Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

The value resources have has nothing to do with money, that's what I'm saying.It has nothing to do with money, its value is based on supply and demand. However, money comes into play because money has value (when it is backed up by something) and that is why you can purchase resources with money.Isn't it exactly so even now? I'm sure you've heard of shops and supermarkets and other similar places. You know... the places where everything is gathered together so it could be easily distributed, one place from where everyone could receive the things they need.So yeah, everything would be gathered into one place from where they then are distributed, just as it is now. With no trade the only difference there'd be would be that there'd be no fussing with money, or any fussing other then delivering the goods. Products and resources are gathered, then the order/demand comes, then the things are delivered, the end. No money, no trade, anywhere.Yes, but those shops and supermarkets are privately owned. Farmers grow food, food companies buy it, supermarkets buy the food and then sell it to people. There are many different parties operating in this. In a centralized economy you would have a non-private entity controlling all means of production and distributing everything. You do not take into account that an economy of this style would be have to controlled and monitored, which is impossible to do. The economy is not a few people doing the same thing, it is billions of people make small transactions constantly, for your system to function it would all have to be centrally controlled by a single entity. You just take money out of the equation and act like nothing will change.Oh, I remember that... It was about having the ability to imagine a world without money - something I actually can do. That was all it was.I did not say I made up a world in my head and based my opinions on it.You can imagine anything, it actually working is another. Your entire society is based on the idea that once you take money out of the equation everything will continue, that might work in an extremely basic theory that doesn't include any sense of reality, but ok, you can use it. I observed your arguments which were really really really stupid. Then the conclusion - you're an idiot.I could very easily say the same thing about your ideas and argument, considering you really can't support your view very well.If you haven't yet noticed I do not care for previously made up things like "Marxism", "Capitalism", "Communism", or anything else like. Then there's the calling you're a communist, a fascist, a liberal, etc. etc... I'm a human, and that's all I am.Marxism: A money less society with centralized means of production and common ownership. This sounds like your society, regardless of your hate for general definitions of types of economies, your idea is very similar to Marxism.Hypocrite much, or rather, messed up much? You claim to not be greedy yet you approve the system that promotes greed.It doesn't promote greed. Just because someone is allowed to keep what they earn and not be forced to give it up does not make it greedy, its called Liberty and individual rights.Again? I can't remember doing that before, so no, not again."you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict" -Nummi" Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are." -NummiWhen you talk about drugs you sound like Mao Zedong. Again, you're not very fond of individual rights.Assuming you know everything about me, and how my life is. That's rather stupid... Good, at least you're keeping this consistent.You said you barley have enough for yourself, you obviously are on a computer with Internet, most likely in a house and you are not starving so you are fed. Assuming that you have shelter, food and and Internet access is not everything about your life.A large ego, me? No. I just know who I am and what I'm capable of. I know my potential.Way to sound pretentious.Knowledge? I know enough to make the right conclusions. You on the other hand might have more knowledge, you might know more insignificant details, but you are completely blinded by all of it. You cannot see which of that knowledge is good and which is bad.Having done a bit of research on a topic before I talk about it is not insignificant. I am not blinded by my knowledge, you just assume that because I am knowledge able of history and disagree with you that making the correlation between being knowledgeable and disagreeing with you is logical (which it is not)It seems to me that whatever amount of knowledge one can have it does not make one smart unless the person has the ability to view it all objectively.I do view it objectively, sometimes my initial belief is confirmed sometimes it is not, I have humility I can admit that. You on the other hand just decided that having knowledge makes you blind and ignorant. I think I've said it before, I'm sure I have. I view the world unbiased and objectively. I look at everything as it is, not based on some previously made up rules that most of humanity likes following without questioning the rules themselves.I don't look at everything by made up rules and I question most things about the world. I doubt we will ever agree on anything besides this, the world is currently fucked up at the moment, don't think I support our current world and society, i don't, I just happen to support currency and liberty.