Caramel's Ideal Society

1) a) i,iii) Pro's got no source or reasoning to show that the masses are slaves because some people are rich ii) An increase in calories indicates that we are not extorted like slaves. We live above bare sustenance. iv) Pro says that slavery is philosophical rather than technical. If you adopt whatever rhetorical fuzzy concept of slavery Pro has, then the whole human condition is slavery no matter what because we always HAVE to do SOMETHING to stay alive (chew your food). b) This sub point is meant to clarify capitalism as a system of negative rights. Regardless, waste is minimized through the price system. 2) Pro has still not shown improvement over the status quo. 3) a) i) Pro says capitalism is based on greed. This is a straw man. Capitalism is based on negative rights. ii) Pro is subscribing to the iron law of wages. But as I've cited we live above sustenance. iii) Pro thinks some consumer wants are wasteful. This is his subjective opinion. He says his system will reward "frugality", which is just another way to say "poverty". This is the confusing thing about Pro, because he spends so much time complaining about how impoverished we are under capitalism, then turns around and says that consumers have too many resources to waste. Which is it? Are consumers too poor or too rich? It's a lose-lose for Pro. "3ab") Pro says that machines are built because labor is cheap. Actually, its because labor is expensive. Why invest in a machine if you can hire a hundred workers for a penny? Because you can't. Wages are bid up, necessitating investment in machines to use labor more efficiently. "3ac") I am saying you would fail to utilize resources properly without a price system and property rights. b) The Amish are great capitalists because they leave others alone. Monks do the same. They aren't thieves or murderers. That makes them capitalists. c) Pro says you don't have to use resources efficiently under his system because there is no competition. This is bad because there is no check on laziness. Resources are used to fill human needs. Reducing the rate at which human needs are met is anti-human. Pro mentions the environment. Again, pollution is outlawed by well defined property rights. 4) Pro's big policy recommendation is to handle things democratically on a case by case basis. i) He only spent one line on democracy. He didn't even explain why it was good. Here's my one line. "Democracy is stupid". Tie. ii) Democracy can be exercised within capitalist rights. Clubs with democratic elections are capitalist if their membership is voluntary. iii) Democracy is a might-makes-right argument. Something is immoral, popularity notwithstanding. 5) "5aa)" Pro tries to make the case that we'd actually be richer under his system because the net effects will be positive. How does he know this? He's got no sources anywhere. i) Pro thinks the rich horde resources. But since the assets of the rich are mostly bound up in capital, they're putting their wealth to positive use. ii) Pro thinks resources are wasted on McDonalds and stuff. This is his subjective opinion. The majority would probably vote against him anyway. iii) No competition means there isn't incentive to use or generate information constructively in the first place. "5ab)" Pro says his communities wouldn't be isolated, they would be independent. I'm confused, because Pro says everything should be produced locally. Pro has had 3 rounds to write big essays clarifying his positions, and he keeps changing his position. b) Pro fails to rebut that capitalism does not automatically equal selfishness. 5c) Pro reiterates that companies should cooperate to share information once it has been discovered. He ignores that information is discovered BECAUSE it would yield advantage to the firm. More generally, Pro thinks that inventions and investment happen automatically, so property rights don't matter. False. "5da)" I don't see the problem with owning fish any more than owning cows, chickens, or dogs. "5db)" Pro says profit necessarily creates externalities. How do intel and AMD create externalities? Environmental externalities are illegal under capitalism. "5dc)" Pro doesn't understand the economic calculation problem. If goods don't have prices, allocation will not only be arbitrary, it will be missing all the information about consumer demand, real world scarcity, opportunity cost, etc. e) Pro thinks that without zoning, companies would move to more convenient locations. On their own. Without being forced. So that's capitalist… f) Walmart sells stuff people want. No one would pay for products they weren't going to use. g) Even without prices, monopolies can still screw you… Force you to give up more resources, or work longer hours for whatever they produce. Pro also thinks that producing less is more efficient because its more sustainable. The only way to know if something is sustainable is through prices. A stable input and output price is sustainable. 6) a) Pro thinks we would have more time and resources if we all grew our own food. He has no source to back this up. If we did save time and money by growing our own food, people would already do it. Pro must be wrong. b) If Pro is confused about what counts as capitalist, he can read the definition presented in the opening post. c) Pro also says home grown food is better for you. Well, buy a multivitamin, and you'll still save a lot more time and money. 7) a) Pro asks me how I want to enforce capitalist laws. That's off topic. What counts is whether pro can succeed in being ANTI capitalist. If capitalism is impossible, fine. But the rules of capitalism still matter because it defines Pro's BOP. "ba)" Any technological knowledge is useless accumulated capital. Many places in the world could access knowledge, but are unable to implement it. Caramel's villages would be so busy feeding and clothing themselves that they couldn't recreate a processor manufacturing facility just to churn out 2000 processors, or maybe only 1000 bc 1000 < 2000, which means 2000 is wasteful. "bb)" I can't possibly address New Orleans. That is a debate in itself. WHAT ABOUT COMMUNIST CHINA?! Tie. 8) Again, there is a difference between profit seeking and capitalism. Bribes still occurred under communist Russia. WHAT ABOUT COMMUNIST RUSSIA?! Derp. 9) Money allows you to interact in an economy with millions of people who don't know each other. This is very good because division of labor on such a large scale is massively productive. **Voting Points** a) Pro's spiel is that capitalism = greed = bad. But capitalism is a system of negative rights. He hasn't shown need to violate self ownership or property. Under capitalism, people live in his type of village peacefully. The Amish and other primitivist groups already do. b) Pro thinks small villages are superior to massively interconnected economies. I've shown that division of labor on a large scale makes the status quo much more productive than his utopia, which would become crippled from local monopolies, natural disasters, inability to implement technology, tragedy of the commons, and laziness. Pro responds that the rich in the status quo horde so much wealth, that no matter how poor people are in his communities, they'd be richer than they are now. He has no source for this, and doesn't rebut that the rich invest most of their wealth in the capital structures that continue to make society so productive. c) Pro has been incredibly inconsiderate during this debate. He's had THREE rounds to clarify his positions, and still brings up new arguments. He's turned around and claimed that his villages won't be "isolated" they'll be "independent". He just recently said the villages will be managed democratically. He flippantly brought up New Orleans with no source. This is borderline trolling.