" . I don't think I am at fault for saying that when they vote, they have a bias for those with ideological similarities."
- Ok, provide me an example of that. Because from Dr.Franklins example it seems the left splits on their votes and have no problem voting for the conservative side.
I see little evidence to make me believe he was biased.
Notice how on the debate two liberals high on the leaderboards ramshutu and Ragnar both voted in favor of you winning, so if anything this example proves the site doesn't have a liberal bias.
Your welcome, I am citing you as an example to showcase that the site isn't biased when there is a conservative who is the top 4 and at one point was the top debater.
Granted this is an anecdotal claim however considering there are only around 200 people on the site it's accurate.
The reason why conservatives aren't ranked high is because ( no offense ), they normally make poor arguments.
If it's a leftist site, it actually should be easier for you to climb your way up to the top since there are more people to debate and since the top debaters are full of lefties, your rank should continue to climb up.
I mean if we're looking at pure efficiency wise, probably a pure capitalist system would be better.
However we don't look at systems for pure efficiency, we still need to worry about distribution which is what capitalism lacks as evidenced by statistics.
This is why I personally believe in some capitalism just to ensure the economy is producing enough goods.
" Provide credible sources for a change. That might actually make this conversation interesting. Surely better than your shallow character attacks."
- Firstly specify what sources you want for the statistics I am citing and I will happily provide them.
- Secondly, this is nothing more than a baseless accusation, my character attacks have made clear sense.
I call you a shill for the capitalists since by supporting capitalists who are pushing for illegal and mass immigration as a Republican you are going against your own interests. The capitalists aren't conservative.
I call you alt right since you're buying unrealistic and absurd axioms and arguments forged by the alt-right such as various arguments made against socialized healthcare.
" School competition promotes better schooling. School choice translates to better quality."
- Where are you basing this claim from? America which is the most privatized model we can compare?
Ok, explain how the US isn't ranked highly on the most effective school systems?
Compared to a more socialized country such as Finland which had socialized education and is ranked the best one.
" The police patrol all the time and keep you safe. Just because you don't call them doesn't mean they don't protect you. Also, their availability to protect your rights and the rights of people you may harm matters."
- Ok and the hospital's availability to protect you in case you get into an emergency regardless of economic situation wouldn't also apply to the same logic?
" I use the word "boy" irl, but okie doke."
- My apologies, boy hasn't been used in this entire conversation from you before and it's commonly used to talk down to people.
Granted I don't care personally that you use this term however considering your other word choices I assumed maybe you were getting frustrated and needed a break, my bad.
" I just love watching you try to equivocate by translating taxes to socialism."
- Considering that taxes are a form of redistribution of wealth and the redistribution of wealth is ESSENTIAL to socialism, yes it actually is.
" I ask what kinds of capitalistic institutions you want to keep and you always answer ambiguously. You say you want to keep certain ideas. "
- Fair enough, I believe in freedom of trade as much as reasonably possible and I believe some of the common means of production should be left privatized, just heavily regulated with powerful unions available for collective bargaining similar to the Nordic model.
I simply believe in the redistribution of wealth and resources to ensure everyone has the basics to survive whether it be through socialized healthcare, education, and redistribution of food and water.
" Ok, ignore my link that showed how the Industrial Revolution increased Real Wages."
- Who cares if the industrial revolution increased wages.
There were still terrible working and living conditions, short city life spans ( we're talking 17 years old ), and a vast amount of wealth inequality and poverty.
" I am arguing that it is pretty difficult for older people to work in general. They can't get around very well because their bodies naturally decay."
- Ok, ignore my argument regarding the advancement of technology allowing old people to be more agile.
" People might be happier healthy, but they also are happier when the government doesn't take over half of what they earn."
- Irrelevant when socialized healthcare would be cheaper.
" yet it save money because it doesn't have to pay for vacations, paid leave, etc."
- And private businesses don't have to also pay for vacations, sick days, and paid leave too?
" It made private (better) insurance more expensive by shifting costs to the private sector. Why do think that most hospitals don't want to take on people with government insurance? Because they lose money. Private companies foot the bill."
- If private insurance is so much better than the public, explain the decreasing life expectancy, expensive insurance higher than any other country, thousands die, and millions are uninsured.
If you are implying this is the fault of Medicaid and Medicare, you are sadly mistaken since this has been going on since those programs were introduced.
