utopia which is unrealistic.
" If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????"
- Sorry I didn't see that previous point so I'll gladly address it here,
The reason this is the case is actually because of the high insurance rates in the united states.
More socialized countries in Europe such as Norway have cheaper healthcare as a result of it being more socialized.
It has nothing to do with the government discouraging this at all. It actually has more to do with greedy corporations which charge 400 $ for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make.
" Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? "
- Ok, why should I be required to pay taxes for the police force for weaker people and people who refuse to obey the social order?
And really, you'd rather see many innocents die than to see a selective few take advantage of the system?
Scandinavian and almost literally any other country with socialized medicine don't have to drop life spans like the US currently does and still have robust economies.
So very obviously this hasn't hurt the countries what so ever.
" Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self-interest"
- Imperialism argues for radical self-interest and natural selection similar to capitalism in the sense that imperialism and capitalism call for the survival of fittest essentially.
Secondly, this is an absolute strawman.
I am not advocating for a world without self-interest, I want a world where everyone regardless of the economic bracket has basic needs and services.
" I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic."
- You are arguing against communism on the basis of the soviet union being imperialistic.
When imperialism is rooted more in capitalism than it is in the ideas of socialism or communism.
" I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well."
- A flat tax is where everyone pays the same amount in taxes, what you are describing is what as known as a progressive tax.
" You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way."
- Ok so then you are actually in favor of the redistribution of wealth since that is necessary to protect the nation.
Same with socialized healthcare and education as it benefits the collective good of the nation.
" The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism."
- Once again haven't elaborated on how they were socialists.
- Haven't elaborated on how socialism is selfishness
- The communist manifesto spreads the ideas of altruism/collective good messages.
" You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to"
- How is this slavery? You are once again ignoring my previous point and are going in a circle.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government forever, we'd only be providing the basics after all.
People are already essentially forced to work anyways, do you not think people are already forced to work or else they'll starve to death at the hands of corporations?
One of these is held accountable by the public and the other in the hands of greedy corporations.
" However, as I have stated numerous times, there are some things that are almost impossible to fund without taxes. I mentioned the military. Roads are another good example."
- Very obviously a good healthcare system is near impossible to fund without taxes, otherwise, our life spans would be the highest, millions wouldn't be uninsured, and thousands wouldn't die every year.
Also whatever happened to your argument about the private military?
The millitary I'm sure could be funded through private means and perform " better " than a nationalized one so why not fund the military privately?
" I'm sure you'll make up another insane hypothetical. Make it realistic if you do try to justify that. Don't waste my time with another "save the whole world" argument"
- This is an irrelevant point since earlier I made up a more realistic hypothetical concerning a snow storm and economic positions.
" I said if someone pays more than they consume in taxes, it removes tax burden from people. This is why I think some redistribution is justifiable. I just find it hard to believe that a few less sick days is equal to thousands in medical bills(even if sick days were prevented). "
- Do you not believe less sick days, happier workers, and less sick workers don't benefit companies?
Do you REALLY not believe happier workers wouldn't work harder than miserable workers?
Do you REALLY not believe a drastic decrease in sick days would boost productivity?
Do you REALLY not believe workers would have an easier time working without coughing, gagging, or vomiting?
Do you REALLY not believe more alive workers would increase output?
Even if there wasn't an economic return ( which I am convinced there is ) you REALLY value a slight economic slow down over human lives?
This wouldn't even be a slow down considering national healthcare is cheaper than privatized healthcare anyways thus debunking your argument.
" We shouldn't be able to harm minorities at will. "
- Another quote which clearly demonstrates you are taking a 100 % individualistic lens since once again by this logic you should be against taxes/redistribution of wealth.
" Your organs could save five lives. That is five lives versus one. That is promoting that social good we talked about. "
- The problem with this hypothetical is that it actually doesn't promote the social good when you stop and think about it.
If people knew they could be killed in their sleep at a hospital, they wouldn't show up to hospitals thus ruining the social order.
You may bring up this as me being logical inconsistent and stating " well what about taxes "
Taxes are different, they very obviously haven't destroyed the social order at all as exhibited by literally every country with taxes.
