Return to CreateDebate.comseriousbusiness • Join this debate community

Serious Business


Jessald's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Jessald's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

I gave up on this group once I found out you have to manually invite people in order for them to be able to post. You can't just make it public. I decided I didn't want to play gatekeeper.

Plus there didn't seem to be much interest.

Still, if you want, we can try pushing it again.

1 point

We don't need to kill animals for clothing. In fact most clothing is made from crops such as cotton, not from animal products.

We also don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

We know very well how suffering comes about -- our senses send signals to our brain which in turn creates the feeling. Plants don't have brains or any other means of cognition, therefore they cannot suffer.

1 point

Suffering in mammals and birds matters because they have brains which process pain. There is your objective reason. Do you not accept that pain is generally bad?

Why does human suffering matter, in your opinion?

1 point

There's no such thing as rights in the sense that you are using the term. We should simply do what we can to minimize suffering, both human and non-human.

I don't see this system as convoluted at all. To put it more simply: Animal suffering matters, although it matters less than human suffering. Even if it were convoluted I don't think that would be relevant because it would simply be reflecting the complicated nature of reality.

A good first step would be to stop breeding and slaughtering mammals and birds in factory farms. If you accept that animal suffering matters at all, factory farms are obviously a horrible thing.

1 point

I am most definitely not associating sentience in the broad sense with human level sentience. Again, I see a gradient of cognitive sophistication going from zero to human-level. As we move along this continuum, an organism accumulates moral weight. You can't really capture that idea in a single word, so I'm using "sentience", in the broad sense, as a rough approximation.

I agree with you that human sentience is greater that animal sentience. If we could quantify suffering (which we theoretically could), we might come up with a formula that looked something like this:

amount_of_suffering = damage_inflicted x capacity_for_pain

(the x signifies multiplication)

Where capacity_for_pain might be 1 for humans and .01 for cows and .000001 for shrimp.

"Since no animal has human sentience, or awareness, they are afforded no rights and may be eaten at will."

First, I don't think the concept of "rights" makes a lot of sense. I think all ethics must come from a Utilitarian perspective. And from here I see no such thing as absolute rights, human or otherwise. There is only maximization of overall quality of life; a concept which in turn is based on the simple miracle that organisms have evolved a capacity to feel good and bad. The only reason people generally have a "right" to life is because society could not function if we didn't harshly condemn murder. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good guideline for practical reasons; it is not a universal imperative (there are times when murder can serve the greater good).

But I digress. My key point is that suffering is bad and should therefore be minimized; killing animals causes suffering and is therefore bad; factory farming causes massive, widespread suffering and is therefore an abomination.

"You'd have to develop a moral system based entirely on animal sentience, and decide whether that moral system is equal to humans. To do THAT, you need objective criteria."

We have objective criteria, at least in theory: suffering in all forms is a result of neural activity. The firings of neurons can be measured and quantified. Of course we lack the technical sophistication to measure suffering, but we can come up with crude estimations. For example if I were to flick my finger against my arm, a few nerves would fire, a bit of neural activity would occur, and I would feel a very slight amount of pain. If I were to take a knife and plunge it into a cow's side repeatedly, quite a lot of nerves would fire strongly, massive neural activity would occur, and the cow would feel a great deal of pain. So there you go, objective suffering.

"animals have no morals and actions from or towards them cannot be judged on a moral scale"

From yes, towards no. Most animals are not capable of moral reasoning, therefore their actions can't be judged on a moral scale. However, it does not follow that us causing them harm is irrelevant.

"And my subjective sensations are different than yours."

Not at a basic level. It's safe to say we both experience roughly the same thing upon being hit in the head with a baseball bat, or upon having an orgasm. At the very least I hope we can agree that one of these is better than the other in both your case and mine.

1 point

Let's break out the dictionary.

Main Entry: sen·tient

Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

2 : aware

3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

I see see nothing in there about "abstract thoughts". I'd say capacity for pain fits definition 1 and possibly 2 and 3. Let the quibbling commence.

As for just what sorts of animals can feel pain, I don't think that is a settled question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish

I will grant that eating clams and shrimp is probably roughly akin to eating plants from a moral perspective, and is therefore probably ok.

"So, the best you've got there is a ban on cows and most other mammals."

And possibly chickens and other birds.

"You can try out some moral mumbo-jumbo, but those are random value judgments which aren't based on anything objective."

Mumbo-jumbo? Pain is bad. It's that simple. Subjective sensations of good and bad are the foundation of any system of ethics.

1 point

You are of course right that we can't "half-eat" something. It's the same problem we face with abortion. We are forced to draw a line somewhere and say, "After it reaches this level of cognitive sophistication, killing this creature is unacceptable." I think capacity for pain is a reasonable place to draw that line. Cows and chickens are clearly well beyond that point.

As for the precise meaning of the word "sentient", I'm not interested in semantic quibbling. If you have a better term for "more cognitive capabilities than a rock" we can use that instead.

1 point

In reality sentience is not black and white. There is a gradient going from completely non-sentient to completely sentient. You have rocks on one end, and humans on the other. The farther along this spectrum an organism is, the more wrong it is to kill it.