You are cherry picking out one bad government program which isn't even bad considering it extended healthcare to millions and are using that as evidence again nationalized healthcare from literally every country.
" I am arguing a private system would be better than a government one, though. It is one HUGE failed medical program. Saying it is the closest we will get to a privatized model is the fault of pinkos like yourself."
- Considering the US is the closest comparison we have to a private model, it's unlikely the private model would ever be better than a nationalized system.
And again you still haven't convinced me the private system would be better considering we have a successful nationalized model already in existence.
Why would we take a gamble on a system that MAY be better than a nationalized model for seemingly no benefit?
At this point, your entire argument has collapsed, you've now lost your calm attitude and are using condescending word choice such as " boy " and have been ignoring my arguments.
I suggest maybe you take a day to cool off and think about the future of your argument.
I am not trying to be a scumbag by recommending this but you are getting very angry and aren't thinking clearly.
- Since when are we valuing school quality over a choice? Countries such as Finland and other Scandinavian countries have more educated and quality schools than the US.
" That is why it must be funded with taxes. If someone chooses not to go to college or be a drug addict, why should we pay for their bad decisions?"
Ok and if someone breaks the law and kills someone else, why should I have to pay for their bad decisions?
What if I NEVER have to call the police force at all?
" Stop lying that the US is a privatized model. It is a nasty mash-up of government and private enterprise."
- It's, for the most part, a privatized model. Also, your critique of government programs is the cause of poor healthcare fails considering Medicaid and medicare extended medical care to millions more of Americans.
It isn't a FULLY privatized module, however, it is the closest we'll get to a fully privatized model.
" Also, I showed earlier that since government intervention occurred, medical prices have skyrocketed. "
- And yet this doesn't affect the other countries with national healthcare.
Once again, you are picking ONE failed medical program and translating that into literally every other country with nationalized healthcare having higher medical costs.
If this were the case then the US wouldn't have drastically higher medical costs than other countries.
" Why are you assuming government healthcare would make someone happier? Also, how applicable is that to productivity? Do you think that one change would make people happier and much more productive?"
- Are you happy when you're sick? Or are you happier when you aren't sick?
And again do you REALLY not believe happier workers would work harder overtired and miserable workers?
" You want to pretend that before we industrialized our economy that things were peachy or that we would be much better off with 70% socialized economies? How about you actually look into the industrial revolution. Without it, we would have remained an agrarian society."
- I bring up the industrial revolution since it's the closest to your utopia.
Very little regulation and taxes which means that according to you the industrial revolution should be a perfect world.
" You are claiming that individual rights are secondary to an individual's. Therefore, you cannot be logically consistent in disagreeing with harvesting one person's organs to save multiple other people."
- You are once again ignoring my argument, harvesting organs ruin society. If people knew they could be killed in their homes, the social order would collapse thus destroying the society and thus hurting the collective good.
Taxes are different and AGAIN taxes have historically done little to destroy society and have instead aided the collective good.
" My argument was that private military contractors were better, not that they should be privately funded. BIG difference."
- If they are better than why not make the military privately funded, this is also ignoring the previous point I made with, the fact that the military isn't needed everywhere, hell we already overfund it as it is.
" I'll give you a John Stossel video you can feast on."
- Not interested in a video, I am interested in hearing your points. This is a very lazy way of debating.
" You make a huge assumption in that you attribute the success of European countries solely to healthcare. I think there is a huge BoP on that claim."
- Considering that the US is one of the worst countries in terms of healthcare with millions uninsured, thousands dying, a decreasing life span, and millions going bankrupt, yes I do attribute this to healthcare since there are countries such as Germany with a similar culture as the US but with higher life spans.
I find it troubling that almost no other developed country has this issue aside from the US when it's the only one with a privatized model.
" But, saying that healthcare benefits companies so much yet many companies don't provide it shows that it is not a good investment."
- Another dodging, I mentioned previously that the reason why this is the case is that private corporations in the US overcharge their stuff as evidenced by the fact that the US has the highest medical costs in the world.
" My idea is to deregulate a lot of the healthcare market, stop subsidizing healthcare, and to allow insurance companies to compete between states. You keep assuming that my idea would lead to more deaths. You also assume that raising taxes on companies significantly wouldn't have a significant negative impact on our economy."
- This is a huge paragraph with lots of problems so let's tackle it one by one.
1. Where is your example of privatization of healthcare working well? So far statistically the more socialized healthcare systems have been the most successful ones.
2. I am not assuming that is a fact, 45,000 people die yearly is a fact, our life span dropping is a fact, millions going bankrupt is a fact, and millions being uninsured is also a fact.
3. Again what you don't seem to understand is that the US actually is the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world due to its privatization.
You have been continually ignoring this.
This is a simple concept, I pay 1,400 dollars on privatized healthcare. Now that it is national I pay 1,200. However, now that it's national I save 200 dollars.
". Redistribution can only be justified in a select few instances, and my point is that healthcare and guaranteed government jobs programs are a vast overreach that requires way too much money based on potential returns."
- Ok what if one area has less crime, what if the students going to a government school don't go to college or live off of welfare and considering you believe this happens often this would likely be the case in poorer areas, what if one area doesn't need the military?
". I said they break into your house. They can just choose you at random, pick you off the street, and kill you. Didn't mention them going to the hospital."
- The same concept, this would also ruin society.
Taxes obviously throughout history haven't ruined society thus debunking this analogy yet again.
" Redistribution can only be justified in a select few instances,"
- Like what? You still haven't replied to my counter-argument on returns?
" However, it is quite a stretch that someone will feel those returns for something like healthcare."
- So you once again haven't debunked my argument.
It's NOT just about sick days.
What about happiness, what about life span, what about fewer workers dieing?
Do you not think more workers living longer and happier lives doesn't benefit the rich? Do you not believe these factors would boost worker productivity?
" Maybe they will cost us thousands of dollars. "
- Irrelevant since every single national healthcare system is cheaper than the US's privatized model.
" I think that we should not enforce 50, 80, or 90% taxes on businesses and individuals. This will make a lot of jobs be shipped to other countries."
- Considering countries with heavier taxes in Europe such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and the united kingdom still have robust economies and some of which have more innovation than the US, this poorly constructed hypothesis is false.
The reality is these services benefit businesses as demonstrated by the statistics and analysis I've brought up in my previous points.
" . So, promoting competition and low regulation is my stance for creating a better America."
- Yes, because this worked well in the industrial revolution.
Ok, so you're just going to ignore my question and critique of your evidence.
Just because it's a liberal viewpoint doesn't mean that is clouding his judgment.
Not to mention, how about the rest of the vote?
Very clearly you and bmdrocks21 have no actual substantial evidence to back up your poorly constructed hypothesis.
How does that make him bias?
You were going off on a tangent which in his view hurt your argument.
Firstly, ok why are the leaderboards " shit ".
Secondly, ok that's a pretty hefty vote. It doesn't appear to be biased in any way so can you please point out how it's specifically bias?
This also isn't including the times where he faced off against smart opponents and lost.
Going onto your poor character assassination against Alec, this is nothing short than a baseless attack made against him.
Alec has noob sniped, but so has every other person on the top leaderboards.
He HAS faced off against capable opponents and won such as,
Virtuoso ( who is a liberal )
and
Rational Madman ( who is a liberal )
I am finding this conspiracy theory hard to believe when Alec has won against two smart liberals on the site.
BUT again you still haven't provided evidence that they only vote liberal
Correlation doesn't equal causation
I agree however how does that translate them into being " bias "
Considering you have 18 friends and a good chunk of which liberal, it's unlikely this poorly constructed hypothesis is correct.
A more likely ( and realistic ) hypothesis is that conservatives generally make poor arguments as evidenced by the leaderboards.
The few exceptions one of which being Alec is high on the leaderboard.
You'll also note on DDO a certain liberal/backwardseden and billsands both are socialists and yet both have poor ratios.
Not to mention several other liberals on this site.
And also not to mention what Alec mentioned earlier being some of the people in the top leaderboards on DDO are conservative.
Thus this absurd conspiracy you two are creating is debunked.
" Don't you come from the political side that says white people/cops are just unconsciously biased and racist without any proof? "
- This is a classic example of guilt by association argument.
I personally don't believe that the average cop is bias and racist, this is just a lazy excuse not to provide me sources.
" I've only really seen the switch vote in cases of forfeit. How shall I prove that biases influenced their vote? "
- Firstly, I provided to you an example of a debate which Dr.Franklin participated in.
You will note that NOBODY forfeited and yet two liberals voted for Dr.Franklin even with their " liberal bias ".
Secondly, if you can't prove that they are bias than why do you believe they are biased in the first place?
Very obviously both of you have no real evidence and are just assuming things.
" . I don't think I am at fault for saying that when they vote, they have a bias for those with ideological similarities."
- Ok, provide me an example of that. Because from Dr.Franklins example it seems the left splits on their votes and have no problem voting for the conservative side.
Ok so your problem isn't that people on the site are too liberal, it's that they simply don't like you.
The ideals of collectivism
A mixture of a moral and economic framework.
Ok how so.
Ramshutu and Ragnar are liberals and they understand your argument.
Ok but you are claiming the site is leftist bias and yet there are two hardcore liberals who voted for you on a debate.
I ask again, what made imabench bias?
I see little evidence to make me believe he was biased.
Notice how on the debate two liberals high on the leaderboards ramshutu and Ragnar both voted in favor of you winning, so if anything this example proves the site doesn't have a liberal bias.
I meant by generally.
According to several various sources I've looked at, the Republican states are generally less college educated.
Anecdote wise, from personal experience I've run into a lot more ignorant republicans than smart ones on this site and on DDO.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-educated-states-map-2014-3
https://www.zippia.com/advice/most-highly-educated-states-in-america/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/the-10-most-and-least-educated-states-in-2018.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-educated-states-map-2014-3
Ok how are they bias?
Your welcome, I am citing you as an example to showcase that the site isn't biased when there is a conservative who is the top 4 and at one point was the top debater.
Granted this is an anecdotal claim however considering there are only around 200 people on the site it's accurate.
The reason why conservatives aren't ranked high is because ( no offense ), they normally make poor arguments.
Where is your evidence of this occurring? Just because the majority of people on the site are leftists doesn't make them all bias.
If conservatives make good arguments made against leftists, they wouldn't be losing so much.
Alec doesn't seem to have a hard time climbing up the leaderboard because he makes good arguments.
We discuss generally whether or not more socialization would be helpful or harmful to society.
If it's a leftist site, it actually should be easier for you to climb your way up to the top since there are more people to debate and since the top debaters are full of lefties, your rank should continue to climb up.
Is that better?
How should I change it then
I mean if we're looking at pure efficiency wise, probably a pure capitalist system would be better.
However we don't look at systems for pure efficiency, we still need to worry about distribution which is what capitalism lacks as evidenced by statistics.
This is why I personally believe in some capitalism just to ensure the economy is producing enough goods.
I take it you don't want to accept the debate?
At this point, we should just begin to discuss you just accepting the debate at this point just to keep the format more clear and organized.
I understand you have concerns over the definition, so can you please point out what better definitions or BOP would be?
no 1v1 me on roblox
" Provide credible sources for a change. That might actually make this conversation interesting. Surely better than your shallow character attacks."
- Firstly specify what sources you want for the statistics I am citing and I will happily provide them.
- Secondly, this is nothing more than a baseless accusation, my character attacks have made clear sense.
I call you a shill for the capitalists since by supporting capitalists who are pushing for illegal and mass immigration as a Republican you are going against your own interests. The capitalists aren't conservative.
I call you alt right since you're buying unrealistic and absurd axioms and arguments forged by the alt-right such as various arguments made against socialized healthcare.
" School competition promotes better schooling. School choice translates to better quality."
- Where are you basing this claim from? America which is the most privatized model we can compare?
Ok, explain how the US isn't ranked highly on the most effective school systems?
Compared to a more socialized country such as Finland which had socialized education and is ranked the best one.
" The police patrol all the time and keep you safe. Just because you don't call them doesn't mean they don't protect you. Also, their availability to protect your rights and the rights of people you may harm matters."
- Ok and the hospital's availability to protect you in case you get into an emergency regardless of economic situation wouldn't also apply to the same logic?
" I use the word "boy" irl, but okie doke."
- My apologies, boy hasn't been used in this entire conversation from you before and it's commonly used to talk down to people.
Granted I don't care personally that you use this term however considering your other word choices I assumed maybe you were getting frustrated and needed a break, my bad.
" I just love watching you try to equivocate by translating taxes to socialism."
- Considering that taxes are a form of redistribution of wealth and the redistribution of wealth is ESSENTIAL to socialism, yes it actually is.