" You did nothing to prove that I take a 100% individualistic view of the world. I do have very individualistic tendencies. But, you obviously(and dishonestly) exclude my advocacy for schooling(I have said to an extent throughout. That means k-12 with some government college grants), I say we should have a military, and police. Those aren't even the only things I advocate for along these lines."
Earlier in the conversation...
" Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves."
- By this quotes logic, you are taking a 100 % individualistic stance since you're advocating for an anrcho capitalistic world free from taxes/redistribution of wealth.
This is an obvious contradiction in your entire world view, you claim to not be in favor of a 100 % individualistic mindset and yet as demonstrated by this quote you value the individuals right to keep their money over the collective good.
Not only this but also earlier you expressed concerns for socialized healthcare on the basis that it was stealing from healthier people and that you'd rather see people die than to see the system be taken advantage of.
If you aren't taking the 100 % individualistic standpoint, that's fine however you need to give some ground on your previous statements.
Quotes which signify you are taking the 100 % individualistic position:
" If you base decisions off of personal liberties, that can never happen"
" Why should the majority be allowed to oppress the minority at Will?"
". Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves."
" Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy?"
" My definition of getting more out is paying more in taxes than we invested in you. I'm okay with paying $10,000 in taxes to fund someone's education if they grow up, get a job, and pay more than that much back in their lifetime. "
Quotes which signify you're anti redistribution of wealth:
" Redistribution of wealth sets a bad mindset."
" Redistribution of wealth is bad."
" My view is and has been throughout this discussion that taxing is bad and should be kept to a minimum. I never once said(and you know this) that we should have zero taxes. I argue for low taxes."
- You admitted earlier in the discussion that you were anti redistribution of wealth, this is an obvious shifting of the goal post.
" I am not taking a 100% individual lens, as I said taxes should pay for schooling(to a point), the military, and police already. Stop blantantly lying."
- You have expressed numerous times that you are against the redistribution of wealth as an argument made against other social programs.
I asked you why these programs are different.
You claimed they promote social good.
I brought up arguments in favor of the fact that socialized healthcare and redistribution of food would also promote the social good that you've still yet to debunk.
If you are so against the redistribution of wealth unless it promotes social good than I am having trouble finding your disagreement when I agree.
Your problem isn't against the redistribution of wealth, it is what we use to fund that wealth from which is separate.
By taking this route of being an anti redistribution of wealth ( which is contradictory to your world view ) you are essentially taking a 100 % individualistic lens as seen throughout your world view where you literally demonstrated that it's more important to keep people from abusing the system than to let innocents die.
" this whole discussion began because I disagreed with your definition of evil, not because i though socialism was a "completely evil system". Otherwise, I would have accepted the debate."
- Actually, that is exactly what you began to state when the conversation started, I clarified the definition and used an example of a snowstorm.
You then brought up arguments against it and the argument began to delve into the collective good and socialism and capitalism.
Very obviously you have disagreements on my world view and socialism in general otherwise you wouldn't have had many disagreements with my world view.
It may have begun surrounding the definition but then delved into the principles of socialism.
Firstly, ok that actually makes a lot of sense can you provide to me an example of a better definition of evil that takes into account a collectivist lens and individualistic lens?
Secondly, the declaration of independence and the constitution are almost irrelevant to me and I don't take these documents too seriously.
These documents were made a few centuries ago and are outdated and honestly need to be updated.
what is this
" He can say we use a "100% individualistic lens" but when we say he uses a 100% collectivist lens, THEN that is a strawman."
- Because that is the lens you're taking.
You have very obviously displayed you are against the redistribution of wealth and have displayed through your world view that you value the individual over the collective good.
I have demonstrated through my world view that we need to take into account 70 % of a collectivist lens and 30 % of an individualistic lens.
Very obviously this is a misrepresentation of my world view and I did not " strawman " your position when that is exactly what your position has been exhibiting throughout this entire debate.
The debate previously was titled " Is socialism a completely evil system " after all and you very obviously had disagreements.
From these disagreements, it's obvious you did, in fact, believe socialism was a completely evil system and combined with this and your world view I assumed this was your world view.
Firstly I took your previous comment as dodging my points as you pretty much admitted I was a waste of time for you. If you will respond than great I can't wait to see your response.
Secondly, if you claim to not be 100 % capitalistic than I am having trouble deciphering as to why you have major disagreements on the premise of socialism and are even arguing against the redistribution of wealth/taxes.
