No, I agree there are plenty right of center people on here that don't care too much. They often don't represent the conservative case very well. However, the most active voters have "progressive" or such left-wing titles as their political ideology. I don't think I am at fault for saying that when they vote, they have a bias for those with ideological similarities.
I have just disliked all of the titles. This is ambiguous. Does one person mention socialist policies that would be bad and you mention ones that would be good?
Lol, saying the truth doesn't matter because white people recorded the stats. Okay, humor me, how do you verify this "reality"? Where are any valid statistics that prove your worldview? I feel I'll be waiting for a while on those...
Ok, but he took on a variety of socialist economic policies. I think it is fair to say he was more left wing than right wing. Just because he was nationalist doesn't mean this outweighed his liberalism or matched it.
Oh lol, you're one of those "black people can't be racist" fools? Look at the numbers of black on white crime vs white on black crime and you'll see how ridiculous you sound.
You actually refuse to take a position. I ask what kinds of capitalistic institutions you want to keep and you always answer ambiguously. You say you want to keep certain ideas. How about you take a stance and rationalize it. Provide credible sources for a change. That might actually make this conversation interesting. Surely better than your shallow character attacks.
The government pays the same in flat rate for service, yet it save money because it doesn't have to pay for vacations, paid leave, etc.
http://yris.yira.org/essays/707
Medicare and Medicaid are the reason why a lot of people cannot afford insurance. 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. Privarte companies foot the bill.
I already said that our current system is the worst combination of government and private market. Things would be better if they were privitized or if they were run by the government. 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 privitized model is the fault of pinkos like yourself.
Ok, ignore my link that showed how the Industrial Revolution increased Real Wages.
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.
People might be happier healthy, but they also are happier when the government doesn't take over half of what they earn.
I already said that Sweden uses school vouchers. I would need to look into the other countries. School competition promotes better schooling. School choice translates to better quality.
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.
I use the word "boy" irl, but okie doke.
I just love watching you try to equivocate by translating taxes to socialism.
No, it isn't the same concept, my good sir. You are suggesting taking physical property. However, I'm going to push you to answer my question until you do. You are supporting harming one person to help others. 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.
Life span? Ok, let us explore this. Let's say our expectancy raises from 80 to 85. How much work will an 83 year-old man do? The super elderly aren't particularly productive.
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?
Stop lying that the US is a privitized model. It is a nasty mash-up of government and private enterprise. If medicaid and medicare were replaced by private companies, we would have a better idea of what a private model looks like. Also, I showed earlier that since government intervention occurred, medical prices have skyrocketed. The government then price fixed and shifted the cost onto the private companies. Pretty simple economics.
I support school choice, and you don't. So, why bring up government schools? It is is federal military. It protects the country. 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?
Boy, I know you keep trying to deny it. But, saying that healthcare benefits companies so much yet many companies don't provide it shows that it is not a good investment. If it were so good for businesses, they would. By taking more in taxes from them, you are forcing them to pay for that healthcare. You wouldn't have to force them if it was a good idea.
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.
My argument was that private military contractors were better, not that they should be privately funded. BIG difference. I'll give you a John Stossel video you can feast on.
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.
Also, you really want to claim that the Industrial Revolution is even remotely comparable to modern America? 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 didn't say that they would have to go to hospitals. 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.
I'm saying it for the last time, redistribution is evil and should be kept to a minimum. I advocate for the government doing the bare minimum that it must and then getting out of our lives. 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 require way too much money based on potential returns. A police force, military, and education of others helps the person paying the taxes, not just promoting the "social well-being of the majority" However, it is quite a stretch that someone will feel those returns for something like healthcare. Maybe they will have less sick days, maybe they won't. Maybe they will cost us thousands of dollars. Maybe they have a chronic condition that will cost $1 million over a lifetime. Should the government spend money on something for which they will not get a return on that investment: my argument is no.
I also believe in the social good, no matter what your marxist teachers tell you. 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. When that occurs, people lose their jobs and they can no longer provide for themselves. I think that by creating hostile business environments and demonizing/punishing entrepreneurs-the backbone of our economy- you are going to cause a lot more harm than good. So, promoting competition and low regulation is my stance for creating a better America. I think that when you get the government out of the way, you can allow the private sector to do what it does best and it will promote prosperity.
You did nothing to prove that I take a 100% individualistic view of the world. I do have very individualistic tendencies. But, you obviously(and dishonestly) exclude my advocacy for schooling(I have said to an extent throughout. That means k-12 with some government college grants), I say we should have a military, and police. Those aren't even the only things I advocate for along these lines.
