azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I hope your quoting these out of convenience and not because you are unable to form your own arguments. You don't want to follow someone else's dogma without being able to form your own similar conclusions.It's actually very hard to stay on top unless you constantly innovate to stay ahead of your competitors.Innovation is very important when building tablet computers but 90% of what the market needs ,in terms of products and services, is not driven by innovation (food, policing, law, clothing production, energy, durable goods, etc, etc). These industries are not constantly innovating in a "market shakeup" way. They lumber along mostly driven by price and distribution which is something that monopolies are good at controlling.Also, the smart business man does not need to create 1 large business. He can just own 100 small, nimble businesses. His businesses can even compete against each other, all that matters is he owns them. Eventually, his "empire" can own them all and all the people in the society.But even then it's difficult because incumbents usually become lazy and risk-adverse while newcomers are lean, motivated and willing to work hard.So the success on the free market relies on the fact that no business man will remain smart and energetic once successful? It does not matter what MOST business men do, if only 1% or even worse .1% are smart they will eventually control everything.The outcome of the distribution of wealth is irrelevant. It is the process that matters. If the process is just, the outcome must be accepted. If the process is unjust, then the outcome cannot be accepted.You have to understand how crazy this statement is? It's great if your the 1% (chances of you and I being in that group is very small), but if your not then your in big trouble. When law, security and insurance (insurance companies are the new "government" under a free market) can be controlled by the 1%, the 99% can be mistreated, forced to work for nothing, have no security. All you have to do is look at the corporate corruption we have even with "rules" to see where the free market would lead over a few generations.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

I hope your quoting these out of convenience ..similar conclusions.This argument, and the effects of charging interest on the supply of money, are the only parts of Austrian economics that I have not worked out for myself. But, yes, it is convenience.Innovation is very important when building tablet computers but 90% of what the market needs ,in terms of products and services, is not driven by innovation (food, policing, law, clothing production, energy, durable goods, etc, etc).All these but law, are constantly being improved, both in quality and in efficiency of manufacture. These industries are not constantly innovating in a "market shakeup" way. They lumber along mostly driven by price and distribution which is something that monopolies are good at controlling.Any innovation forces the market to adjust. Stagnation forces innovation.Name a coercive monopoly that forms, or is maintained, without government protection (present or past).Also, the smart business man does not need to create 1 large business. He can just own 100 small, nimble businesses. His businesses can even compete against each other, all that matters is he owns them. Eventually, his "empire" can own them all and all the people in the society.This supposes that there is no way for competitors to enter the market. What keeps them out?So the success on the free market relies on the fact that no business man will remain smart and energetic once successful? It does not matter what MOST business men do, if only 1% or even worse .1% are smart they will eventually control everything.They have the most to lose, by risking, therefore they will be more conservative in their endeavors. By what mechanism will they control everything?You have to understand how crazy this statement is? ... When law, security and insurance (insurance companies are the new "government" under a free market) can be controlled by the 1%, the 99% can be mistreated, forced to work for nothing, have no security. Again, explain the mechanism.All you have to do is look at the corporate corruption we have even with "rules" to see where the free market would lead over a few generations.What sort of corporate corruption? Was this corruption possible without government coercion or protection?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

You keep using the word "informed". Each person is informed on their own needs. What makes your arbitrary decisions as to their array of choices, better than those choices refined by the value judgement of millions of market participants?It's important because for the free market to work in reality (not just theoretically) the consumers need to be well informed but consumers are not well informed on 99% if their purchases. Nobody has time to be well informed on every purchase they make. When I go to the grocery store I don't make "well" informed decisions on every item. I know what I need, if it's price seems reasonable, I get it and move on. If I'm buying a car then yes, I probably spend time researching the choices, but even then I don't know the companies environmental record, their transportation methods, etc. Basically I have my own life to live and there are not enough hours in a day to make sure every purchase is the "best" one including the companies environmental record, wages it pays employees, etc. If most people make the same "mistake" I do when shopping, a company can do bad things and NOT be driven out of business.What is wrong with spending one's scarce resources as efficiently as possible, according to one's own values? Nothing, but I think the consumer will support the cheapest monopoly or oligarchy around, not the "best" option for their community and ultimately for themselves. The consumer will support the cheapest option, wages will go down, further reinforcing the need to buy the cheapest stuff around. It's a race to the bottom for the worker. You could say "it's their own damn fault", but you and I will be dragged down with them regardless. Keep in mind that our security and all other "market purchases" will suffer the same fate.It does not have to be coercive to be bad.Yes, it doesI don't think so. If I have a monopoly that makes it hard for competition to compete (though controls on price, or resources, distribution, not threats or force) it's bad. If this monopoly or oligarchy, can limit competition, drive wages down, keep prices "slightly" higher than they need to be, that's bad. If through there non coercive methods they are able to repeatably crush the competition, competition will stop trying as they will spend their resources someplace else that yield more profits.