Total topics: 4
Under capitalism, only 1% of people can be part of the top 1%. Embrace socialism, where 100% of people can be part of the top 1%.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Noam Chomsky is radically opposed to the concept of intellectual property:
"There’s a name for [intellectual property] in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can’t do it." - Chomsky
That seems like a very clear stance. But now let's see how Mr. Chomsky feels about his intellectual property:
Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators (with the exception of any third-party material used here by permission, copyright by the respective authors).
Copyright © Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky 1988 Introduction © Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky 2002 Afterword © Edward S. Herman 2008 Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the authors of this work
Copyright © 2017 by L. Valeria-Galvao-Wasserman-Chomsky
I'll give Chomsky supporters a chance to come to his defense here, but his position seems wildly inconsistent.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Most of my debates so far have been me defending Socialism.
I want to try defending Capitalism, so I’m proposing an open challenge.
I suggest the resolution, “Capitalism is better than Socialism.”
I will be Pro.
It will be an on-balance debate.
Title, definitions, and rules are negotiable.
Name your terms.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
To avoid this being labelled a callout thread, I will specify that this is attacking an idea, not a certain individual who keeps using the idea.
The idea is exacerbated due to Covid targetting the obese harsher in its symptoms and lethality, similar to the elderly and those with lung and heart conditions (actually heart conditions and obesity are closely linked but can be independent).
In Japan, South Korea and many 'western' social democracies today, you will notice something extremely shocking when you compare it with the general people's body proportions in a nation like the US or the upper class in less developed nations; there are becoming less 'fat' people amongst the wealthy in these nations.
Why is that? It is perhaps, if extremely cynical, to do with campaigns and policies of 'taxing sugar' etc that certain governments carried out over recent years to help (according to skeptics who propose this idea) to reduce costs on the socialised or partially-socialised healthcare. If that's true, why don't proponents of this idea support the US doing that then?
As in, why don't proponents of the idea that obese people would drain the economy too much if healthcare were socialised, instead support information programs and policies on fast food (the same meal name in Europe is around only 60% as unhealthy as the same meal in the US, I am not exaggerating, this is due to strict EU policy regarding 'how unhealthy a single meal can be' in Europe which is a law that simply doesn't even exist in US), Japan and South Korea also healthier but that is more cultural (if it was purely oily and greasy fast food there, they'd not visit it much as they have much healthier 'fast food' outlets, focused on strips of meat and/or fish with decent amount of vegetables and only easy-to-digest starch formats like rice, etc).
If you would observe what a culture can do if it begins to positively (not negatively or abusively) pressure the obese to make healthier life decisions, as one whole society (rather than individuals teasing and having spite for one another) you would see a much more exponential transition towards a healthier populace. You can call it Orwellian, even I was not a fan of the sugar tax (I love sugary treats now and again and am a slim guy myself) but ultimately it's about the 'greater good'.
If more people end up less draining on society and happier+healthier, these policies can be optimal for the society. It's all based around that metric. Stop screaming 'freedom' and then going 'oh no not everyone uses their freedom so wisely'. You don't matter enough on your own for your 'good life decisions' to outweigh the bad ones others can/will make without guidelines and restrictions. You're not the only citizen of your nation.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics