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

... continuedThe PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and the recent stripping of citizen protections from FISA, all go far to remove any meaningful right to privacy we have. The constant barrage of gun control legislation which chips away at what ability we have to defend against any oppression the government decides is necessary for the "public good".Add to this the attempts by recent presidents to bypass congress (our lawmaking body) all together through thousands of executive orders over the last decade.So, you have a systematic degrading of the citizenry financially, socially and militarily, all resulting in an increase of government power. The case could be made that we are well on our way to tyranny.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

You have an impressive stack of strawmen there. There is less gun control today then a decade ago, and who cares? You having a gun has nothing to do with freedom.And the shift of wealth from the middle class and poor to the rich and very rich has done more to corrode freedom than the patriot act. The for-profit media feeding suckers false information about, for instance, gun control, is far more dangerous than any of the executive orders made by either of the last two presidents.I'm not a fan of the patriot act, but equating it to the fall of democracy is silly.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

A government without corruption would be good .
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yes, I agree that a government without corruption is good, but you need to cite examples to back up your argument.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

If you agree that a government without corruption is good. . . . . . . why does he need to cite examples to back up his argument? You just agreed with him.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Yeah, why do I need to cite examples? You even understood and got what I said even if I did not cite those examples that you wanted me too.. Well, just for the sake of argument, what kind of examples would you like me to site?Do you like me to cite a government without corruption? cause that would be really hard to do.. As we know, most of the governments nowadays have every form of corruption. Also, some governments may seem that they dont have any corruption ongoing, but of course why would they show that there is corruption there. They would hide it in the best way that they can.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

A large society without government (organization and rules) will be chaotic and not thrive due to mans greed and ego. Power and wealth will concentrate until a repressed majority revolts. This will repeat forever until a government is formed.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

A large society could function without government as long as rule of law still exists.Power and wealth can't concentrate without the use of force, and government is only source of legalized force.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

A large society could function without government as long as rule of law still exists.Please provide an example of such a society that "we" would want to live in?How do you create effective law without organization (government)?Power and wealth can't concentrate without the use of force, and government is only source of legalized force.I think wealth and power will concentrate. How do you stop a class of people with more wealth and power from not gaining additional wealth and power? What stops the wealthiest merchant in a town from slowly buying more and more of the businesses in a town until he owns the entire thing? How does that process reverse once it's started?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Society Without a StateIn a free market capitalism, it would be impossible to concentrate power and wealth. The market regulates wealth and power more effectively than government. Even if a merchant had all the money in the world, it still would be impossible to own everything in one town or the world because purchasing any sort of property must be voluntary since there is no force. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, does he own everything in the town he lives? NO.The process would need to reversing since it would never start.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

It may not be possible to own every thing immediately, but as each store comes up for sale he could buy it. When he dies his son can continue this "tradition". Why would he do this? He would have much more control over the market of the town, financial stability, etc. He does not have to own every store in every town, just every store in his town. Repeat this across the country (different guy in each town), now each town has a "Barron". There is no way or motivation for this process to go the other direction which would be needed if power was to stay "equal" (not concentrated). The only way this process goes the other way is if the Barron "chooses" to break up his property holdings.Please present an argument as to why this would not happen over time? The fact that Bill Gates did not do this is a not a good argument as to why nobody could in a free market.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Please present an argument as to why this would not happen over time? The fact that Bill Gates did not do this is a not a good argument as to why nobody could in a free market.If so much of the medium of exchange were concentrated in so few hands, that medium would lose its efficiency as a MOE, and the market would choose a different one, leaving the single rich person with a much less valuable commodity. Remember, governments are the ones who favor fiat currency. The free market adapts to what is most efficient.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Why? I mean the simple economy of scale would make many aspects more efficient. We can see in our economy that companies merge all the time to gain efficiency. Please provide details as I don't see why "concentrated in so few hands" means loss of efficiency?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Economy of scale actually becomes less efficient when companies get as big as many are now. The only reason that it seems different, is the protectionist regulations they lobby congress for, to reduce competition from smaller, more adaptable companies and the fact the fiat currency system forces the use of the "money" that the companies have amassed, for use in trade, preventing the market from choosing a more efficient medium of exchange.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I still don't feel you have proven your case? You have just sated that big business are less efficient and said some other things about our economy today. Reasons it will concentrate without intervention:- Economy of scale- Influence of power- History tells us it will since it always has in "economic" societies with our without government
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

- Economy of scaleA large company is less able to adapt to changes in the market for the same reason a central planning authority is unable to adapt to the changing demands of the market as a whole. The more of a share of the industry a company has, the less sensitive to demand changes (communicated through market price) the company is. Smaller firms can ramp back, or ramp up production more swiftly to take advantage of that information.- Influence of powerBy power, I assume you mean government. The only role of government in a free market is to protect property rights, and enforce contracts. All other functions of the market are self regulating.If not government, then the wealth possessed by individuals in the market is directly related to the amount of wealth they have produced. Those who have much have earned it by making more wealth available to others (trading value for value).- History tells us it will since it always has in "economic" societies with our without governmentI think you are conflating "economies of scale" with "division of labor"The former has an efficiency curve. The latter (when combined with trade) does not.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

A large company is less able to adapt to changes in the market for the same reason a central planning authority is unable to adapt to the changing demands of the market as a whole.Some times this is true but It does not have to be that way. For example Apple could easily spin off a group of 100 people and give them total autonomy, a unique name, and a huge pile of cash. This group would/could behave like any other start-up in terms of ramping up/down and responding to markets with the added benefit of the huge pile of cash and the security that if they fail they can all just go back to the old secure job they had before.Also, just because a company is big does not mean it needs to operate as a monolithic organization. For example they could run their 100 sub-companies independently and only "come together" when it's time to order "computer components". In that way they get the benefit of the scale, without the "red tape" of a huge company.By power, I assume you mean government.No, I mean in a free market large and wealthy organizations have a lot of power. When you have wealth (money or resources that you earned lawfully) that other people want, you have power over them. Like in the case of the banker and the person wishing to get a mortgage. The banker has the power. There is nothing wrong with someone having this wealth, the problem is that it concentrates and after a number of generations 1% of the society has all the resources and the 99% can be taken advantage of.I think you are conflating "economies of scale" with "division of labor"Possibly. I'm not sure I understand your point so I will restate mine:- Throughout history wealth and power has concentrated with or without government. But at least with government you have a way to counteract it and "cap" the concentration.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Please present an argument as to why this would not happen over time?Simply, free market capitalism is the only answer, nobody has the legal use of force.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Simply, free market capitalism is the only answer, nobody has the legal use of force.This is just a statement not a logical augment?Free market capitalism is not the only answer. How about semi-free market capitalism like we have in the united states?In civilized society, things must be done for the good of the society. When you choose to join such society, you give up your absolute right to not be forced to do things.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Free market capitalism is a logical argument, you just refuse to accept it.Wrong, the U.S. is not a semi free market capitalism, it is a mixed economy being government ownership, a civilized society is one based on voluntary action and exchange rather than the use of force, the voluntary exchange is the very best for the good of society.The use of force is not civilized, it is barbaric.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Free market capitalism is a logical argument, you just refuse to accept it.True. But your original statement was "Simply, free market capitalism is the only answer..". You must prove that it is the only answer, not just the one you like the best.Wrong, the U.S. is not a semi free market capitalism, it is a mixed economy being government ownership, a civilized society is one based on voluntary action and exchange rather than the use of force, the voluntary exchange is the very best for the good of society.Sorry, my term may have been wrong but I think you know what I meant. We do have "market capitalism", it's just not 100% free.I don't want to repeat all my arguments in this debate (see all the other posts), but to summarize:- A "free market" will concentrate wealth and power until the 1% have total control over the 99%- Our society has decided that it's willing to sacrifice some individual rights for the good of the society. This is not a logical argument, it's just what we (and every other civil society) has decided to do. When you say individual rights are the most important, your talking about a new society, not our society.The use of force is not civilized, it is barbaric.A policeman shoots a gunman right before he shots a family at the mall. This is "civilized" not barbaric in my mind. From a species point of view, the whole scene is quite barbaric.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Free market is the only answer because it decentralizes power and wealth.Free market capitalism will not concentrate wealth and power because government intervention is the source of concentrated wealth and power through the use of force that defy economic laws such patents, licenses, subsidies, and tariffs.Of course, some use of force is civilized even in free society given the fact no person can act aggressively onto anyone.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I understand the "problems" with what we have now. Please tell me how a free market will control the concentration of wealth and power so that the 1% does not own and control everything? The reasons I think it can't is because on average, wealth and power goes one way not the other. It's hard for a poor man to become rich, but once rich its much easier to stay that way (or become richer).
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