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Sure but in the free market the UL has to make profits, can be owned by the oligarchy. And when their quality suffers (rating does not reflect reality), they invite competition, same as any other market good.Yeah, but I don't think they will work. In the free market everything is driven by profit and there is not a lot of profit in environmental protection.The Coase Theorem has a way to deal with externalities of property rights. As to environmental protection, enforcing property rights, gives the incentive for the owner of the property to maintain the value of that property, including the natural resources associated with land."Environmentalism" today is not concerned with protecting the environment, it is using the excuse of "protecting the environment" to institute redistributive policies. in short, to promote collectivism."The watermelon strategy was announced and encouraged by one of the gray eminences of academic socialism, the late economist Robert Heilbroner, in a September 10, 1990, essay in the New Yorker entitled "After Communism." Written in the midst of the worldwide collapse of socialism, and the realization that socialist governments during the 20th century had murdered more than 100 million of their own people as part of the "price" of establishing their "socialist paradise," Heilbroner's essay was a huge mea culpa (see Death by Government by Rudolph Rummel). He even wrote the words, "Mises was right," about the inherent failures of socialism, referring to the writings of Ludwig von Mises in the 1920s and 1930s that explained in great detail why socialism could never work as an economic system (see his book Socialism)."..."Heilbroner's suggested subterfuge was explained by him [Mises] as follows: There is, however, another way of looking at … socialism. It is to conceive of it … as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with … the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment."Source: http://mises.org/daily/6089 (with link to Heilbroner's NEW YORKER article)
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Point taken. Part of my argument that the average man is not smart enough, informed enough or have enough financial freedom to "do the optimal thing". Part of the point of the formation of civilized society is to use "experts" to make the best decisions so that society can be the "best". Modern civilized societies are not about social Darwinism or individual rights, they are about trying to make a good structure that won't implode after every 100 years.This is the "people are too stupid to choose what is good for them, so they must be forced to choose 'good' options by 'elite' experts who are smarter than they are" argument.What makes the government "experts" (elected by these "stupid" people) any better at choosing what is good for these people, than the people would be, themselves?The only difference between the individual choosing, and the government "expert" choosing, is that with government choosing, the decisions are made by people who have contributed less, and who will suffer less, if the choices they make are poor ones.Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are supposed "experts" and the economic philosophy they follow is the root cause of every single stock market crash, for the last 100 years, our massive national debt and for prolonging the Great Depression for more than a decade.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

This is the "people are too stupid to choose what is good for them, so they must be forced to choose 'good' options by 'elite' experts who are smarter than they are" argument.You can put it that way and make it sound bad and I can put it this way to make it sound good: "It's inefficient to have everyone be an "expert" in everything so it makes more sense to "choose" experts for certain management tasks in society.It's the basic idea of management. Every organization (societies included in my mind) need ho have a hierarchy because it makes no sense and is extremely inefficient to have everyone responsible for everything.I think we should have a team of Nobel prize winning economists making economic decisions, and a team of Nobel prize winning scientists making scientific decisions, etc. instead of the average person. Absolutely.Every politician in history (liberal or conservative) has been free to choose economic advisers. I'll leave it up to you to prove that they made a mistake every single time.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

You can put it that way and make it sound bad and I can put it this way to make it sound good:Doesn't make my statement any less true.A polished turd is still a turd :P"It's inefficient to have everyone be an "expert" in everything so it makes more sense to "choose" experts for certain management tasks in society.It's the basic idea of management. Every organization (societies included in my mind) need ho have a hierarchy because it makes no sense and is extremely inefficient to have everyone responsible for everything.Yes, it is called the division of labor. The "experts" are chosen by those with whom they trade, according to the degree to which the "chooser" contributes to the economy.I think we should have a team of Nobel prize winning economists making economic decisions, and a team of Nobel prize winning scientists making scientific decisions, etc. instead of the average person. Absolutely.Obama won a Nobel prize for LITERALLY NOTHING. The Nobel organization has become a cheerleader to reward those who advance the statist philosophy, little more. Paul (alien invaders) Krugman won the prize for economics, and his favored philosophy (Keynesianism) has caused economic havoc wherever it has been applied. It ignores human action in economics (a social science), great swaths of the structure of production, The role of price and interest rate as a communication system and Say's law, within economics. The central theme of his "General Theory" is the so-called "multiplier effect" which was not only refuted before he was born, but his only supporting argument for it was "...surely it will...". Yet People like Nancy Pelosi still go on TV and tout unemployment benefits as "boosters" (Keynesian spending) of the economy, as though it were not the opposite.How "uninformed" do you have to be to elect someone who knows so little about that over which they exercise so much control?Your nobel prize teams resembles the "philosopher kings" of Plato's Republic. I encourage you to read it and see how much of your rationale for these "teams" matches Plato's.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yes, it is called the division of labor. The "experts" are chosen by those with whom they trade, according to the degree to which the "chooser" contributes to the economy. In theory, isn't voting for experts once every 4 years in an election basically the same as voting for experts every 5 minutes in a market? I mean it seems like all the same "forces" are involved in a election (in theory). If you thought of a government as a business, and every 4 years you could "vote" that business out and bring in a new one of your choosing, whats the difference? One could argue that in a free market, voting every 4 years whether Walmart lives or dies would be even better than micro-voting every 5 minutes. I think Walmart would behave better if they knew all the "information" about Walmart would be concentrated and put forth every few years and that the people concentrated their vote to one day. It's very hard for poor people to consistently vote against Walmart with their pocket book when the pocket book is empty most of the time. What if the consumer could vote Walmart or Target every 4 years? Would Walmart and Target be better behaved or worse? My feeling is better.Obama won a Nobel prize for LITERALLY NOTHING. The Nobel organization has become a cheerleader to reward those who advance the statist philosophy, little more.Yeah, "Nobel prize" was just a token for "the best we can find". I'm not saying that is the best way to pick experts.As far as the validity of Keynesian economics, I'm not sure. I don't know enough about economics to truly know myself if one theory is better or not. You can say all the buzz words you want and cite numerous articles but for some reason it seems most experts still think Keynesian is the best philosophy. The "free market" (of economists) has been choosing "the best economist" for ever hasn't it? It's too easy in hind site, when you don't know what the alternative would have produced, to say "look it did not work!". For all we know the alternative could have lead to another civil war, WWIII or something right?A democratic government is nothing like a "philosopher king" in Plato's time (I did not read the book so I'm just going on the literal title which could be wrong). Our "kings" have to work within a legal framework, can be replaced at any time with some effort and easily every 4 years. And they are not "philosophers" like in the old days. Experts actually know a lot of stuff...
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

With elections for government, you don't have to contribute, and can even be a net consumer of resources, and you have the same say in how that government conducts itself, as the most prolific producer for society.Why should your say in society be tied to how much you produce?This scenario assumes that the system should be set up to force people to care about the things that you believe that they should care about, when doing business.Why not let everyone in the local community vote.The amount you traded with Walmart would not matter. If you don't like Walmart you wont trade with it so I'm not sure why the amount of trading would be a factor in your ability to vote.In my example your were voting between Walmart and Target (the 2 business that have expressed interest in a large retail building). If one is voted out, they vacate and the other moves in.No, the government actively supports Keynesian economic theory.I don't want to go too far down this path. It's the same opinion arguments that we have done before.Government has most of the same problems the free market has in my opinion. The people are not well informed, and are pretty lazy. This leads to bad outcomes in government and in the free market. The difference is in the case of government, the "worse case scenario" can be avoided because ultimately there are "kind" and "understanding" humans in control. If people were so well informed and active as you would have them be in a free market, most of the "problems" with our government would not exist. Entitlements and defense spending are what they are because the majority of the people want them that way, not because the government or Keynesian economic theory is bad or wrong.The Republic is a description of a society where the wisest men are set up as kings to dictate policy to the populous. I would encourage you to read it, and notice the parallels to "progressive" policies.Might be a good read but I don't see how it applies to the US? Our government is elected and can be 100% replaced every 4 years (except the judges which brings up the importance of the 3 branches that we have). It's not a dictatorship. When I think the american people are going to vote for a dictatorship, then I'll read it. ;)What keeps a large group from voting for someone who will transfer the resources of others, to themselves?If they have the majority, nothing. If it's not a good idea, they won't have the majority. Keep in mind the point of our society in the US is "the good of the people at the expense of the individual".