As for how sentient the animals we eat are, well, that question is far from settled. I will say my judgment based on watching pigs, cows, etc, is that they are sufficiently sophisticated to make their slaughter wrong. You can watch them interact with one another. You can watch them exhibit fear. I think anyone who approaches this question from an unbiased perspective can't help but make the same call.

1 point

The debate description doesn't make much sense.

Especially this last sentence:

"If justice is immutable then justice cannot be subject to democracy and yet we assert that democracy is a just form of government."

You seem to think there's a contradiction there, but there isn't one. It's like saying:

"If apples are red then they cannot be blue and yet we assert that apples are tasty."

We can assert that democracy is just without implying that justice is mutable.

Also, is it really necessary to use obscure phrases like "de jure mutable"? Couldn't you phrase that in plain English? Maybe something like "If the legal concept of justice can change..."

1 point

Another thought: It's probably impossible to know about how things might have been different. Seems like even small changes could have had big impacts via the butterfly effect. The world is just too complex; it would be like trying to predict the value of the stock market a hundred years from now.

1 point

I'm not sure there's much we can do about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. There's the economic sanctions option, but I doubt that will be effective. They didn't work against India when they were working on nukes.

The US military is too overextended to be able to pull off another regime change. The rest of the world is probably not going to do what's necessary to stop them.

I really don't see a good solution here.

1 point

Carbon taxes. Simple and straightforward. And if any countries fail to cut emissions sufficiently, other countries should impose carbon tariffs on goods imported from those countries. It'll be bad for the global economy in the short term but it will eventually lead to clean energy solutions.

1 point

Let's assign a value of 1 to my current productivity level. Now let's say I spend a year developing tools that allow me to work more efficiently. By the end of that year these tools have improved my productivity by 30%, giving me a productivity level of 1.3.

Now let's say I spend the next year using those tools to develop better tools. At the end of that year I have again increased my productivity by 30%, giving me a productivity level of 1.69. (30% of 1.3 = .39; 1.3 + .39 = 1.69)

Repeat the process again and I have a productivity level of 2.197 by the end of the third year.

If I were able repeat this 30% a year growth in productivity every year for 60 years, then by the end of it my productivity level would be... almost 7 million (1.3^60=6,864,377). In other words I would be 7 million times more productive then I was when I started.

I think that when it comes to computers this kind of exponential increase in productivity may be within the realm of possibility. It's one of the reasons I have spent the last year or two working on tools to make myself more productive.

What do you think? Am I full of crap?

1 point

Hmm, I would say history would've gravitated to more or less the current state of things regardless of how a few historical events turned out.

We can see all the countries of the world gravitating toward a similar blend of democracy with regulated capitalism. I believe this is because this system is the one that works best given human nature. So no matter what course history took, people would always have drifted in this direction, because it would always have been the logical thing to do.

In other words, I don't know enough about world history to say anything interesting :)

1 point

I had always assumed that the point of Democracy was that having the entire population making decisions through votes resulted in better decisions being made. But certain things about our system seem to fly in the face of this notion. The independence of the Federal Reserve, for instance. Monetary policy is not something you want in the hands of the masses, because history has shown they will not use it wisely.

So if we want elites controlling our monetary policy, why don't we want elites controlling every aspect of society? I think it's because of the general principle that imbalances in power tend to lead to injustice. Democracy gives everybody a small lever they can use to promote their own interests, and that is usually enough to prevent the conflict endemic to mankind from spilling into violence.

Or, in the words of Leonard Cohen:

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,

the holy places where the races meet;

from the homicidal bitchin'

that goes down in every kitchen

to determine who will serve and who will eat.

From the wells of disappointment

where the women kneel to pray

for the grace of God in the desert here

and the desert far away:

Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Here's the song, btw
1 point

Judging from the speech, Obama is making adjustments to HR 3200. This is what I'm referring to as the "new plan." One of these adjustments is the addition of a fine on insurance companies who offer extremely expensive plans. This adjustment will help keep costs down.

1 point

The numbers you're quoting came from HR 3200, the House bill. Obama has made some concessions with this new plan (mainly keeping costs down by fining insurance companies who sell very expensive plans) and this new plan has not yet been reviewed by the CBO.

3 points

"Faggots", Jake? Seriously? Leave the hate to Pyg.

.................................

1 point

There is only a small chance of the public option leading to a government takeover, and that would only happen if the government plan works really well. What Obama, Frank, and all of them are saying in that YouTube video is that if we had a public option and it worked better than private insurance companies, then we would have proof that government involvement in healthcare is not a bad thing. The public option can be seen as a sort of pilot program for government run healthcare. If it's true that government is incompetent then the public option won't be able to compete with the private insurance industry and it will not lead to a takeover.

Obama has repeatedly said that the government plan would not be financed by taxes, but by premiums collected from those insured. He has repeatedly said that it would compete fairly with private insurance companies. You say that he wants to "Penalize private business 8% if they decide to keep their current plan" but you don't offer any evidence for this. I think you're just lying again.

Finally, I challenge you to name one lie in Obama's speech.