" I ask what kinds of capitalistic institutions you want to keep and you always answer ambiguously. You say you want to keep certain ideas. "
- Fair enough, I believe in freedom of trade as much as reasonably possible and I believe some of the common means of production should be left privatized, just heavily regulated with powerful unions available for collective bargaining similar to the Nordic model.
I simply believe in the redistribution of wealth and resources to ensure everyone has the basics to survive whether it be through socialized healthcare, education, and redistribution of food and water.
" Ok, ignore my link that showed how the Industrial Revolution increased Real Wages."
- Who cares if the industrial revolution increased wages.
There were still terrible working and living conditions, short city life spans ( we're talking 17 years old ), and a vast amount of wealth inequality and poverty.
" I am arguing that it is pretty difficult for older people to work in general. They can't get around very well because their bodies naturally decay."
- Ok, ignore my argument regarding the advancement of technology allowing old people to be more agile.
" People might be happier healthy, but they also are happier when the government doesn't take over half of what they earn."
- Irrelevant when socialized healthcare would be cheaper.
" yet it save money because it doesn't have to pay for vacations, paid leave, etc."
- And private businesses don't have to also pay for vacations, sick days, and paid leave too?
" It made private (better) insurance more expensive by shifting costs to the private sector. Why do think that most hospitals don't want to take on people with government insurance? Because they lose money. Private companies foot the bill."
- If private insurance is so much better than the public, explain the decreasing life expectancy, expensive insurance higher than any other country, thousands die, and millions are uninsured.
If you are implying this is the fault of Medicaid and Medicare, you are sadly mistaken since this has been going on since those programs were introduced.
You are cherry picking out one bad government program which isn't even bad considering it extended healthcare to millions and are using that as evidence again nationalized healthcare from literally every country.
" I am arguing a private system would be better than a government one, though. It is one HUGE failed medical program. Saying it is the closest we will get to a privatized model is the fault of pinkos like yourself."
- Considering the US is the closest comparison we have to a private model, it's unlikely the private model would ever be better than a nationalized system.
And again you still haven't convinced me the private system would be better considering we have a successful nationalized model already in existence.
Why would we take a gamble on a system that MAY be better than a nationalized model for seemingly no benefit?
ur just a meanie poopey head
oh sorry
You can be 8 going into 3rd grade, it doesn't have to be set there's a range.
I don't know this is a good subject that should be debated
What is wrong with you
At this point, your entire argument has collapsed, you've now lost your calm attitude and are using condescending word choice such as " boy " and have been ignoring my arguments.
I suggest maybe you take a day to cool off and think about the future of your argument.
I am not trying to be a scumbag by recommending this but you are getting very angry and aren't thinking clearly.
" I support school choice, and you don't."
- Since when are we valuing school quality over a choice? Countries such as Finland and other Scandinavian countries have more educated and quality schools than the US.
" That is why it must be funded with taxes. If someone chooses not to go to college or be a drug addict, why should we pay for their bad decisions?"
Ok and if someone breaks the law and kills someone else, why should I have to pay for their bad decisions?
What if I NEVER have to call the police force at all?
" Stop lying that the US is a privatized model. It is a nasty mash-up of government and private enterprise."
- It's, for the most part, a privatized model. Also, your critique of government programs is the cause of poor healthcare fails considering Medicaid and medicare extended medical care to millions more of Americans.
It isn't a FULLY privatized module, however, it is the closest we'll get to a fully privatized model.
" Also, I showed earlier that since government intervention occurred, medical prices have skyrocketed. "
- And yet this doesn't affect the other countries with national healthcare.
Once again, you are picking ONE failed medical program and translating that into literally every other country with nationalized healthcare having higher medical costs.
If this were the case then the US wouldn't have drastically higher medical costs than other countries.
" Why are you assuming government healthcare would make someone happier? Also, how applicable is that to productivity? Do you think that one change would make people happier and much more productive?"
- Are you happy when you're sick? Or are you happier when you aren't sick?
And again do you REALLY not believe happier workers would work harder overtired and miserable workers?
" How much work will an 83-year-old man do? The super elderly aren't particularly productive."
- Higher lifespan means people will retire at a later age, thus needing more money to save.
also, your analogy fails since older people generally have high intelligence and experience.
If you want to argue that their minds deteriorate, with the rise of medical innovation we are finding new ways to prevent this.