" I asked what 30% capitalism you wanted and you just said "mixed market". I want to know what you think the free market does better."
- Thirdly what I meant by this was that I am in favor of some capitalistic ideals.
I am not completely against private property, however several sectors I believe should be nationalized and other sectors should be more regulated either through the government or collective bargaining.
When you push for capitalistic ideals which oppose your own interests IE Ilegal immigration and buy unrealistic axioms forged by the alt-right, of course, I am going to call you a shill for the capitalists and the alt-right.
The obvious strawman of my position, I do not support the killing of anyone at all nor forced labor.
I believe we should take into account the collective good as much as reasonably possible.
We must put the collective good above all else while also taking into account the individual somewhat.
The killing of innocents isn't very helpful to society, the forced labor of individuals isn't helpful to society, and the redistribution of wealth/income, for the most part, would be helpful to society.
People need to stop looking at concepts with a 100 % individualistic lens and instead take into account the social good and the individual.
This comment of yours is a very obvious dodging of my points.
I am not stating I am not open to changing my mind, I am stating that for the most part my views are pretty much set.
I haven't changed my views in a while and it's unlikely my mind will be changed, this isn't to say I am not open to my mind being changed, however at this point I mostly do debates to sharpen my debate skills or to educate other people rather than to change my viewpoint as it hasn't changed in a while.
If it appeared that I wanted you to concede everything, that is because I believe your almost 100 % capitalist brand of conservatism is bad for the country.
If you are concerned with illegal immigration aligning yourself with the capitalists is the wrong move since they're the ones pushing for more open borders and illegal immigration to shrink the native wages.
However, if we had more socialization and instilled a 15 dollar minimum wage, we wouldn't have this problem and we wouldn't have to worry about the native wages shrinking.
The bottom line is you aren't going to get immigration reform if you continue to shill for the capitalists.
I mean, to be honest I'm mostly doing this debate to educate and change whoevers mind accepts.
I obviously know it most likely wouldn't be a productive conversation for me personally as my views have been pretty set for months.
How so?
no.
ur a poop nose ha ha xd
" I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us."
- Completely ignoring my claims and happily casting them side.
Just for fun, I'll re-explain them
society isn't PERFECT, people start off in DIFFERENT positions.
Corporations aren't SAINTS, they have very greedy policies such as throwing away food which could otherwise feed the homeless, let people die due to medical costs, and refuse to educate bright individuals due to costs.
" Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare."
" Notice how healthcare prices began to rise above normal CPI at the same time medicare and medicaid were implemented"
- You've brought up ONE example of nationalized healthcare causing rising costs and are ignoring literally every single country with socialized healthcare which has LOWER costs.
Never said the US is the worst country, still in top 5 due to its military and economic power. However not the highest due to its weak education system and laughable healthcare system.
" I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged."
- How would cheaper trade schools and " more populated " colleges NOT provide an incentive to choose trade schools? This is yet another point you so happily cast aside.
" Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory."
- I am comparing ideology. Ideologically wise, imperialism which advocates for radical self-interest and natural selection same as capitalism.
Socialistic countries have enacted imperialistic policies.
The problem is that you are acting as though countries have to be 100 % a certain ideology which isn't the case.
Communist countries such as the soviet union did have some capitalist ideas such as imperialism.
" kay, a terminally ill person with cancer could cost $1 million. It can get pretty high paying for people with chronic conditions, too."
- No citation nor evidence to back up this absurd claim up.
Cancer costs are very expensive, but not that expensive.
According to this source, cancer costs ONLY cost 40,000, not the 1 million you are overexaggerating.
https://www.asbestos.com/treatment/expenses/
" . A good economy matters, and if I have to prove that to you, I don't see any point in moving forward."
- A good economy can only prosper if everyone is fed, is healthy, and is educated.
The Scandinavian model is proof of this.
" How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation...."
- So basically natural selection which is a form of imperialism.
You'd rather see people die than see the system be taken advantage of.
What about mentally deficient people, the elderly, or the disabled?
" For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience."
- Considering that the majority of society in this scenario would be college educated, this negates why they cost more in the first place since people with masters degrees only cost more since they're in higher demand.
This negates your point, the fact is that in this scenario we'd have more qualified workers.
" We spend a load more on medical research by percentage of GDP than the rest of these socialized countries. We are #1 in biomedical research "
- And yet even through all of this research, we still have a horrible lifespan compared to other countries.
Think about it this way, all of the money going towards these private companies can be funded into the NIH or other government programs.
This way we get great medical research AND proper distribution.
" Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)"
- But again this is ignoring the survival of the fittest and radical self-interest side of capitalism that I previously brought up that you also happily cast aside.
" NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat."
Keyword SPENDING.
Spending does not equal innovation.
Especially when according to my source the NIH was leading in innovation in 2017.
-
" we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally similar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV."
- Anecodotal claim. Other countries hell even Russia has fast food as well. And again you are once again ignoring other countries such as Germany which have similar cultures and other poorer countries such as Spain and Cuba.
" You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap..."
- Considering there are people exactly like you who are taking an almost completely 100 % capitalist approach and other Republicans similarly, it sadly isn't uncommon to find people who are against mixed markets and are anarcho-capitalists.
" Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits."
- This is a very common business practice, I provided to you a study done on the subject which you so happily cast aside. In fact, it would actually cost more money to ship food to starving countries or areas than it would be to simply throw the food away.
" We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid?????????????"
- Not calling the US a capitalist utopia, I'm simply stating it is the closest to your view of a utopia.
Even if they weren't similar, what about countries in the industrial revolution? This would be seen as you as a utopia as it has very little regulation and little taxes.
By your standards, this is your perfect society.
" It probably shouldn't be this close, but your claim was false."
- The fact that Cuba's life expectancy is that close considering how horrible of a country Cuba is and how in your point of view how successful privatized healthcare is, this point still stands.
How is it that even though the USA arguably has the strongest economy and military and superpower, is falling behind on healthcare so much to the point where one of the worst countries in the world is only slightly behind it.
This is also ignoring other ( arguably ) bad countries or less developed such as Spain, Iceland, and Israel.
" I believe in a flat tax because I don't think people should be punished for working harder and therefore gaining more money."
- Once again ignoring the fact that we don't live in a perfect society where everyone starts off in the same circumstance.
". I don't know how that makes me pro-redistribution. I'm not trying to equalize wealth by putting essentially caps on earning."
- You are arguing for TAXES which is a form of REDISTRIBUTION.
Redistribution is still redistribution
Really your problem doesn't seem rooted in redistribution, your issue is how fair the redistribution is.
" Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree with that."
- Again vocational schools in this scenario would still exist and would also be free.
I am sure with the abundance of college-educated students that many would flock to vocational schools to fill the demand.
The difference is that now that vocational school is free, they can handle the drop in wages.
So if anything, free education would actually stop this shortage.
" I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc."
- Ok great so then you concede the point on how the schools would be overflowed.
I only believe in affirmative action in tiebreakers, and in the cases where one student started from a worse position.
" I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism."
- Like what, you criticized it for its imperialistic nature and blamed this on socialism when imperialism is more rooted in capitalism than imperialism.
" You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them."
- Not true, this is nothing short than a baseless accusation.
I am simply responding to what you're stating as quickly as possible, earlier you were doing the exact same thing.
" Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? "
- I'd personally rather see workers be overqualified and bored than to see workers who are underqualified and struggling which overall hurts the economy.
" Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns?"
- One person isn't going to cause a million dollars in cancer treatment.
How much economic and even humanitarian loss do you believe we lose with let's state 50 people dying from cancer?
Let alone experienced workers which would be more achievable in a nationalized education system.
" No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. "
- Interesting that the economy matters so much to you that you'd be willing to let tons of people die than to see the economy stagnate, this is even assuming it would which I'm convinced it wouldn't.
" Notice that Scandinavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation."
- This is a poorly constructed hypothesis that isn't backed up by statistics at all.
According to the world economic forum, overall the Scandinavian countries and more socialized countries are leading in overall innovation such as Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark are leading.
Not to mention other nonnordic countries such as Singapore, Japan, and France which have higher levels of socialization than the US.
" Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. "
- Monopolies are seen as actually being virtues in capitalisms point of view as it believes in radical self-interest and survival of the fittest.