1 point

The entirety of the healthcare debate is too complicated for just one speech. If you want more information, then it's not hard to find:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_ States

I myself don't really care about the shouting. It was bad, but mostly just a distraction from the real issues.

3 points

Democrats aren't one unified block. Unlike Republicans they tend to have minds of their own. Some want to tax the wealthy to pay for full-scale government run health care. Some are conservatives who want to leave everything to the insurance companies. It shouldn't be surprising that there has been considerable disagreement over the bill.

Despite this, a reform package will be passed, in fact it's almost done. The only question is how much it will get watered down in the process.

As for not reading the bill, that's a load of crap. Senators have their staff read the bill. They know what's in it.

And the cyber security bill has nothing to do with Obama.

1 point

Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever heard of a Blue Dog Democrat? There aren't enough votes to get the public option through the Senate.

Singlepayer healthcare simply would not make it through Congress. Like it or not we live in a Democracy.

0 points

There's a typo in there that I can't edit. I meant to say:

"Failing to act will allow Americans to continue going bankrupt due to an inability to pay their medical bills."

2 points

Many Republicans are suddenly all horrified at the idea of congressmen "not reading bills." As if that's not the way every major bill in recent history has been passed. Legislation is created by committees and reviewed by several people on a legislator's staff. I agree that we should make bills smaller and easier to understand, but that's an issue for another day. This debate is about health care.

No one is proposing a government take over of health care. If you actually listened to the speech, or looked at a summary of what's been proposed you would know that. All we want to do is mandate that everyone purchase their own health insurance, and provide some form of aid to those who can't afford it.

The "Government plan", or public option, that you mention would be a good idea for many reasons, but it doesn't matter because it won't make it into the final bill.

3 points

America needs healthcare reform. We can provide it without increasing the deficit.

Failing to act will allow costs to pile up due to inefficiencies in the system. Failing to act will allow Americans to continue going bankrupt due to an inability to pay for reform. As the President has said, "The time for bickering is over."

I hope this speech will give healthcare reform the push it needs to get through the door.

1 point

It's not capitalism which is using up our resources, it's individuals. People want stuff. They trade stuff they have for stuff they want more. People build machines to extract oil from the ground in order to trade that oil for other stuff they want. This is the natural state of things.

Saying you want to do away with all that is like saying you want to do away with human greed. Sure that might sound nice, but there's no practical way to make that happen. I know you've suggested some kind of educational program or something like that to try and teach people not to be greedy, but I really don't think that would work. If there's an advantage to be gained by behaving selfishly, some people will always take it, even if they know it's immoral. If you disagree, I suggest you spend some more time chatting with the likes of Pyg or JoeCavalry.

So, if we can't get rid of selfishness, we do the next best thing -- we regulate it. Pigovian taxes, antitrust laws, environmental regulations, these are all ways of dealing with the fundamental problem of people pursuing their own short term interests at the expense of society's collective long term interests.

On a side note, I'm far from conviced that elimination of human greed would be a good thing. Greed is a powerful motivator, which capitalism harnesses in order to benefit society. You see, while free trade does promote inequality, it still leaves everyone better off than they would have been without it -- even those at the bottom. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

I believe that treating the problem more objectively with the use of the scientific method is the best way to find a proper way of organizing scarce resources at the moment

You've just described the field of study known as Economics.

3 points

If the ad they refused to air was nothing but one lie after another, then I would understand.

2 points

Have you ever talked with a Canadian or a Brit asking them their honest truth about the health care? I have and they hate it.

I think you're lying. Even if you aren't, you're wrong. See this Gallup poll.

Percent "very satisfied" with healthcare:

US: 6%, Britain: 7%, Canada: 16%

Percent "very dissatisfied" with healthcare:

US: 44%, Britain: 25%, Canada: 17%

Have you even taken a look at what taxes would be if Obama got what he wanted? Last estimate I saw was $37,000 for each American. That would be a Marxist economy taking over 70% of every paycheck that is made.

I'm sorry, but you have clearly pulled those numbers from the depths of your rectum. There's no way in hell Obama wants to tax $37,000 from each American. I assume you got that from some dumb YouTube video that didn't account for progressive taxation or something like that.

1 point

What are you babbling about? I just pointed out that ABC pulling an ad is not totalitarianism.

1 point

You spelled "should" wrong. And "Marxists". And "hang". And you used "their" when you should have used "your".

Congratulations on failing four times in one sentence.

1 point

That's "League of American Voters".

........................................

2 points

Obviously we can pay for universal health care, we'd just need to raise taxes or cut other spending to do it. It's just a question of priorities. Are we willing to take a little bit from everybody in order to keep poor people from going bankrupt if they get hit by a bus?

We can and will pay down our national debt. It's getting high but is far from unpayable. Republican strategists know this, but are choosing just to yell and scream apocalyptic nonsense in order to score political points. It's pretty disgusting really. We need to be having a constructive debate about how best to improve the lives of the American people, but all we're seeing is bullshit like this ad which says little more than, "We're all gonna die!!!"

2 points

Totalitarianism? It's not the government that blocked the ad. ABC and NBC are private corporations. They decide for themselves what to air.

Stop fear mongering.

2 points

There's more than one bill out there. And all of them are still being negotiated. Regardless of whether the more controversial parts of healthcare reform happen, everyone agrees that something need to be done.

3 points

I believe the ad is below (YouTube search does suck, just use Google, then you can click on the video to jump to the YouTube link).

I agree with their refusal to air it. It's just one blatant deception after another designed for the sole purpose of scaring the American people. Shit like this should be illegal.

The Ad
1 point

Well maybe he doesn't have a concrete plan right now, but he's the freakin' head of the Fed. If anyone knows how to put together a program to do what he's talking about it's him. I guarantee you that we'll be seeing concrete plans before long.

1 point

I think you may have misunderstood the term "mixed economies"... A mixed economy is an economy that mixes socialism and capitalism. All the first world countries have mixed economies. I wasn't referring to an intermingling of economies.

Also I don't think we can completely eliminate scarcity with our current technology. I was just wondering if we could organize what we do have in a way that made everyone better off.

That said, I think I agree with you that a global government could help things substantially. Although I disagree that socialism is a better way of organizing resources.

1 point

Politicians encouraging sub-prime loans was only one of several causes of the housing bubble. And, in turn, the housing bubble was only one of several problems that caused the recession. Even if politicians didn't encourage companies to behave benevolently, the larger systemic problems still would've bitten us eventually. Again, I suggest you watch that interview with Bernanke.

I think government saving companies from themselves is a bad idea. Government should set the rules of the game, but it shouldn't be one of the players.

1 point

Providing a better overall quality of life.

...............................................

1 point

What do you mean by "New World Order"? What is "this situation" that we need to escape from?

1 point

Not sure what you're saying. You want government to more aggressively regulate large corporations?

I think a better answer is just to create a system that will allow big companies to fail without destroying the economy. This is the solution proposed by Ben Bernanke.

Below is a clip, you can watch the whole interview here.

Bernanke
1 point

I think the way things are organized in most first world countries is fairly close to optimal given the state of things. That is, a regulated free-market for most things, and government run programs for those situations where the market doesn't work. I hear intelligent people complain about our current system from time to time, but I've never heard of any reasonable alternative.

1 point

Because we're running out of space, I decided to post my response up higher.

1 point

Because we were running out of space, I've decided to stick my response to your latest argument up here.

the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us

The government is given those rights by the majority of the people. If enough people decided to do away with government, then we could do that.

You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free

No I haven't. The two positions you offered in this debate create a false dichotomy. I don't think people are human livestock, but that doesn't mean I think we're totally free.

governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle

Cattle don't have human rights. Cattle don't get to vote.

Governments don’t want to die

A government is not a sentient creature, it doesn't make sense to say it "wants" something.

Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run.

Right, but if the end truly justifies the means, then this is a good thing.

to pollute the air they breathe

Government does not pollute. That's corporations. Government prevents excessive pollution.

We are all slaves to capitalism

Slaves don't get human rights. Slaves can't vote.

My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all.

Maybe, but the market and the economy emerge from the inescapable tension between selfishness and cooperation.

yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish

Sure we can see the advantages. But we'll never be able to eliminate selfishness. Certainly not while scarcity remains a problem.

Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing

Yes, this is a good point. People can be altruistic. A few things though:

1) How are these organizations funded? By voluntary donations. People donate resources they have obtained while working within the capitalistic framework. These organizations don't address the fundamental problem of allocating scarce resources.

2) Not everything can be done voluntarily. Who would do the unpleasant jobs if they didn't have to? Yes someday technology will eliminate those jobs, but that day is not yet here.

3) These are both examples of public goods. Couch surfing pulled in $779,538 in donations last year. The Wikimedia Foundation pulled in $7 million in that same year. Compare that to the National Science Foundation which had an operating budget of over $6 billion for the same year. We have here an excellent example of the free rider problem in action. Our power to do good vastly increases when we take a small amount of money from everybody through taxes.

The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology.

Even with technology we still face tradeoffs. Wikipedia's servers consume a share of the world's resources. Also, time is a finite resource. If you read Wikipedia for an hour, you have given up the possibility of using that hour for something else.

Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses.

Maybe. As scarcity is reduced there is less of a need for capitalism.

It’s just not sustainable, simple as that.

Government regulations can make it sustainable.

I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.

I agree. And regulated capitalism provides us with a platform atop which we can achieve this.

You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative.

Let me be clear. You don't annoy me at all. I have nothing but love and admiration for you and people like you. Manipulative videos which do nothing but turn people cynical toward their most promising source of salvation are what annoy me.

I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work

It obviously works quite well. The fact that you and I are able to have this conversation is a testament to that.

We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world

I don't think this will be a big revelation for most people.

---

Here are a few relevant links I would like you to take a look at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

1 point

Social networking just adds another optional social mechanism. People still can and do socialize in the real world.

2 points

I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people

I think you do not understand Economics very well. Check out these ten basic principles, which have been established through many years of rigorous study. It's not about right and wrong, it's just about explaining the way things are.

It's true that in some cases corporations create artificial scarcity. In economics this is an example of market failure and the best way to fix it is through government intervention. Despite what the conspiracy-theorists like to claim, government is a friend of the people, not the enemy. It is through government that we can collectively work toward a better future. Take the U.S. National Science Foudation, for example, which carries out scientific research financed by taxpayers.

Can the market be sustainable in a global level?

With proper government regulation, yes.

one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand

The laws of supply and demand follow logically given the fundamental assumption of economics: rational self-interested actors exchanging goods and services. Yes this is an over-simplification of humanity, but simplifying problems makes them easier to study. It's like solving physics problems without considering friction.

We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go

Ok, these all sound mostly reasonable to me. However, none of these are the critical functions of government that I listed in my initial argument.

Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me?

Well, technically you could. You could wander around, living like a hunter-gatherer if you chose to. I think we can agree though that the benefits of society provide us with a more attractive alternative.

I agree that we should try and make the world better. But regulated capitalism is the best way of organizing society. No, it's not perfect, but there's really no point in criticizing our current system without offering a viable alternative. Without exchanging resources in a free market, how are we going to divide them up?

1 point

Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck.

The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.

And I also think market sucks.

The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.

A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life

There are no first world countries like this. Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.

I read your blog post about evolution and whatnot. I agree that we can and should restrain our primitive impulses. But we will never escape the fundamental truth that behaving selfishly can be very profitable.

I do think regulations could be much less than now,

Which ones would you get rid of?

Like it or not, people left to their own devices will very often make lowsy decisions. I favor the soft paternalistic approach to government advocated by these guys. Guidance without overreach.

Can food, for example, be a public good?

Food is far from a public good. In fact supplies are not keeping up with the growth in population.

Vertical farming looks cool and promising, but it's very pie-in-the-sky at the moment. From the Wikipedia article: "The detailed analytical work needed to establish the feasibility of vertical farming has not yet been done." "the energy needed for artificial lighting and other vertical farming operations might outweigh the benefit"

Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.

Economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, not of creating it.

"Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."

- Keynes

1 point

Monetary policy is about keeping the economy growing at a stable rate. A growing economy is good for everyone. The intent is not to erode workers' earning power, that's just an unfortunate side effect. We can mitigate that effect by redistributing some of the wealth through progressive taxation.

2 points

This video is promoting the central assumption of libertarianism: "Government sucks". If government sucks, what does that imply? We should have as little as possible. How do we provide the benefits of government when we have a minimal government? The market magically takes care of that. This is the libertarian position. This guy doesn't like to state his position flat out, because it's less seductive to his audience, preferring to focus instead on demagogic government bashing. Here is another video where we explicitly argues for libertarianism.

it's very easy for you to sit on your high horse and look down on people who, on your view, are too naive to understand the complexities involving a government...

What? That's not what I said at all. I said libertarianism is naive because it assumes people are angels and that we'll all be better off without regulation. I make no claims about anyone's ability to understand government.

Coming to a debate with the preconception that your opponent is naive...

I didn't have that preconception. That was my conclusion after watching the video and considering his argument.

I think we should ask these kinds of questions more often

We ask these questions all the freakin' time, at least here in the United States. Small government is a core demand of the Republican party.

I think all these questions are worth asking, don't you?

Of course.

To me, your previous argument sounded pretty similar to those used by religious people

What's your point? That my argument is based on blind faith? Not at all. The benefits of government I listed follow clearly and logically. It would take too much time to argue each point, so I'll just do one: Government provides public goods. This is necessary due to the free rider problem. This truth is widely accepted in economics.

I'm not saying I have answers, or maybe not even better alternatives...

This is why I get so annoyed. I constantly deal with guys who rant about the evils of government. Not because they want what's best for mankind, but because they are selfish bastards who want to take all they can for themselves and to hell with everyone else. They never have an alternative solution, they just want to tear down the one thing that stands between us and the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish state of nature.

I'm not saying you or Molyneux are like them, I'm just explaining my motivation for deriding the libertarian argument.

I'm just honestly looking for a solution.

A more direct Democracy based on internet communication platforms like the one we're using now is the best idea I've got.

2 points

I've seen this guy's stuff before, and it always annoys the hell out of me. Classic naive libertarianism. "If we just had minimal government the market would make everything sunshine and roses."

Democratic governments protect human rights, provide public goods, prevent monopolies, maintain national security, enforce laws, regulate the economy, protect the environment, etc. These things are very important for the well being of society. Government is supposed to compel people to do stuff they don't want to do, for the good of society. Yes, government has problems, but the alternatives are all much worse.

Government is the one thing that prevents us from becoming human livestock to the most powerful 1% of society.

I won't even get started on the tons of ridiculous distortions and bad logic in the video, cuz that would take all day.

2 points

we're there to get the Taliban and specifically Osama, that's all, then we need to get the f--k out.

The problem is that killing Taliban members won't accomplish much. The unstable political situation combined with radical Islam is the problem. Unless we can stabilize the region, new jihadist groups will rise up.

And as far as Iraq, who knows, I don't even know what we're still doing there

Eh? You do know we're in the process of pulling out, right? We've withdrawn troops from major cities. The remaining troops are there to train Iraqis and ensure things don't go back to how they were.

1 point

Yeah, but both will require extensive nation building which will cost tons of dollars and lives. The current strategy is to empower the sane people so they can resist the radicals on their own. Iraq is almost there. Afghanistan is just getting started.

