Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"A lot of infrastructure is publicly owned in Iceland."The same applies to every single country in existence. Does this mean every country is socialist?"they instituted widespread banking reforms after the 2008 economic crash that undid a tirade of previous privatisation of the country's banking"So because the banks were nationalized Iceland is socialist? "It's as close as any country has got to genuinely Marxist socialism, and it has achieved that through the kind of direct democracy where citizens get active and straightforward weight in the direction their economy takes."Direct democracy isn't socialism and given that the means of production are still privately owned and operated I don't understand why you believe Icelanders collectively control the economy. Some natural resources were nationalized via referendum, sure, yet private enterprise still exists."Socialism, according to Marx, is a broad spectrum, all part of a progression from outright capitalism towards working communism."Can you quote him on that? Definitions of socialism usually include control of the means of production."Most life motivation comes from early education."How exactly are you quantifying that? Given that both biology and environment influence motivation and behavior greatly and early education is but a part of the social environment which in turn is but a part of the environment as a whole this seems unlikely and is a bald assertion."If that education's instilled..."You seem to think that self-interest is learned rather than innate. Why is this? I personally find the idea of radical collectivism abhorrent because it always results in the abuse of the individual. This can be seen in every communist country that has ever existed. "You only need look at YOLO culture, extreme individualism, the breakdown of the nuclear family"Precisely how do you link these to capitalism? The first two are linked to excessive hedonism and the third is linked to culture."the increase in debt"That is linked to the fact that politicians are inclined to pass off long term problems to the next government, rather than solve them at great personal cost and no personal gain."the sickening rise in property prices"There's no way this could be linked to population growth exacerbated by immigration?"the general trend towards social withdrawal in modern people"Not at all connected to technology?"...to see that this individualistic culture is really, really harmful for our social cohesion and health."It appears to me that nothing you said is actually linked to individualism itself. Individualism protects the individual as the smallest constituent part of the group, collectivism sacrifices the individual for the benefit of the group."I'm not your typical Libernazi. I'm independent."I'm aware that you aren't liberal because you don't hold any liberal values. There is a reason western liberal democracies contain the word "liberal"; the word has meaning beyond the "liberal democrat" party, just like the word "republic" does. I'm not left wing but I am deeply liberal."...this predatory capitalism of this century"As I say, things are the way they are because the political system is corrupt, not because individuals are able to own factories and other means of production."Labour for pyramidal purposes is about as enjoyable and meaningful to most people as coal for the fire."If you are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to create your own business then do it. Finance is relatively easy to come about if your idea is good and if not you can simply work a few years and save up. If all you are capable of is washing dishes, however, then perhaps you should invest some time to learn something of use."Many studies show that altruism motivates infants and toddlers -- the most elementary form of the human species -- more than personal capitalisation."By all means cite your sources. Note also that when one helps others it serves the self by creating allies. Being socially ostracized was practically the same as death in our evolutionary environment which is why we fear it so much."I think it's fair to infer that selfishness is largely learned and in its negative forms, exacerbated by capitalistic culture and education."That makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. I can agree that people are naturally cooperative because we are social animals, however our own benefit naturally comes first."the average worker almost always creates more value than he recognizes"So why doesn't he just work alone? Clearly he requires some help, be it from other workers, salespeople, administration, the provision of resources etc. "Again, I point to the fact that more than 50% of Earth's wealth is owned or operated by fewer than a hundred individuals or institutions worldwide."Already addressed this as endemic to a system where the rich have such great influence over the political processes of western nations. You may also want to learn about the "Pareto principle" and distributions."Only if the common man sees his share of it. He doesn't at present."So according to you the creation of goods and services doesn't serve any common gain? Or have you misinterpreted my point?"This is a very gloomy way of looking at the world: everything in terms of capitalist value."No, it's in terms of value as decided by humans. After all, if people value things more they pay more money for them. Under your ideal socialism does everyone get paid nothing and just take whatever they want/need for free?"Many of the things that I enjoy the privelage of: healthcare without the need to buy expensive insurance: free education (albeit of the very dogmatic variety, at least in elementary and secondary formats); the internet: weren't results of capitalistic endeavours. Mostly they were results of people whose desire it was to benefit the common good."So all the people providing these services worked for free?"The inventors of the internet never wanted to profit from it..."The internet was an ARPA invention... Besides, the fact that people have done things altruistically doesn't oppose the fact that most of the time people are acting in their own interest. I've never stated that altruistic acts don't happen."So, I think this notion that good things only come from innovators with personal wealth as their motives, is wrong."I never made this point. I stated that for the most part people are acting as a result of their own self-interest and that self-interest is the most powerful motivator. Obviously some people act altruistically some of the time."I said that the de facto most beneficial society is the one that actually benefits everyone, to the highest possible degree, rather than benefitting only a few at the expense of many. Would you not agree with that? Is that society not an objective we share?"So can you point to an existing society that benefits the people better than western liberal democracies?"Again, I didn't say that. I said that territorial expansion is at its heart a profit drive enterprise. And yes, Stalinist Russia tried to expand its territory to gain control over resources. Which is, ironically, a distinctly NOT Marxist thing to do. Where did I say that Stalinist Russia had nothing to gain or didn't want to expand??"So you accept that imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism? I'm glad, it appeared you believed imperialism was somehow related to capitalism."Many historians and economists would disagree with you."By all means elaborate, in my estimation you already conceded this point above."I'm not denying that. I agree. I think I have sufficiently justified myself already as being NOT a Stalinist. i'm not sure why you keep referring to Russia as a juxtaposition to your own views. I don't back Stalinism. These are arguments against your perception of what I've said. But your perception is incorrect.I am not a Stalinist."You were attempting to blame imperialistic policies on capitalism. Russia under Stalin was not capitalist and yet was imperialistic (and you agree, would still be if extant). How then, can imperialism be tied to capitalism when all states desire territory and resources?"WHY can politicians be bought by the rich? How is it that the rich have gained more prominence and influence than our politicians? How is it that the rich an influence politicians more than we can?"I already explained how they can influence elections through campaign donations, back door deals, lobbying etc. "it is because pure capitalism is distinctly both predatory and feudal in its nature."If it was illegal for the rich to buy politicians then the rich couldn't buy politicians (assuming the penalties were sufficiently harsh). I've never argued for pure capitalism, monopolies need to be prevented, for example.