Askthepizzaguy debates Caius

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is a public debate between myself and my friend Caius. It shall be respectful and lighthearted in nature, and for fun.

Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Liberalism and Neoliberalism are the greatest human tragedies.

Opening Statement:

I challenge Caius that Capitalism, Communism, Liberalism, or even Neoliberalism are the greatest of human tragedies. In fact, I contend than none of these things are inherently good or bad. Also, I contend that capitalism and communism are not absolutes, and in order for governments to exist, these two must go hand in hand.

Capitalism and Communism

According to Wikipedia:

Unrestrained capitalism is confined to theory, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs and state ownership of some sectors.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

I contend that no nation is 100% communist, or 100% capitalist, but a mix of the two. Whenever the state controls the means of production or property or regulates/owns sectors of the economy, and intervenes in the market in general, this is a form of socialism. Communism seeks to impose an almost completely socialist economy, with the state owning most everything. Capitalism seeks to allow an almost completely free market economy, with the private sector owning most everything.

In reality, all nations are a mix of the two. Even Communist-controlled nations like China allow private wealth, and have privitized sectors of their economy. In reality, there are parts of China so ultra-capitalistic that it puts the United States to shame. Some of the wealthiest and most powerful businessmen live in China, and the government protects those businessmen because they make China's economy thrive. China controls most of the production but allows some percentage of their economy to exist in a relatively free market.

The United States is fairly capitalist, but the government heavily regulates many sectors of the economy and even controls property. There are social welfare programs, medicare, medicaid, social security, government mandated insurance programs, income taxes (the state owns your paycheck and allows you to keep a portion of it) and many other socialist ideas. The United States is not a completely free market. The government has been recently bailing out sectors of the economy, and using public money to bolster failing businesses. This is not capitalistic.

Point of the argument: There is no such thing as 100% free market (anarchy) or 100% state control (Totalitarianism). There are varying degrees of the free market (capitalism) and state control (communism).

Every nation that has existed as a state since the beginning of civilization controlled a portion, but not the whole, of the economy. Thus the real argument is, how much of the economy should it control?

If one is arguing that state control and free market control are BOTH wrong, one is advocating a system which does not use currency. Currency and profit-based exchanges are capitalistic if there is no state control, and if there is state control, it's socialistic or a form of communism. So to oppose both is to advocate a barter system, where there is no currency or state control and no profit, only "even" exchanges, or a darwinistic "survival of the fittest" lawless economy.

In order for there to be law, there must be an authority to dispense and enforce law. In order for this to happen, either people must do this for free, which means someone has to give then food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and other services also for free, or there must be a form of taxation to pay for them. Either that, or there must be a totally capitalistic system where only the rich can afford lawyers and a trial, and the poor must fend for themselves.

The barter system is outdated and useless in these modern times. One cannot efficiently conduct business by carrying everything that they own around with them and trading for what they want. How does one work for a living? Paychecks and savings accounts become meaningless. You would get a portion of the surplus of your trade, and be forced to spend most of your time trading for things you need using only what you produce, instead of money.

If you make winter coats, what are you supposed to do in the summertime?

A totally capitalistic/anarchistic system would be lawless and people would not treat one another fairly. They don't treat each other fairly WITH laws and lawyers and police, and without such a presence people behave even more like animals.

People are no longer self-sufficient. We no longer have the ability to support an agrarian economy where most of the population grows food for themselves, and it's unproductive to have doctors and community leaders building their own houses and tilling their own soil. Billions would starve to death.

There must be currency, and there must be law. Therefore, the only possible solution that I can come up with is a partly free market capitalist economy, with government regulation where necessary. Be it laissez-faire, mercantilist, or state-controlled, the economy must have at least some regulation and it must involve currency. You have to go with capitalism or socialism or communism, because the alternatives are "everything is free" (unfair to the producers), "everything is owned by the dictator" (unfair and corrupt), "nothing is owned, take what you please" (barbarism), or the barter system, which as I said is inefficient and outdated.

Liberalism

The ideals of freedom of speech, religion, and press, the right to privately own things, the responsibility of government to defend her people, democratic ideals and all the progress which has happened in the free world would not be possible without liberalism.

One might disagree with extremist elements of what some people call "liberals", but liberalism itself is an ideology which allows us here to even have this debate without some government telling us to shut up or obey the ruler.

You can't blame liberalism for the world's greatest tragedies. In fact, some of the greatest triumphs of mankind are a result of free society, which is not possible without liberalism.

Imperialism and Neo-liberalism

These terms must be defined by my opponent given the context of what we're discussing, before I can argue that either is not responsible for the greatest tragedies of our time.

Imperialism, on the whole, I would agree is a recipe for disaster. However, I disagree with all the other examples provided.


________________

Your opening statement, Caius?

[CountArach]

*Sits back in comfy chair with popcorn*

[Kadagar_AV]

hand me some:)

[Hosakawa Tito]

*Cracks open a few cold ones and passes them around.*

[Caius]

Placeholder, as its too late (10 pm), Im supposed that I must do some homework and the like.

[Fragony]

I think I am going to enjoy this, why isn't that man a senior

[Sigurd]

Alright... We have done a few of these.
Do you want it formalized and an appointed group of referees?

Kukrikhan could remove all unwanted posts and keep only Askthepizzaguy's and Caius' posts.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The other posts are OK. However, if people do inject too much of themselves into the debate, by either my or Caius' standards, we'll give them a gentle warning to politely "shhhh" until the debate is over.

Should they repeat a distracting post, I would then ask Kukrikhan to remove.

As for referees, I'm not sure that's necessary. Caius and I aren't presidential candidates, therefore I'd assume we are accountable enough to admit and retract logical fallacies, and we're both mature enough not to use ad hominem attacks.

If it needs a referee then something has gone terribly wrong, and then I might just bow out of the debate. But I'll consider a neutral party or parties to score the debate when it is over? Something like that. Maybe I'll ask for a referee in case of a dispute, but I doubt it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think I am going to enjoy this, why isn't that man a senior

To be honest, I am not sure what the requirements are for senior member. But given this is my 2,995th post, I would assume I qualify.

[Odin]

To be honest, I am not sure what the requirements are for senior member.

A tub of vassaline, a smile and a quick witted comment seems to have sufficed so far. You game?

[Sigurd]

To be honest, I am not sure what the requirements are for senior member. But given this is my 2,995th post, I would assume I qualify.

Not necessarily.
It took me over 3000 posts and nearly 6 years of exemplary behavior before I received the honour.
And there was a Gawain of Orkeny who had over 10 000 post without making Senior. I think he finally did though.
But who knows ... stranger things have happened. Post count certainly isn't the qualifying element.

[Fragony]

MUHA

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not necessarily.
It took me over 3000 posts and nearly 6 years of exemplary behavior before I received the honour.

*shrugs meaningfully*

Uh. We've known each other many years, but this is the first time you came to me for counsel, for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here: you never wanted my friendship. And uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.

[CrossLOPER]

[Caius]

Pardon me, expect the starting point tomorrow OR Sunday. I have problems with my tiem (and with my grammar too)