1 point

I know of no evidence that shows Cheney was corrupt. See FactCheck for a debunking of common misconceptions.

There are a number of regulations to prevent lobbyists from having excessive influence. Also, not all lobbyists work for corporations, some are working for the public. Lobbyists are a necessary part of the political process because there is simply not enough time for lawmakers to chat with everyone who wants to talk to them.

The FDA is a joke, huh? Seizing animal feed, discovering bacteria in teethers, examining Xolair for links to heart attacks... these are all things they've done in just the last few days. That doesn't sound to me like a corrupt agency. You've just offered a couple of cherry-picked, unsourced examples and damned the whole organization.

2 points

they are run by corrupt politicians who are in the pockets of the corporations

I don't buy this. America is a Democracy. If there's proof of corruption a politician is going to have a very hard time staying in office. Just look at Nixon. Look at Blagojevich.

the people have no rights/control of corporations

Yes we do. We've got the EPA and the FDA among many other regulatory agencies. We've got legal authority demonstrated by the antitrust laws that broke up Microsoft.

1 point

Well I do agree that an international agency with the power to enforce peace would be the best thing. I actually created a debate along those lines. But that is way easier said than done. It seems almost impossible that all of the world's great nations would relinquish that much power. And it's a lot of power to give up. Whether this international agency enforces peace through military force or extreme economic isolation, it must have the power to devastate any country. Further it must have a widespread ability to monitor the activities of each nation to ensure that no one is developing WMDs in secret. And it must wield all this power without becoming totalitarian. A daunting task to say the least.

I just don't see nukes going away any time soon.

2 points

States, because they make the laws and have control of the military which can enforce those laws.

Corporations exist because the public wants them to exist. The public wants them because they are the most efficient way of turning raw materials into consumer goods.

1 point

That's an interesting argument, but I think you're greatly overestimating the power of corporations. In a democratic country, power ultimately lies with the people. The people create the state, and the state commands the military, which it can use to enforce the people's will over corporations. Sure large companies hold more sway than the average person -- they can manipulate people through advertising and manipulate corrupt officials through bribery. But they don't have more power than a big group of pissed off voters. It's overly cynical to say they are pulling the strings of government. Did industry elect Obama to push for global warming regulations?

2 points

lol. Deafening silence.

.................................

2 points

Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what?...We don't know.

What are you talking about? Scientists aren't claiming to have magic crystal balls that see the future, they're just drawing conclusions from the available evidence. Obviously when deciding future actions we have to look at past data in order to make an educated guess as to the best course of action.

I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol

And you're basing this view on what exactly? Are you not aware that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceeds that of any time in history? Do you not understand how the greenhouse effect works? Have you looked at any of the information andsoccer has provided here and in other debates?

1 point

Well, the executive position is the most important one at the company, and you only have one person filling that role. You get the most bang for your buck by making that spot ultra-competitive with really high pay. And like I said to andsoccer below, if you look at a company like McDonald's with a lot of minimum wage employees, the employees account for over 90% of labor costs while all of the executives combined take less than 10%. Paying executives less would not significantly impact their operating costs.

2 points

A hundred years from now people will say, "I'd be extremely upset if I could never press a button again, or feel the gentle rolling of a scroll-wheel under my finger..." just like people once said, "I'd be extremely upset if I could never hear the impassioned voice of a storyteller, or gather around with my friends to hear a new tale..."

4 points

Don't you need a livable environment in order to do things like making money? There, argument finished.

We need to balance the two.

2 points

Well you can't really say "the economy" or "the environment" because you need to look at issues on a case by case basis. For example, offshore drilling would probably provide more benefit to the economy than damage to the environment, so we should do it. On the other hand, global warming is a serious threat due to rising sea levels and because it could cause widespread crop failure. In this case we should take action to prevent it even at (short-term) cost to the economy. Failing to do so would cause much damage to the environment and be worse for the economy in the long run.

1 point

Ok, it's not that those jobs aren't valuable, it's that anybody can do them. They should be paid less because supply exceeds demand. By paying garbage men above market wages, we as a society have less money to spend on everything else. We are allocating our resources inefficiently, and are all worse off because of it.

1 point

Not really. Economic damage is bad, but it can't wipe people off the face of the Earth the way nukes can. Nuclear devastation is straightforward and easy for people to understand. Economic devastation is much less tangible and as such is less likely to deter people. How many post-apocalyptic movies start with nuclear war? How many start with economic collapse?

2 points

Yeah, the filtering systems could use some perfecting, but it's only a matter of time before we come up with some way of dealing with problems like the one you mentioned. The first solution that pops into my head: Allow the sorting order to be different for each user. Then, allow users to flag other users as "smart" so that their votes, arguments, and debates are weighted more heavily.

Also, the Kindle was designed to be readable outside in the sunlight.

2 points

I think all books, e or otherwise, are nearing obsolescence. I posted my thoughts a while ago in this debate.