In capitalisms view, the monopolies were simply the strongest and followed their self-interest.
" I think it is incredibly naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. "
- Considering they are leading in medical innovation, it's likely that with proper funding nationalized systems perform as good if not better than privatized systems.
" I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. "
- And yet you openly express your critiques of my argument in the comment section.
Very obviously, at least in your view my argument is flawed and isn't an easy win.
" They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?"
- Interesting you believe the billions of food they throw away is " rotten ".
Even if it was " rotten " I am sure serving people rotten food would be better than allowing them to starve to death.
Either way, a good portion of food insecure families or the homeless would eat this " rotten " food anyways.
This is even assuming this food is " rotten " which isn't very accurate.
" . My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise the quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. "
- I have cited several countries which perform better than the US due to socialization.
You've provided me no other country to prove your capitalistic utopia to be better to society.
The only close country that resembles this is the United States which are currently falling behind on a lot of key aspects such as education and healthcare.
" They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for the military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper)."
- No citation to back itself up nor any examples of this system actually working.
I have actually provided examples and statistics to back up my claims, you have not quite simple and have instead relied on unrealistic and unlogical alt right talking points.
" Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods."
- This is once again ignoring similar cultures such as Germany which are very similar to the US on almost all levels.
Even if you want to argue these countries are just " naturally " healthier, how do you explain the fact that even poorer countries such as Cuba and Spain have better life spans than the US.
This is just downright pathetic that Cuba which is a communist dictatorship and is in poverty is performing higher than the US.
Culture does play some role into it, however, you are acting as though this is the ONLY reason why the US is falling behind and are ignoring the fact that millions are uninsured and many die due to the privatized healthcare system.
" Number one cause of death in US: heart disease "
- Again, do you really not think more check-ups among patients would benefit heart disease at all?
" Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors."
- This is actually because of a government-run agency that specialized in research called the NIH which contributes the most to medical research in the world.
" What company throws out food that could easily be given to poor people? Usually, donations like that can be tax-deductible."
- Already explained this earlier, currently, we have enough food to feed 10 billion people. Yet only 7.7 billion people are still going hungry.
Very obviously this is because companies are throwing out food. Especially according to this study done on the subject.
https://www.dumpsters.com/blog/grocery-store-food-waste-statistics
" gain, you are assuming that without your socialistic policies, the "majority" of people will suffer/not meet basic needs."
45,000 die yearly due to privatized healthcare
Healthcare costs account for the majority of bankruptcies in the US
Billions go hungry each and every night
Millions suffer from student loan debt
Millions lack clean water
Very obviously Billions are suffering to have basic needs.
More socialized programs would combat this through redistributing resources.
" You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare."
- This isn't " unanbased "
Look at almost any country with socialized healthcare such as the Scandinavian countries and more likely than not they have very robust economies.
" r. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic"."
- You have constantly argued against the redistribution of wealth as an argument against socialized medicine on the basis of it being unfair.
Therefore you must want to abolish taxes which is a form of redistribution. Which is known as anarchism.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" My opinion is that private healthcare would be the best case scenario, but that anything is better than what we have now."
- The US has the most privatized healthcare system in the world, so by your point of view, it is the closest to your dream utopia.
Do you actually have any examples of more privatized healthcare systems performing better than socialized healthcare modules?
Again, more socialized countries with socialized medicine almost all have better life spans.
Including Cuba.
". Not because of their healthcare, but because we in America are unhealthy af. We eat way too much junk food."
- Really so every single country with socialized medicine automatically just is naturally healthier?
Including countries such as Germany which is very close in culture to the US?
Unless you have any evidence of Americans eating unhealthier as the cause for why our lifespan is so low I will ignore this hypothesis.
" People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves."
- Once again ignoring the fact that rich people benefit from their workers being more educated and healthy.
" One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone as the military does."
- Healthcare stops sick days, prevents people from dying, and increases worker productivity.
Very obviously this does benefit the social good.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more"
- This would also include vocational schools so this point is irrelevant.
" There would be shortages of college spots."
- This would ensure the smartest and hardworking students get into college and not just the richest.
I'd personally rather see college acceptance be measured solely on grades and work ethic than by wealth quite frankly.
" So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not."
