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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
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"
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.
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.
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.
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."