Basically anything books can do can be done in much better ways through technology. When information is filtered through up/down voting or something like that you can get the wheat without having to slog through the chaff; this can make information exchange much faster. You can have an idea be commented on by many people very quickly by posting it on the internet; this leads to stronger ideas. You can process digital text through computer programs to quickly find a particular sentence or do other cool things. The list of advantages that digital content has over books goes on and on.

3 points

If we could somehow enforce a mutual disarmament, that would be great, but I don't see how we could. All it would take is one country building one in secret to ruin it. How could we know for sure no other country was working on one in some hidden underground bunker?

Also, some people do argue that nuclear weapons do more good than harm. This is because if two countries have nuclear weapons, they basically can't go to war without wiping each other out. This is an effective way of enforcing peace. Obviously it's risky, but the presence of nukes is the biggest reason we haven't had any wars between major countries since WWII.

1 point

McDonald's employs about 400,000 people in the United States. Let's assume the majority of them (300,000) are minimum wage.

Federal minimum wage is $6.55, giving a worker an annual income of $13,624.

$13,624 * 300,000 = about $408,720,000 paid to minimum wage employees.

The CEO, James Skinner, made about $14 million last year, counting bonuses and all of that.

So if my (conservative) calculations are correct, only 3% of U.S. labor expenses go to the CEO. Even if we include the other executives, over 90% of labor expenses would go to employees. Paying executives less would not significantly impact their operating expenses.

2 points

It's simple: if a company has to pay its employees more, than they have to raise their prices in order to maintain profitability. This is why minimum wage is bad for the economy.

So you may be making more money, but that money is worth less because minimum wage has led to increasing prices.

1 point

There are numerous examples of fairness in the real world. Just the other day I was out with some friends and one of them dropped his wallet without realizing it. Some stranger came running up and returned it to him. If people never behaved honorably there would be no civilization.

4 points

No, companies wouldn't pay third world wages. The reason third worlders don't get paid more is because they have very few educational opportunities. Thus there is a very large supply of unskilled labor which leads to a proportionally low demand by companies. We in developed countries don't have that problem because we have the option to do skilled labor, thereby shrinking the supply of unskilled labor.

People should get paid according to the amount a value they have added. Low skill jobs don't add much value and should be paid as such. Minimum wage is basically just a twisted form of welfare. If we want to address income inequality, we should do it through progressive taxation and straightforward welfare programs, not by distorting the labor market.

Look, here's an example: Say I can print a bunch of newspapers for $5 in total costs. If I can get somebody to deliver them to people's houses, I can get $10 in revenue. It will take 1 hour to deliver them. I can't make a profit unless I pay somebody less than $5 to deliver them. So with current minimum wage laws, I can't make a profit selling my newspapers, and that delivery job won't get created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wage_labour.svg

8 points

Minimum wage laws don't make sense in the new globalized era. If companies can't find cheap labor here at home, they'll find it overseas. By getting rid of minimum wage laws we could allow companies to hire more people thus reducing unemployment and improving our economy.

1 point

Well thinking like that results in nasty collateral damage. It's not worth blowing up a building full of 100 civilians to kill 1 enemy combatant.

What do you mean nothing is fair? If people agree to behave in such a way so as to maximize the benefit for all, you have fairness.

1 point

-- Comment Removed --

....................................

4 points

From Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ:

Q: But isn't evolution unproven?

A: Proof has two meanings: in logic and mathematics, it refers to a proposition that has been shown to be 100% certain and logically necessary; in other uses, it simply refers to a proposition that is well-supported (much like the colloquial meaning of fact).

In the first sense, evolutionary theory is not proven. However, this is because nothing in the natural sciences can be proven in the first sense: empirical claims such as those in science cannot ever be absolutely certain, because they always depend on unproven assumptions about the world around us. To call evolution "unproven" in this sense is technically correct, but meaningless, because propositions like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and even "the Earth exists" are equally unproven. Proof is only possible for a priori propositions like "1 + 1 = 2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men", which do not depend on any experience or evidence.

In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well-supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution.

Q: How could life arise by chance?

A: If by "arise", one means "develop from non-organic matter through abiogenesis", then this is a question that is not answered by evolutionary theory. Evolution only deals with the development of pre-existing life, not with how that life first came to be. The fact that life evolves is not dependent upon the origin of life anymore than the fact that objects gravitate towards other objects is dependent upon the Big Bang.

On the other hand, if by "arise" one means "evolve into the organisms alive today", then the simple answer is: it didn't. Evolution does not occur "by chance". Rather, evolution occurs through natural selection, which is a non-random process. Although mutation is random, natural selection favors mutations that have specific properties - the selection is therefore not random. Natural selection occurs because organisms with favored characteristics survive and reproduce more than ones without favored characteristics, and if these characteristics are heritable they will mechanically increase in frequency over generations. Although some evolutionary phenomena, such as genetic drift, are indeed random, these processes do not produce adaptations in organisms.

If the substance of this objection is that evolution seems implausible, that it's hard to imagine how life could develop by natural processes, then this is an invalid argument from ignorance. Something does not need to be intuitive or easy to grasp in order to be true.

1 point

"We" are you and me and several others, "here" is CreateDebate.com. There's nothing stopping professors from using a system like this to teach.