I stand by these comments. We shouldn't be able to harm minorities at will. Tell me, should the government be able to break into your home, kill you, and harvest your organs? Your organs could save five lives. That is five lives versus one. That is promoting that social good we talked about. I believe in individualism, so I don't believe you can murder innocent people for a goal. (I'm sure you'll make up another insane hypothetical. Make it realistic if you do try to justify that. Don't waste my time with another "save the whole world" argument)
I say redistribution can be approached from an individualistic idea. I said if someone pays more than they consume in taxes, it removes tax burden from people. This is why I think some redistribution is justifiable. I just find it hard to believe that a few less sick days is equal to thousands in medical bills(even if sick days were prevented).
I am generally against redistributing wealth. I think it should be kept to a bare minimum. If it were possible to run a country without it, I would probably advocate for that. However, as I have stated numerous times, there are some things that are almost impossible to fund without taxes. I mentioned the military. Roads are another good example.
Actually, of you would remember, this whole discussion began because I disagreed with your definition of evil, not because i though socialism was a "completely evil system". Otherwise, I would have accepted the debate.
I already said I am against illegal immigration.
I am not taking a 100% individual lens, as I said taxes should pay for schooling(to a point), the military, and police already. Stop blantantly lying.
My view is and has been throughout this discussion that taxing is bad and should be kept to a minimum. I never once said(and you know this) that we should have zero taxes. I argue for low taxes.
So, start addressing what I say instead of lying about what I said. I noticed you either cut out part of a quote or don't include one at all when you lie about my position.
He used the same exact working for me earlier lol. He can say we use a "100% individualistic lens" but when we say he uses a 100% collectivist lens, THEN that is a strawman.
I am not dodging your points. I'm at work and I saw you left five huge comments, so I have yet to read them.
I don't believe in capitalism 100%. I am more like 90% capitalism, 10% other.
For instance, as you state, I am against open borders (illegal immigration) for a variety of reasons. I would argue that instead of a $15 minimum wage, this could be solved through harshly punishing companies that employ illegal immigrants via fines.
I can't really argue against anything you say because you need to outline your ideas. I asked what 30% capitalism you wanted and you just said "mixed market". I want to know what you think the free market does better.
You can insult me and call me a shill/alt-right, but it makes you look ignorant as it is contrary to the facts. Thinking(or more accurately, knowing) the private sector does most things best doesn't make me alt-right or a shill, my dude. It makes me a realist.
"I obviously know it most likely wouldn't be a productive conversation for me personally as my views have been pretty set for months."
Why didn't you tell me that to start? I didn't come here to talk at a brick wall. I expected some open-mindedness. I tried to find common ground, but you just wanted me to concede everything.
You sure like to throw the word "free" around a lot. Nothing is free, I'm sorry to break it to you. That money is taken from somewhere else and has unseen consequences.
I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged.
Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory.
I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us.
I think taxes are somewhat redistribution. It is a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible.
Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare.
I guess I have to explain what "overqualified" for a job means lol. It doesn't mean the workers are bored. It means that no one will hire them because they would have to pay them more than they are worth. For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience.
You want McDonald's workers with college degrees..... great idea, my good sir.
How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation....
Okay, a terminally ill person with cancer could cost $1 million. It can get pretty high paying for people with chronic conditions, too.
I don't think you understand how an economy works. When it does better, more people have jobs. They make more money, then they can afford healthcare, my dude. An improving economy isn't some random concept than I am putting over people. A good economy HELPS people. That is why people can probably afford better healthcare when we aren't in a recession. A good economy matters, and if I have to prove that to you, I don't see any point in moving forward.
McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally simliar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV.
You ignored most of my criticism of this as a "trap debate". You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap...
I don't know why you doubt the food is rotten. Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits.
We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid?????????????
Lol, pretends to have brought up points and then states I am alt right. Cool beans.
Tell you what, tomorrow, I will provide statistics on private militaries.
Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad, unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)
NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
Private investment has always been a large portion of the spending too.
We spend a load more on medical research by percentage of GDP than the rest of these socialized countries. We are #1 in biomedical research https://www.futurity.org/america-china-biomed-science-1461002/
Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree to that.
I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism.
Socialism isn't altruism because "you can't be generous with other peoples' stuff".
I believe in a flat tax because I don't think people should be punished for working harder and therefore gaining more money. They should pay the same amount percentage wise. I don't know how that makes me pro redistribution. I'm not trying to equalize wealth by putting essentially caps on earning.
You assume a lot. You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them. You say that it is a fact that the rich benefit from educated and healthy workers. Ok, sure. I'm arguing that it is true to a lesser extent. More education isn't always good. Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns? No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. That is a case in which we wouldn't. My definition of getting more out is paying more in taxes than we invested in you. I'm okay with paying $10,000 in taxes to fund someone's education if they grow up, get a job, and pay more than that much back in their lifetime. That takes tax burden off others and helps them. I don't believe in money pits.
Also, the government has funded less than 50% of medical research since 2013. Private companies who want to make money invest a lot of money trying to create products that will make them money. I think it is incredible naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. Sure, it may help. The fact that we don't price fix (limit potential revenues) incentivizes investment. Notice that Scandanavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation.
There are also plenty of countries with socialized healthcare that are poor. Cuba, for instance. They are also largely poorer than the US, and we have a more privitized plan.
I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. You injected absolutes making it nearly impossible to win as pro. All you have to do is prove there is one good thing about socialism and you win the whole debate. A more fair debate would be "taxation is theft" or "capitalism is more moral than socialism". You could win this debate with literally any political ideology, even Nazism. If they promoted one thing you liked such as national public schooling, you would have to vote for me because it isn't "completely evil".
They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?
You didn't cite any statistics...I don't think you understand my position. My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. I don't want people starving or not having clean water. Socialistic policies in the past have had a tendency of lowering quality and raising costs: look at our public water systems, public school, even our military. They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper).
There were plenty of problems during the Industrial Revolution. I support anti-trust regulations. Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. They are almost always bad. There were lots of monopolies back then and caused collusion that hurt everyone except the business owners. That doesn't mean you should take money from these people, just allow competition to enter the market and have it create goods and services.
US Obesity rate: 36.2%
Sweden: 20.6%
Denmark:19.7%
Germany: 22.3%
United Kingdom: 27.8%
France:21.6%
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-obese-countries/
Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods.
Number one cause of death in US: heart disease
https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death#heart-disease
This makes up almost a quarter of our deaths. Our diet is a huge reason we have lower life expectancy.
We fail to be this 100% capitalist paradise. We have fairly free markets, especially relative to most of the world, but we could be better.
Again, you are assuming that without your socialistic policies, the "majority" of people will suffer/not meet basic needs.
I didn't straw man. I said socialist AND/OR collectivist societies. There was an OR there. Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors.
To lighten things up, I think I should say we should agree on something: that socialized healthcare would probably be better than what we have now. What we currently have is one of the worst mixes of government and private sector work. My opinion is that private healthcare would be the best case scenario, but that anything is better than what we have now.
A huge reason that socialized healthcare costs are cheaper though is that people in those countries are healthier. Not because of their healthcare, but because we in America are unhealthy af. We eat way too much junk food.
I believe in police as well because they also protect our rights....
You make a huge leap, and an unsubstantiated one at that. You say that because scandanavian countries have decent economies and socialized healthcare, the socialized healthcare doesn't hurt their economy at all. You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare.
I have argued that the government should pay for school, the military, and the police so far. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic".
What company throws out food that could easily be given to poor people? Usually donations like that can be tax-deductible.
So, I am supposed to believe that 60k+ in college education per student would be good because we would have college-educated fast food workers? I refuse to believe that. We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more. You also neglect that more people going to college because of "FrEe" education would raise tuition prices. There would be shortages of college spots.
So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not. So, stop comparing apples to oranges. Even if attitudes were the same, that doesn't change the reality of their economic programs.
You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals.
A flat tax also makes the rich pay more. Let's say we have a 10% flat tax. Person A makes $100,000/year and person B makes $1,000,000. Person A pays $10,000 in taxes. Person B pays $100,000 in taxes. The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income.
People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves. They may not have a choice in it, but it ultimately protects their freedoms by fighting invaders. They need money to run the military. Taxing is the easiest way to accomplish this. I can't be any more clear.
You really like to clump education and healthcare together. One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone like the military does.
I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. I think that taxes should only ever be used if it is an investment, meaning it helps everyone. An educated populace helps everyone far more than we put in. It prepares them for jobs. You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce time needed to get groceries and go to work. These companies have improved our lives and you want to demonize them because they want to make a profit. They should be allowed to get a profit. Profits are huge incentives, which cause people to create goods that make our lives better. Therefore allowing them to make good money is working towards the public good. Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. It is hard naming things more useful than those from free countries like America.
Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. Even if you make terrible choices, everyone else should carry the burden for those who make worse decisions. The Communist Manifesto also says you shouldn't trade because it creates material wants that didn't exist before, so I would question the validity of Marx's economic plans. They nationalized a bunch of industries and ran a welfare state. Kinda socialistic.
If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????
Many companies do, but not all. Government healthcare also creates a negative incentive once again. Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? If someone eats junk food and fast food frequently, they never exercise, and they smoke weed, they will have a plethora of health problems. I have to pay for these increased healthcare costs, not them.
You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to. That is called slavery. Also, what if they want to become something worthless to society like a gender studies professor? They won't pay back anything to society that the "free" college and "FrEe" HeAlThCaRe paid into them.
The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism.
Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self interest..... Oh wait, that is impossible and why every socialist country ends in destitution. I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic. A claim you didn't substantiate.
I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well.
You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way. If an enemy is invading and you didn't pay some military toll, would they let the enemy ransack your house? No, a country defends itself and the most effective way to pay for it.
Education: if 10% of our population could afford schooling, we would all be screwed. If anything, this is fairly capitalistic. It takes the tax burden off of whoever the educated business owners would be. You need a high school education to work at any non-minimum wage job. A college degree guarantee is super excessive and unnecessary to make a living.
Well communist governments of the past had the largest influence on the lives of their people. They were definition "big government". Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, all led to mass starvation. I think there is a lot more to the equation. The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done.
You act like these European countries are huge socialistic countries. This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privitized pension plan.
We are assuming increased government spending improves the quality of living for the poor. The poverty rate has remained stagnant since the War on Poverty, which included huge government spending increases and new government programs. You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries. I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor.
People benefit from increased health and education, but not to the extent you suggest. That is my position.
I don't see how throwing food away saves money.
Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves.
I don't believe in enacting a purge or going out of my way to make someone's life worse. You have to understand that that is also a violation of rights. Killing violates rights. Using the government as a tool to encroach on the pursuit of happiness is a violation of rights. Please stop strawmanning this argument by projecting arguments on me which are incompatible with my individualistic beliefs.
I haven't personally heard claims of Crowder being racist outside of the normal mindless slurs against all conservatives. I need to see why he is claiming this
I discussed the "homophobia" issue with you and a couple of your irrelevant hypotheticals. I haven't accepted because I need to look into these claims of yours. Unlike you, I don't have an overinflated ego that would require me to accept after such insults. I research before I spout out ideas unlike you
Honestly, the main flaw of socialism is the false presumption that people aren't innately self-interested.
Ok, ignore my whole example. If you want to be entirely serious, absolutely no one grows up in the same exact circumstances, so it is completely illogical to presume they will end up the same. My point is that not even children in the same family end up as wealthy as one another. You must consider that some people make much worse decisions than others.
Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth.
Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary.
I will look into your "born into wealth" claim when I get home from work
Really hard to read on my phone, but I'll do my best lol. I'm saying that government spending has a tendency to reduce private donations. Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to.
You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation? At the least, the government would have less money to tax with and would need to borrow more to accommodate these increased expenditures. If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. It is so negligible, it is often not included in our death calculations. Very few people even starved during the Great Depression.
Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That? Sure, we should have something in place for people truly looking to be self-sufficient and can't find a job. But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions. And no, I'm not the first to make this argument.
If it would be so good for a company to have less worker sick days, then the company would obviously offer health insurance. It would be foolish not to. Many companies do this, but government healthcare raises medical costs and makes this difficult(I can provide my source if you want).
Nazis were socialists by the way..... You make a fatally flawed argument here. You act as though your socialistic governments don't have self-interest. What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies. It was in their interest to try to fight capitalism and spread their influence. You pretend as though the leaders in socialistic governments have no incentive to keep their immense power.
The thing is, Steven is a comedian, so Omar is just going to take some random quote way out of context (as he loves to do) and make wild claims about him. I don't expect this to be a wholesome debate.
No, I agree there are plenty right of center people on here that don't care too much. They often don't represent the conservative case very well. However, the most active voters have "progressive" or such left-wing titles as their political ideology. I don't think I am at fault for saying that when they vote, they have a bias for those with ideological similarities.
It would be harder to climb because the voters have a strong bias against us
I have just disliked all of the titles. This is ambiguous. Does one person mention socialist policies that would be bad and you mention ones that would be good?
Also, you lost your debate on calling us the original terrorists... doubt you could prove we are the biggest criminals either
Lol, saying the truth doesn't matter because white people recorded the stats. Okay, humor me, how do you verify this "reality"? Where are any valid statistics that prove your worldview? I feel I'll be waiting for a while on those...
Ok, but he took on a variety of socialist economic policies. I think it is fair to say he was more left wing than right wing. Just because he was nationalist doesn't mean this outweighed his liberalism or matched it.
Oh lol, you're one of those "black people can't be racist" fools? Look at the numbers of black on white crime vs white on black crime and you'll see how ridiculous you sound.
This debate needs to regain its hype.
lmao. Love the debate. The temperature definition of hot almost killed me XD
You actually refuse to take a position. I ask what kinds of capitalistic institutions you want to keep and you always answer ambiguously. You say you want to keep certain ideas. How about you take a stance and rationalize it. Provide credible sources for a change. That might actually make this conversation interesting. Surely better than your shallow character attacks.
The government pays the same in flat rate for service, yet it save money because it doesn't have to pay for vacations, paid leave, etc.
http://yris.yira.org/essays/707
Medicare and Medicaid are the reason why a lot of people cannot afford insurance. 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. Privarte companies foot the bill.
I already said that our current system is the worst combination of government and private market. Things would be better if they were privitized or if they were run by the government. 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 privitized model is the fault of pinkos like yourself.
Ok, ignore my link that showed how the Industrial Revolution increased Real Wages.
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.
People might be happier healthy, but they also are happier when the government doesn't take over half of what they earn.
I already said that Sweden uses school vouchers. I would need to look into the other countries. School competition promotes better schooling. School choice translates to better quality.
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.
I use the word "boy" irl, but okie doke.
I just love watching you try to equivocate by translating taxes to socialism.
No, it isn't the same concept, my good sir. You are suggesting taking physical property. However, I'm going to push you to answer my question until you do. You are supporting harming one person to help others. 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.
Life span? Ok, let us explore this. Let's say our expectancy raises from 80 to 85. How much work will an 83 year-old man do? The super elderly aren't particularly productive.
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?
Stop lying that the US is a privitized model. It is a nasty mash-up of government and private enterprise. If medicaid and medicare were replaced by private companies, we would have a better idea of what a private model looks like. Also, I showed earlier that since government intervention occurred, medical prices have skyrocketed. The government then price fixed and shifted the cost onto the private companies. Pretty simple economics.
I support school choice, and you don't. So, why bring up government schools? It is is federal military. It protects the country. 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?
Boy, I know you keep trying to deny it. But, saying that healthcare benefits companies so much yet many companies don't provide it shows that it is not a good investment. If it were so good for businesses, they would. By taking more in taxes from them, you are forcing them to pay for that healthcare. You wouldn't have to force them if it was a good idea.
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.
My argument was that private military contractors were better, not that they should be privately funded. BIG difference. I'll give you a John Stossel video you can feast on.
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.
Also, you really want to claim that the Industrial Revolution is even remotely comparable to modern America? 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.
https://fee.org/articles/the-industrial-revolution-working-class-poverty-or-prosperity/
I didn't say that they would have to go to hospitals. 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.
I'm saying it for the last time, redistribution is evil and should be kept to a minimum. I advocate for the government doing the bare minimum that it must and then getting out of our lives. 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 require way too much money based on potential returns. A police force, military, and education of others helps the person paying the taxes, not just promoting the "social well-being of the majority" However, it is quite a stretch that someone will feel those returns for something like healthcare. Maybe they will have less sick days, maybe they won't. Maybe they will cost us thousands of dollars. Maybe they have a chronic condition that will cost $1 million over a lifetime. Should the government spend money on something for which they will not get a return on that investment: my argument is no.
I also believe in the social good, no matter what your marxist teachers tell you. 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. When that occurs, people lose their jobs and they can no longer provide for themselves. I think that by creating hostile business environments and demonizing/punishing entrepreneurs-the backbone of our economy- you are going to cause a lot more harm than good. So, promoting competition and low regulation is my stance for creating a better America. I think that when you get the government out of the way, you can allow the private sector to do what it does best and it will promote prosperity.
You did nothing to prove that I take a 100% individualistic view of the world. I do have very individualistic tendencies. But, you obviously(and dishonestly) exclude my advocacy for schooling(I have said to an extent throughout. That means k-12 with some government college grants), I say we should have a military, and police. Those aren't even the only things I advocate for along these lines.
I stand by these comments. We shouldn't be able to harm minorities at will. Tell me, should the government be able to break into your home, kill you, and harvest your organs? Your organs could save five lives. That is five lives versus one. That is promoting that social good we talked about. I believe in individualism, so I don't believe you can murder innocent people for a goal. (I'm sure you'll make up another insane hypothetical. Make it realistic if you do try to justify that. Don't waste my time with another "save the whole world" argument)
I say redistribution can be approached from an individualistic idea. I said if someone pays more than they consume in taxes, it removes tax burden from people. This is why I think some redistribution is justifiable. I just find it hard to believe that a few less sick days is equal to thousands in medical bills(even if sick days were prevented).
I am generally against redistributing wealth. I think it should be kept to a bare minimum. If it were possible to run a country without it, I would probably advocate for that. However, as I have stated numerous times, there are some things that are almost impossible to fund without taxes. I mentioned the military. Roads are another good example.
Actually, of you would remember, this whole discussion began because I disagreed with your definition of evil, not because i though socialism was a "completely evil system". Otherwise, I would have accepted the debate.
I already said I am against illegal immigration.
I am not taking a 100% individual lens, as I said taxes should pay for schooling(to a point), the military, and police already. Stop blantantly lying.
My view is and has been throughout this discussion that taxing is bad and should be kept to a minimum. I never once said(and you know this) that we should have zero taxes. I argue for low taxes.
So, start addressing what I say instead of lying about what I said. I noticed you either cut out part of a quote or don't include one at all when you lie about my position.
:)
Queer isn't a slur. Isn't that what the Q im LGBTQ stands for? I could be wrong.
Why should it matter if people get offended? They don't have to watch his content.
Can't prove someone's intentions. I don't know why he was not gay Jarrod. I'm assuming they knew a gay Jarrod and it was some kind of inside joke.
He used the same exact working for me earlier lol. He can say we use a "100% individualistic lens" but when we say he uses a 100% collectivist lens, THEN that is a strawman.
I am not dodging your points. I'm at work and I saw you left five huge comments, so I have yet to read them.
I don't believe in capitalism 100%. I am more like 90% capitalism, 10% other.
For instance, as you state, I am against open borders (illegal immigration) for a variety of reasons. I would argue that instead of a $15 minimum wage, this could be solved through harshly punishing companies that employ illegal immigrants via fines.
I can't really argue against anything you say because you need to outline your ideas. I asked what 30% capitalism you wanted and you just said "mixed market". I want to know what you think the free market does better.
You can insult me and call me a shill/alt-right, but it makes you look ignorant as it is contrary to the facts. Thinking(or more accurately, knowing) the private sector does most things best doesn't make me alt-right or a shill, my dude. It makes me a realist.
"I obviously know it most likely wouldn't be a productive conversation for me personally as my views have been pretty set for months."
Why didn't you tell me that to start? I didn't come here to talk at a brick wall. I expected some open-mindedness. I tried to find common ground, but you just wanted me to concede everything.
Good day, sir. Good luck with the debate
Notice how healthcare prices began to rise above normal CPI at the same time medicare and medicaid were implemented
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
You sure like to throw the word "free" around a lot. Nothing is free, I'm sorry to break it to you. That money is taken from somewhere else and has unseen consequences.
I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged.
Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory.
I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us.
I think taxes are somewhat redistribution. It is a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible.
Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare.
I guess I have to explain what "overqualified" for a job means lol. It doesn't mean the workers are bored. It means that no one will hire them because they would have to pay them more than they are worth. For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience.
You want McDonald's workers with college degrees..... great idea, my good sir.
How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation....
Okay, a terminally ill person with cancer could cost $1 million. It can get pretty high paying for people with chronic conditions, too.
I don't think you understand how an economy works. When it does better, more people have jobs. They make more money, then they can afford healthcare, my dude. An improving economy isn't some random concept than I am putting over people. A good economy HELPS people. That is why people can probably afford better healthcare when we aren't in a recession. A good economy matters, and if I have to prove that to you, I don't see any point in moving forward.
McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally simliar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV.
You ignored most of my criticism of this as a "trap debate". You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap...
I don't know why you doubt the food is rotten. Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits.
We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid?????????????
Lol, pretends to have brought up points and then states I am alt right. Cool beans.
Tell you what, tomorrow, I will provide statistics on private militaries.
Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad, unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)
NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
Private investment has always been a large portion of the spending too.
We spend a load more on medical research by percentage of GDP than the rest of these socialized countries. We are #1 in biomedical research https://www.futurity.org/america-china-biomed-science-1461002/
It would be pitiful if our life expectancy was lower than a communistic dictatorship. Luckily it isn't
2017: 80 years US
78.8 Cuba
It probably shouldn't be this close, but your claim was false.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree to that.
I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism.
Socialism isn't altruism because "you can't be generous with other peoples' stuff".
I believe in a flat tax because I don't think people should be punished for working harder and therefore gaining more money. They should pay the same amount percentage wise. I don't know how that makes me pro redistribution. I'm not trying to equalize wealth by putting essentially caps on earning.
You assume a lot. You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them. You say that it is a fact that the rich benefit from educated and healthy workers. Ok, sure. I'm arguing that it is true to a lesser extent. More education isn't always good. Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns? No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. That is a case in which we wouldn't. My definition of getting more out is paying more in taxes than we invested in you. I'm okay with paying $10,000 in taxes to fund someone's education if they grow up, get a job, and pay more than that much back in their lifetime. That takes tax burden off others and helps them. I don't believe in money pits.
Also, the government has funded less than 50% of medical research since 2013. Private companies who want to make money invest a lot of money trying to create products that will make them money. I think it is incredible naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. Sure, it may help. The fact that we don't price fix (limit potential revenues) incentivizes investment. Notice that Scandanavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation.
There are also plenty of countries with socialized healthcare that are poor. Cuba, for instance. They are also largely poorer than the US, and we have a more privitized plan.
I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. You injected absolutes making it nearly impossible to win as pro. All you have to do is prove there is one good thing about socialism and you win the whole debate. A more fair debate would be "taxation is theft" or "capitalism is more moral than socialism". You could win this debate with literally any political ideology, even Nazism. If they promoted one thing you liked such as national public schooling, you would have to vote for me because it isn't "completely evil".
They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?
You didn't cite any statistics...I don't think you understand my position. My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. I don't want people starving or not having clean water. Socialistic policies in the past have had a tendency of lowering quality and raising costs: look at our public water systems, public school, even our military. They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper).
There were plenty of problems during the Industrial Revolution. I support anti-trust regulations. Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. They are almost always bad. There were lots of monopolies back then and caused collusion that hurt everyone except the business owners. That doesn't mean you should take money from these people, just allow competition to enter the market and have it create goods and services.
US Obesity rate: 36.2%
Sweden: 20.6%
Denmark:19.7%
Germany: 22.3%
United Kingdom: 27.8%
France:21.6%
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-obese-countries/
Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods.
Number one cause of death in US: heart disease
https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death#heart-disease
This makes up almost a quarter of our deaths. Our diet is a huge reason we have lower life expectancy.
I am rather capitalistic, but I feel like this is a decent idea. Not a perfect idea, but decent.
We fail to be this 100% capitalist paradise. We have fairly free markets, especially relative to most of the world, but we could be better.
Again, you are assuming that without your socialistic policies, the "majority" of people will suffer/not meet basic needs.
I didn't straw man. I said socialist AND/OR collectivist societies. There was an OR there. Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors.
To lighten things up, I think I should say we should agree on something: that socialized healthcare would probably be better than what we have now. What we currently have is one of the worst mixes of government and private sector work. My opinion is that private healthcare would be the best case scenario, but that anything is better than what we have now.
A huge reason that socialized healthcare costs are cheaper though is that people in those countries are healthier. Not because of their healthcare, but because we in America are unhealthy af. We eat way too much junk food.
I believe in police as well because they also protect our rights....
You make a huge leap, and an unsubstantiated one at that. You say that because scandanavian countries have decent economies and socialized healthcare, the socialized healthcare doesn't hurt their economy at all. You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare.
I have argued that the government should pay for school, the military, and the police so far. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic".
What company throws out food that could easily be given to poor people? Usually donations like that can be tax-deductible.
So, I am supposed to believe that 60k+ in college education per student would be good because we would have college-educated fast food workers? I refuse to believe that. We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more. You also neglect that more people going to college because of "FrEe" education would raise tuition prices. There would be shortages of college spots.
So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not. So, stop comparing apples to oranges. Even if attitudes were the same, that doesn't change the reality of their economic programs.
You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals.
A flat tax also makes the rich pay more. Let's say we have a 10% flat tax. Person A makes $100,000/year and person B makes $1,000,000. Person A pays $10,000 in taxes. Person B pays $100,000 in taxes. The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income.
People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves. They may not have a choice in it, but it ultimately protects their freedoms by fighting invaders. They need money to run the military. Taxing is the easiest way to accomplish this. I can't be any more clear.
You really like to clump education and healthcare together. One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone like the military does.
I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. I think that taxes should only ever be used if it is an investment, meaning it helps everyone. An educated populace helps everyone far more than we put in. It prepares them for jobs. You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce time needed to get groceries and go to work. These companies have improved our lives and you want to demonize them because they want to make a profit. They should be allowed to get a profit. Profits are huge incentives, which cause people to create goods that make our lives better. Therefore allowing them to make good money is working towards the public good. Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. It is hard naming things more useful than those from free countries like America.
Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. Even if you make terrible choices, everyone else should carry the burden for those who make worse decisions. The Communist Manifesto also says you shouldn't trade because it creates material wants that didn't exist before, so I would question the validity of Marx's economic plans. They nationalized a bunch of industries and ran a welfare state. Kinda socialistic.
Just curious, what is the 70% socialism and the 30% capitalism?
You really like this topic lol
If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????
Many companies do, but not all. Government healthcare also creates a negative incentive once again. Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? If someone eats junk food and fast food frequently, they never exercise, and they smoke weed, they will have a plethora of health problems. I have to pay for these increased healthcare costs, not them.
You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to. That is called slavery. Also, what if they want to become something worthless to society like a gender studies professor? They won't pay back anything to society that the "free" college and "FrEe" HeAlThCaRe paid into them.
The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism.
Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self interest..... Oh wait, that is impossible and why every socialist country ends in destitution. I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic. A claim you didn't substantiate.
I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well.
You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way. If an enemy is invading and you didn't pay some military toll, would they let the enemy ransack your house? No, a country defends itself and the most effective way to pay for it.
Education: if 10% of our population could afford schooling, we would all be screwed. If anything, this is fairly capitalistic. It takes the tax burden off of whoever the educated business owners would be. You need a high school education to work at any non-minimum wage job. A college degree guarantee is super excessive and unnecessary to make a living.
Well communist governments of the past had the largest influence on the lives of their people. They were definition "big government". Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, all led to mass starvation. I think there is a lot more to the equation. The nation has to be wealthy in the first place, which is what capitalism has historically done.
You act like these European countries are huge socialistic countries. This quite simply isn't the case. They are more capitalistic than us in some ways. Sweden has school vouchers and a privitized pension plan.
We are assuming increased government spending improves the quality of living for the poor. The poverty rate has remained stagnant since the War on Poverty, which included huge government spending increases and new government programs. You are assuming that punishing entrepreneurs with huge taxes and stifling regulation won't cause jobs to get shipped to other countries. I believe creating a good economic environment for businesses is what we need to do to help create jobs and therefore help the poor.
People benefit from increased health and education, but not to the extent you suggest. That is my position.
I don't see how throwing food away saves money.
Healthcare is not a basic right. Rights don't require infringing on others' rights to fulfill. You violate someone else's right to pursuit of happiness. Should someone go to jail if they don't jump in a deep lake to save someone else? Of course not. We aren't required to save everyone at risk to ourselves.
I don't believe in enacting a purge or going out of my way to make someone's life worse. You have to understand that that is also a violation of rights. Killing violates rights. Using the government as a tool to encroach on the pursuit of happiness is a violation of rights. Please stop strawmanning this argument by projecting arguments on me which are incompatible with my individualistic beliefs.
Countless examples...provides none. I'm cool with ending this squabble.
:D
Nazism: national socialism
Don't know where you get your anti-reality indoctrination from
I haven't personally heard claims of Crowder being racist outside of the normal mindless slurs against all conservatives. I need to see why he is claiming this
Could you perhaps name a few outrageous claims of mine so that I can defend them?
I discussed the "homophobia" issue with you and a couple of your irrelevant hypotheticals. I haven't accepted because I need to look into these claims of yours. Unlike you, I don't have an overinflated ego that would require me to accept after such insults. I research before I spout out ideas unlike you
Trying to redo the debate with the fella that forfeited?
Honestly, the main flaw of socialism is the false presumption that people aren't innately self-interested.
Ok, ignore my whole example. If you want to be entirely serious, absolutely no one grows up in the same exact circumstances, so it is completely illogical to presume they will end up the same. My point is that not even children in the same family end up as wealthy as one another. You must consider that some people make much worse decisions than others.
Sure some rich people have a leg up, but hundreds of rich people lose their wealth and hundreds of poor people gain that wealth. It is not impossible to succeed if you're poor at birth.
Redistribution of wealth is bad. That doesn't make me an anarchist. I just want to limit redistribution of wealth when possible. In terms of military and schooling, it is necessary.
I will look into your "born into wealth" claim when I get home from work
Really hard to read on my phone, but I'll do my best lol. I'm saying that government spending has a tendency to reduce private donations. Also, charities such as churches are much better than the federal government because local charities have a much better idea of how to fix problems in their community and incentive to use money more effectively (they can't tax for more revenue). They won't throw money at the problem like the government likes to.
You think that a slowed down economy won't cause more starvation? At the least, the government would have less money to tax with and would need to borrow more to accommodate these increased expenditures. If you would look into it, you would find that starvation is super rare in America. It is so negligible, it is often not included in our death calculations. Very few people even starved during the Great Depression.
Perhaps not everyone wants to live off the government, but do you want to allow people to do That? Sure, we should have something in place for people truly looking to be self-sufficient and can't find a job. But people make worse decisions when there is less weight on those decisions. And no, I'm not the first to make this argument.
If it would be so good for a company to have less worker sick days, then the company would obviously offer health insurance. It would be foolish not to. Many companies do this, but government healthcare raises medical costs and makes this difficult(I can provide my source if you want).
Nazis were socialists by the way..... You make a fatally flawed argument here. You act as though your socialistic governments don't have self-interest. What was the cold war? An attempt at world domination to spread communistic ideologies. It was in their interest to try to fight capitalism and spread their influence. You pretend as though the leaders in socialistic governments have no incentive to keep their immense power.
The thing is, Steven is a comedian, so Omar is just going to take some random quote way out of context (as he loves to do) and make wild claims about him. I don't expect this to be a wholesome debate.