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Why should your say in society be tied to how much you produce?Because if you produce nothing, you have not contributed to society. Why should you have a vote, if you have not contributed?Why not let everyone in the local community vote.Because not everyone contributes.In my example your were voting between Walmart and Target (the 2 business that have expressed interest in a large retail building). If one is voted out, they vacate and the other moves in.How does the other (or other competitors) stay in business, to compete for the slot in the next election?The difference is in the case of government, the "worse case scenario" can be avoided because ultimately there are "kind" and "understanding" humans in control. Have you met politicians, the corporate rent-seekers, or the obamaphone lady? THESE are the people choosing (people who contribute nothing) in such a system.Entitlements and defense spending are what they are because the majority of the people want them that way, not because the government or Keynesian economic theory is bad or wrong.Keynesianism is the rationalization for bribing the majority for votes with the minority's money. It is self-perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight, which we are going to see in the next 15-20 years.Might be a good read but I don't see how it applies to the US? It is a picture of the state as provider and protector, controlling the information and activities of the population according to the judgements of "experts" as to what is best for the people. This is the ultimate goal of progressivism.If they have the majority, nothing. If it's not a good idea, they won't have the majority.What keeps them from continuing to transfer resources? The kindness of their hearts? So long as they can continue to get resources for "nothing" they will stay in the majority. You didn't answer my question.Keep in mind the point of our society in the US is "the good of the people at the expense of the individual".No, the Idea of society in the US is the sovereignty of the individual; the protection of the minority (including the individual) against the force of the majority.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Because if you produce nothing, you have not contributed to society. Why should you have a vote, if you have not contributed?So are you saying the indicator of your "contribution to society" is how much money you have? I think most people don't want to live in a society where Donald Trump is considered to have "contributed the most" and Gandhi contributed the least to society. Is that the core of the free market proponents value system?How does the other (or other competitors) stay in business, to compete for the slot in the next election?In the case of the big box store, the rest of their empire in other regions is keeping them afloat. For small business they go out of business if they are voted out, just like a store slowly being driven out of business in a free market (but much quicker and more efficient).Keynesianism is the rationalization for bribing the majority for votes with the minority's money. It is self-perpetuating until it collapses under its own weight, which we are going to see in the next 15-20 years.I'm trying to relate your point to the real world: The majority is the middle class and the "bribe" is offering them goods and services I guess? And the minority is the wealthy? The middle class are not using all the services, everyone is and it's costing the middle class in taxes. As a matter of fact 15% in taxes is much more "painful" to the middle class than a 30% tax on a wealthy person (insert your own sliding scale). Lets say it were to be on the brink of collapse, all you have to do is make an adjustment (less benefits, etc) and it would not collapse. I think anything bad you can say about the US government/economy could be fixed though voting and rational decision making. The problem in not inherent in the government or Keynesian economics, the problem are the irrational people. When things get ugly enough, they will make a change. Just like they would in a free market.What keeps them from continuing to transfer resources? The kindness of their hearts? So long as they can continue to get resources for "nothing" they will stay in the majorityThe middle class is not paying nothing nor are they consuming most of the resources. I'm not sure I understand your argument?No, the Idea of society in the US is the sovereignty of the individual; the protection of the minority (including the individual) against the force of the majority.Partially, but I say "nope" to your statement. The founding fathers would not have created a democratic government if that was the "idea".
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yeah. I Agree to disagree. Every point is coming down to opinion and I don't feel like I'm learning anything anymore. If you can come up with some new angle I'd be interested in hearing it. I would love for a free market to work, I'm just not convinced it would. Capitalists are clever and "naughty" people when the chips are down (myself included sometimes). My heart (and the facts the way I see them) says the long term effects of a free market would create a very bad place to live...