It is impossible to concentrate wealth and power in free market capitalism because of the sovereignty of the consumer, consumers drive supply and demand in all products, thus, they are king, producers are powerless because they have no use of force in the marketplace where no monopolies can be established.Any other system relies on the use of force, which concentrates wealth and power even in the case of America today in patents, licenses, subsidies and more.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I understand that customers have the power, but customers don't know that power and wealth is concentrating. They only have access to very limited information. Just because you have power and wealth does not mean you have to create a "obvious" public monopoly. Smart business men will hide that fact that they are starting to own everything in a region or in a industry sector. How would the customer know about this?The wealthy and powerful (as they do now) will tend to congregate both geographically and socially. Deals between these members of this elite group will further benefit the members of the group. Nobody will know about this and or the connections and will have no way of finding out (no public records like we have now from the IRS and SEC).
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Really, do you understand that customers have the power, then why do you still believe that power and wealth will concentrate? Consumers don't need any more information than you think they need. What does a public monopoly have to do with anything?Apparently, it is impossible to own everything just based on the fact of OPPORTUNITY COSTS?Way to many conspiracy theories this your response.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yes I believe customers have the power and if perfectly informed, the free market may work. But, just look at our economy. We have no idea what the banks and Walmart's of the world are doing behind the scenes. Look at the mortgage collapse. Even as a mortgage customer I had no idea that all these "crazy" trading schemes were going on behind the scenes. I did not have the information I needed to make the "best" decision. The only reason we have some idea is because the government tells us (IRS, SEC, etc). If a consumer "sees" that Target charges 20% more than Walmart, that's "publicly visible", shoppers will go to Walmart. But, if it turns out the reason Walmart is 20% cheaper is because they dump their waste "incorrectly", or because Mr Walmart "owns" the garment industry, the consumer won't know this. It's not public information nor publicly visible. Mr Walmart can use this hidden information and his accumulating wealth to purchase more industries, etc.Apparently, it is impossible to own everything just based on the fact of OPPORTUNITY COSTS?Did you mean possible? I'm not sure what you mean by "OPPORTUNITY COSTS", but averaged over time, all other things being equal, money and power provides opportunities that others cant afford. Tell me how this is not true: All things equal, additional money and power are a benefit.Way to many conspiracy theories this your response.I don't think so? Free market is just a theory (as are my reasons it would be bad) and people, (especially when trying to make money and gain power) will conspire. Please provide a reason that business men would not conspire for their own gain in the free market? Business men try to conspire all the time, often for personal gain over their competition. Can you imagine if there was no limit to how far this "conspiring" could go? Why would a business man not try and own his market, the raw resources for his market, the production and transportation for his market? He could even do this for the benefit of his citizens (charge low prices, pay good wages, etc). But what happens after he owns everything (including the law), and hands the business to his son (who is not "good")? The population no longer has the leverage of a "free market" and has no legal recourse.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Please provide an example of such a society that "we" would want to live in?How do you create effective law without organization (government)?Chaos TheoryRobert P. Murphyhttp://mises.org/document/3088"...Murphy shows that out of chaos grows an ordered liberty. ..."
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