" You want to pretend that before we industrialized our economy that things were peachy or that we would be much better off with 70% socialized economies? How about you actually look into the industrial revolution. Without it, we would have remained an agrarian society."
- I bring up the industrial revolution since it's the closest to your utopia.
Very little regulation and taxes which means that according to you the industrial revolution should be a perfect world.
" You are claiming that individual rights are secondary to an individual's. Therefore, you cannot be logically consistent in disagreeing with harvesting one person's organs to save multiple other people."
- You are once again ignoring my argument, harvesting organs ruin society. If people knew they could be killed in their homes, the social order would collapse thus destroying the society and thus hurting the collective good.
Taxes are different and AGAIN taxes have historically done little to destroy society and have instead aided the collective good.
" My argument was that private military contractors were better, not that they should be privately funded. BIG difference."
- If they are better than why not make the military privately funded, this is also ignoring the previous point I made with, the fact that the military isn't needed everywhere, hell we already overfund it as it is.
" I'll give you a John Stossel video you can feast on."
- Not interested in a video, I am interested in hearing your points. This is a very lazy way of debating.
" You make a huge assumption in that you attribute the success of European countries solely to healthcare. I think there is a huge BoP on that claim."
- Considering that the US is one of the worst countries in terms of healthcare with millions uninsured, thousands dying, a decreasing life span, and millions going bankrupt, yes I do attribute this to healthcare since there are countries such as Germany with a similar culture as the US but with higher life spans.
I find it troubling that almost no other developed country has this issue aside from the US when it's the only one with a privatized model.
" But, saying that healthcare benefits companies so much yet many companies don't provide it shows that it is not a good investment."
- Another dodging, I mentioned previously that the reason why this is the case is that private corporations in the US overcharge their stuff as evidenced by the fact that the US has the highest medical costs in the world.
" My idea is to deregulate a lot of the healthcare market, stop subsidizing healthcare, and to allow insurance companies to compete between states. You keep assuming that my idea would lead to more deaths. You also assume that raising taxes on companies significantly wouldn't have a significant negative impact on our economy."
- This is a huge paragraph with lots of problems so let's tackle it one by one.
1. Where is your example of privatization of healthcare working well? So far statistically the more socialized healthcare systems have been the most successful ones.
2. I am not assuming that is a fact, 45,000 people die yearly is a fact, our life span dropping is a fact, millions going bankrupt is a fact, and millions being uninsured is also a fact.
3. Again what you don't seem to understand is that the US actually is the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world due to its privatization.
You have been continually ignoring this.
This is a simple concept, I pay 1,400 dollars on privatized healthcare. Now that it is national I pay 1,200. However, now that it's national I save 200 dollars.
". Redistribution can only be justified in a select few instances, and my point is that healthcare and guaranteed government jobs programs are a vast overreach that requires way too much money based on potential returns."
- Ok what if one area has less crime, what if the students going to a government school don't go to college or live off of welfare and considering you believe this happens often this would likely be the case in poorer areas, what if one area doesn't need the military?
". I said they break into your house. They can just choose you at random, pick you off the street, and kill you. Didn't mention them going to the hospital."
- The same concept, this would also ruin society.
Taxes obviously throughout history haven't ruined society thus debunking this analogy yet again.
" Redistribution can only be justified in a select few instances,"
- Like what? You still haven't replied to my counter-argument on returns?
" However, it is quite a stretch that someone will feel those returns for something like healthcare."
- So you once again haven't debunked my argument.
It's NOT just about sick days.
What about happiness, what about life span, what about fewer workers dieing?
Do you not think more workers living longer and happier lives doesn't benefit the rich? Do you not believe these factors would boost worker productivity?
" Maybe they will cost us thousands of dollars. "
- Irrelevant since every single national healthcare system is cheaper than the US's privatized model.
" I think that we should not enforce 50, 80, or 90% taxes on businesses and individuals. This will make a lot of jobs be shipped to other countries."
- Considering countries with heavier taxes in Europe such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and the united kingdom still have robust economies and some of which have more innovation than the US, this poorly constructed hypothesis is false.
The reality is these services benefit businesses as demonstrated by the statistics and analysis I've brought up in my previous points.
" . So, promoting competition and low regulation is my stance for creating a better America."
- Yes, because this worked well in the industrial revolution.