- Not saying it was mostly capitalistic, however, you are criticizing it for its imperialistic policies which is closely linked to capitalism than it is to socialism or communism.
" You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals."
- You do understand when I throw around words like altruism I am using it to explain the ideology of socialism right?
Socialism is an ideology similar to altruism in the sense that they value the social good above all else.
The capitalist in ideology is similar to imperialism in the sense that both promote self-interest above the needs of the collective good.
" The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income."
Ok, so that really you are almost in favor of the redistribution of wealth and are against this 100 % individualistic and capitalistic attitude you are exerting.
" Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. "
- And what is wrong with that?
Do you not want to see everyone with the basic needs to succeed?
Would you really rather see the majority of those in poverty suffer than see a selective few take advantage of the system?
" Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. "
- Another strawman, I'm not arguing for a 100 % socialist state, simply for a more socialized state which puts the common good above all else.
Capitalism is good for production, not distribution.
Socialism is good for distribution, not so much for production.
Therefore how about we combine the systems and take the pros of both systems instead of keeping America as this 100 % capitalist utopia that it tries to be?
" You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. "
- Statistically, this is inaccurate, as of right now the United States spends the most money per capita on healthcare and yet compared to the other developed countries with socialized medicine, we have the worst outcomes.
Bernie's healthcare plan would actually save money than our current model contrary to the rights belief.
" You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce the time needed to get groceries and go to work."
- I call most of these corporations evil since they constantly throw away tons of food which could actually stop world hunger, bury students in debt, and let people die to save money.
The companies have done some great things, however ignoring the underlying evils that they have done is disgusting.
" Just curious, what is 70% socialism and 30% capitalism?"
A mixed market which is what I'm advocating for.
We take a lot of socialist policies and some capitalist policies.
Similar to Scandinavian countries.
" I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. "
- Because that's the stance you are taking.
You have been arguing pretty much against every single socialist policy I've proposed to you and have been arguing for an absurd anarcho-capitalist utopia which is unrealistic.
" If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????"
- Sorry I didn't see that previous point so I'll gladly address it here,
The reason this is the case is actually because of the high insurance rates in the united states.
More socialized countries in Europe such as Norway have cheaper healthcare as a result of it being more socialized.
It has nothing to do with the government discouraging this at all. It actually has more to do with greedy corporations which charge 400 $ for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make.
" Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? "
- Ok, why should I be required to pay taxes for the police force for weaker people and people who refuse to obey the social order?
And really, you'd rather see many innocents die than to see a selective few take advantage of the system?
Scandinavian and almost literally any other country with socialized medicine don't have to drop life spans like the US currently does and still have robust economies.
So very obviously this hasn't hurt the countries what so ever.
" A college degree guarantee is super excessive and unnecessary to make a living."
- No citation to back itself up, very obviously in the world, it is almost a necessity to be college educated in order to hold a good job.
According to George town university, a good chunk of jobs is only accessible via college degrees.
Even if it wasn't, do you really not believe that society would in general benefit if even McDonalds workers were college educated?
" Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self-interest"
- Imperialism argues for radical self-interest and natural selection similar to capitalism in the sense that imperialism and capitalism call for the survival of fittest essentially.
Secondly, this is an absolute strawman.
I am not advocating for a world without self-interest, I want a world where everyone regardless of the economic bracket has basic needs and services.
" I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic."
- You are arguing against communism on the basis of the soviet union being imperialistic.
When imperialism is rooted more in capitalism than it is in the ideas of socialism or communism.
" I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well."
- A flat tax is where everyone pays the same amount in taxes, what you are describing is what as known as a progressive tax.
" You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way."
- Ok so then you are actually in favor of the redistribution of wealth since that is necessary to protect the nation.
Same with socialized healthcare and education as it benefits the collective good of the nation.
" The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism."
- Once again haven't elaborated on how they were socialists.
- Haven't elaborated on how socialism is selfishness
- The communist manifesto spreads the ideas of altruism/collective good messages.
" You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to"
- How is this slavery? You are once again ignoring my previous point and are going in a circle.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government forever, we'd only be providing the basics after all.
People are already essentially forced to work anyways, do you not think people are already forced to work or else they'll starve to death at the hands of corporations?
One of these is held accountable by the public and the other in the hands of greedy corporations.
Which do you think is better for the social good?