4 points

It's a tough call, but I'm gonna say no. In all things there must be lines which you just don't cross. If we ever lose all sense of honor, humanity doesn't have a very bright future.

1 point

All of the examples you gave as benefits of college (knowledge of research, asking questions, and class discussions) could be obtained by simply having these experts communicate with students via a system like the one we are using here.

You would save a lot of money by not needing buildings in the real world. Everyone, rather than just a classroom full of people, would be able to benefit from a professor's insights.

4 points

That all sounds pretty good to me.

Except for not teaching evolution, that's just offensively anti-science.

3 points

I don't know if I agree with everything he did, but he did cut taxes a lot. Most economists would say that tax cuts are generally good for the economy because the free market allocates resources more efficiently than the government.

He didn't cut spending enough to compensate for the drop in revenues though.

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia: Reaganomics (en.wikipedia.org)
1 point

Well in my argument I was talking about undergraduate colleges. But the same logic applies to professional schools. Do everything online that you can. Real world experience can be obtained through internship level programs. If they need a central building to cut up cadavers or whatever, then ok, keep that in the real world.

1 point

That's one way of interpreting the question. But I'm looking at it from the societal level rather than the individual: "Is college currently providing enough value to justify the massive resources we're pumping into it?" If you look at it that way, I think the answer is clearly no. The services it provides can be provided in better ways.

5 points

"Psychologists have spent decades studying the relation between wealth and happiness," writes Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert in his best-selling "Stumbling on Happiness," "and they have generally concluded that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts people out of abject poverty and into the middle class but that it does little to increase happiness thereafter."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43884

1 point

Ok, I think you're right: College, at this point in time, is worth the cost for most people.

Still, right now the average tuition for one semester at a public four year university is $6,585. Multiply that by 8 semesters and that's $52,680 for an undergraduate degree. On top of that, you forgo the money you could have earned working full-time over the course of those four years. Now that's a hell of a lot of money.

At some point (soon, I think) the cost is going to overtake the benefit, and people are going to be demanding some alternative means of extracting that value. There are already potentially better ways to get all the value that college provides. Web communication platforms like this one have the potential to do a better job of educating people than universities ever have. The hard part is convincing people to look for new ways of structuring society.

2 points

Most people aren't autodidactic in ability or discipline.

Maybe not. But then, why do people learn in college? Because they are incented to do so via the earning power a degree will bring. A certification process would have the same effect.

Sitting in a lecture hall with a hundred other students while a professor reads a Powerpoint presentation isn't any improvement over reading a well designed website.

interdisciplinary universities are more cost-effective...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like "universities are cost-effective because students pay tuition." Well that's not cost-effective, that's just offloading the cost onto the students. In my argument I was suggesting that we could have one social structure that exists for the purpose of transitioning adolescents into adulthood and another that facilitates public research, rather than one institution that does a mediocre job at both.

It signals that... [you] can add to whatever institution you enter.

Well that's a rather vague benefit, isn't it? If we want people to have a broad range of knowledge, than that can be incorporated into the aforementioned certification process.

2 points

I agree that we should take action, but I don't think "setting an example" is a very good argument. I would phrase it in more realist terms: Bringing down our carbon emissions will give us the high ground in compelling China and India to do the same. We could apply economic sanctions, for example. But we're not going to be in a good bargaining position while we're still the #1 carbon emitter in the world.

1 point

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ We_must_stop_Global_warming#arg34183

It was a weak argument.

Btw, if you want to find an old argument you can just google "{a few words from the argument} {username}" and it will usually turn up. I found this one by googling "senate minority report republican propaganda jessald"

8 points

"I never let my schooling interfere with my education."

- Mark Twain

3 points

Ok, so the linked article was kind of silly. But if you ignore it and just look at my argument, I think I've made a good case.

5 points

I'm gonna say no. This article makes a pretty good case, imo.

You can easily learn stuff without college, via books and the internet. Sure college provides some nice social opportunities, and universities conduct useful research, but if we want to do those things, we should create separate institutions that are far more cost effective.

The one reason to go to college is to signal competence to potential employers. I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields.

2 points

Developing countries like China and India have long said they will take action against global warming if the US does as well. Global warming is indisputably happening, and looks like it will cause big problems. The bill passed by the house is an important first step in addressing this problem. The people who opposed it are either selfish or foolish.

Supporting Evidence: Frontline: Heat <-- Watch this, it's good (www.pbs.org)
3 points

I don't think he's a moron -- quite the opposite actually -- but it's a simple fact that an atheist would almost definitely not be elected President of the United States. Thus, any politician will have an incentive to delude themselves and avoid thinking about the question too much. So I would say he's not a moron or a liar, he's simply choosing not to seriously question his faith.

3 points

No, the initial force could have been non-intelligent, like in my river example. You're just stretching the word "God" to mean "any possible initial force." In conventional usage, "God" means "Intelligent being who created the universe."

2 points

A supernatural accident then :) The universe is a bubble that happened to form in the supernatural river that has always existed.

So say we accept an initial force, so what? Where do you go from there?

1 point

Even if we accept that, how could we possibly know anything about the initial force that created the universe? How do you know the universe wasn't created accidentally?


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]