There are plenty of documented counter arguments to these ideas so this is by no means a guaranteed solution. For me the main problems with theses ideas (Libertarianism) are as follows:- The economy is not perfectly efficient and the people are not perfectly informed. This means that the ideal efficiency is not what happens in reality. People make bad decisions (shopping at Wallmart even though it creates a monopoly in the local community).- If you live anywhere but a city, choice is limited. Not every place has 10 grocery stores that you can choose from when one behaves "badly". These smaller comunities cant support multiple "security companies" and "law companies"?- You run over your neighbors cat by accident. That neighbor bans you from their grocery store which is the only one in convenient driving distance. Now you have to move because you can no longer buy food near your house. Who would want to live in a society with so much uncertainty? Your "property rights" are protected at the cost of very other "right" that we enjoy (right to not be discriminated against, right to EQUAL police and court protection, etc).
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

- The economy is not perfectly efficient and the people are not perfectly informed. This means that the ideal efficiency is not what happens in reality.But the free market has better information than any other system, because all information is acted upon using first hand knowledge of one's own situation.People make bad decisions (shopping at Wallmart even though it creates a monopoly in the local community).False, "all monopolies are bad" argument. (i can elaborate, at need)- If you live anywhere but a city, choice is limited. Not every place has 10 grocery stores that you can choose from when one behaves "badly". These smaller comunities cant support multiple "security companies" and "law companies"?People are at liberty to move.- You run over your neighbors cat by accident. That neighbor bans you from their grocery store which is the only one in convenient driving distance. Now you have to move because you can no longer buy food near your house. It is not the function of government to accommodate the choices of some, by limiting the liberty of others to act. Key word is "convenient".Who would want to live in a society with so much uncertainty?Myself, and many others. The benefits of such a society far outweigh the detriments, that any such "uncertainty' would cause.Your "property rights" are protected at the cost of very other "right" that we enjoy (right to not be discriminated against, right to EQUAL police and court protection, etc).You have no right not to be discriminated against by a private citizen. Individuals have a right to associate and/or trade (assuming mutual agreement) with whomever they choose. They also have a right NOT to trade or associate.Only government is rightly prohibited from discriminating. How does protecting property rights, deprive others of equal protection by police or a properly functioning justice system?May I reference your assertion to a right to "EQUAL police and court protection" in our other debate, where "EQUAL protection" is subservient to consideration of the relative wealth of the parties involved? ;)
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I wrote a long reply that did not show up so...The main point that makes me think a totally free market would be bad is I don't see how it prevents concentration of power and resources until the 1% owns everything. All things being equal, a small amount of extra money and power is beneficial right? That benefit tends to grow over time (takes money to make money). The ultimate conclusion is the 1% owns everything.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

(These are not my explanations, but are good ones, nonetheless)"...it's actually very difficult to concentrate wealth in a free market because incumbent producers have to compete for their market shares. In a free market there's always some newcomer around who can do things a little more efficient or has a new idea. And with access to developed financial markets, anyone can finance their endeavors, not just those who already are rich. It's actually very hard to stay on top unless you constantly innovate to stay ahead of your competitors. But even then it's difficult because incumbents usually become lazy and risk-adverse while newcomers are lean, motivated and willing to work hard. Just the falling marginal utility of money implies that those who have less are willing to do the same job cheaper than those who have more. Wealth flows to the bottom first, like water. The natural tendency therefore (in a free market) is for the rich to lose their wealth and for the poor to gain it until they meet in the middle, and not for the rich to grow richer." --EmperorNero (mises.org forums) (emphasis mine)But even IF the wealth were to somehow concentrate in a particular income range..."...My problem with this kind of debate is that we often find ourselves fighting on their terms. I think we need to insist on our own.Our terms should be thus: 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." --gocrew (mises.org forums)source: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27503.aspx For the government to treat two citizens differently, and to protect their property rights differently, is (by definition) unjust.