HELP SOCAL! I'm debating an anarcho-communist...

[huskerjack23]

You're probably the best I've heard at debating for your side of the spectrum. I'd like to figure out how to debate this guy. Mostly he describes that his "utopia" that on a planetary scale people should be given all the essentials, food, shelter, clothing, water, etc. and must contribute back to that society the equal amount. But that apparently doesn't limit their freedom to do whatever they wish, as long as they contribute what they were given. And they can do whatever they want to do with their lives as well. Money also doesn't exist.

 

His philosophy is so full of holes and it's predicated on the fact that resources on earth are completely unlimited. That's where I kept getting stuck because I couldn't think of a limited resource other than time and land.

 

So, could you help me out? Also, don't like to something cuz I don't really want to read. I just kind of want to discuss with you.

[kansas husker]

Oil, water, natural gas we are still searching for a viable renewable energy source. Just giving it a shot until social sees this thread.

[mmmtodd]

hmm. people can do whatever they want. how many people are going to really "want" to be in waste management, or bathroom cleaner at mickey D's, in that scenario? I have no clue what either of you are really debating, but to me you cant just expect people to not only want to give back as much as they recieve, but on top of that for there to be enough people wlling to do things that must be done that no one really wants to do.

 

Sounds like a nightmare scenario for the old "too many chiefs, not enough indians" problem, which is never fun for anyone involved and always ends with people not being able to do what they "want."

[huskertim]

How about hot chicks willing to have sex with you. That's pretty high on the list of things that started the whole dudes hitting each other on the head with clubs bit.

[huskerjack23]

Oil, water, natural gas we are still searching for a viable renewable energy source. Just giving it a shot until social sees this thread.

Oil is replaced by renewable energy sources

 

Water is never gonna run out according to him. If we run out of fresh water then we can take the salt of salt water.

 

Didn't say natural gas but that's definitely a good one.

[huskerjack23]

hmm. people can do whatever they want. how many people are going to really "want" to be in waste management, or bathroom cleaner at mickey D's, in that scenario? I have no clue what either of you are really debating, but to me you cant just expect people to not only want to give back as much as they recieve, but on top of that for there to be enough people wlling to do things that must be done that no one really wants to do.

 

Sounds like a nightmare scenario for the old "too many chiefs, not enough indians" problem, which is never fun for anyone involved and always ends with people not being able to do what they "want."

His argument against this was that for people to truly appreciate what's been given to them that they must put in time and effort into doing it themselves.

 

Yeah I couldn't bring that point across of people not being able to truly do what they want. It seemed completely totalitarian but under the guise of majority rules democracy.

[huskerjack23]

How about hot chicks willing to have sex with you. That's pretty high on the list of things that started the whole dudes hitting each other on the head with clubs bit.

I would doubt that he'd claim that it's a necessity. That's probably why I never brought it up.

[kansas husker]

This guy sounds pretty crazy in his ideals og government. I use debate guys like this then I realized its not worth my time. You can't win no matter what valid points you bring up they say things like we will never run out of water.

[jnkyrdoff6]

If there was no money, you'd have like ten total people in the world who wanted to go to college and become say actuarial accountants. It's not exactly a glamorous or fun job, from what I hear. Generally, people are motivated by money. If money were meaningless, there would be a huge increase in the number of people wanting to take up cake jobs, think current "underpaid" government employees. Why are they "underpaid"? It's because they can basically do whatever they want and not get fired. I, honestly, think you'd have a lot of people aspiring to be McyD's workers. I've worked there. It's easy as pie, as long as you don't give a sh#t about anyone else.

 

In short, if there weren't any motivation (money) to drive people to go to college and "achieve", very few people would. What problems could that cause? Well, I'd think massive unemployment would be a biggie. But, hey, since everyone would share their food and other goods, no one would care if they were unemployed. You'd have the world's largest welfare system.

 

I could go on and on about the flaws in socialism because, ultimately, money makes the world go round. That is partly why it has become a part of our society. It's a necessary evil.

[Manhattan]

Resources are not evenly distributed around the world. Some locations are more desirable to live than others. I can think of a million other reasons why this utopia couldn't possibly work as he describes, but there is only one true way to bring about any world peace and I am kind of surprised that it is explicitly outlawed in your friend's idea of the perfect world. What way is this, you ask?

 

MONEY

 

Money isn't evil. It is really the only way we will live in peace. Free Trade = Peace, and unlike your friend's bullsh#t Utopian idea, this thinking is actually based on historical fact and trends.

 

Let's say, oh, one thousand years ago, Civilization A hates Civilization B. They speak different languages, have different religions, different customs, and are separated only by a narrow body of water and both nations are both strategically important and rich in resources.

 

A wants what B has and vice versa, and they figure that the easiest way they can "have it all" is to destroy each other and take over the other country's land. Lacking any significant trade, sometimes explicitly outlawed trade, and extortionately taxed trade, and horrible infrastructure and communication, war becomes the only way for them to settle their differences.

 

A state of war exists between these nations for several hundred years. More than eight hundred years. As time progresses, the wars become less frequent and less prolonged. What were once prolonged conflicts ranging hundreds of years turned into smaller skirmishes over distant territory. Global infrastructure and trade also increases as time goes on. These trends are not coincidental. It is based on simple human principles:

 

1) People would rather have everything they want and not go to war than go to war and risk being destroyed and lose everything.

 

2) When people realize that they can be at peace and trade for the things they want, they will not go to war, because at the end of the day, Civilization A wants the furs from the forests of Civilization B, and Civilization B wants coal from the hills of Civilization A. They would rather not fight over it, and if an efficient way of trading these resources exists as to be profitable for both parties, both would rather trade than go to war.

 

3) Even though they come from radically different cultures, trading forces them to be at least tolerant of each others' differences so they can conduct business. Over time, they realize they are not so different and are both interested in continued profit and peace between them.

 

4) They will no longer want to go to war with each other because they will have become amiable and dependable trading powers and perhaps support each other in the future.

 

Civilization A is England (Great Britain) and Civilization B is France.

 

A similar situation exists today with the United States and China, and basically most civilized nations of the world. The more access to free trade and global infrastructure that exists to a people of a nation, the less likely they are to go to war. Why is North Korea so militant? Because they have no free trade, no trading history, and they are essentially stuck in the dark ages before the enlightened concepts of global trade. Their only way of acquiring what they want is through war or the threat of war, which is an outdated strategy. And they suffer for it.

 

World governments are in a more stable state and on more stable standings than they have ever been in the history the world. This is largely due to the fact that all of these nations belong to such a globally interdependent society, where almost any war at all between a world power would lead to a far greater poverty than any possible gain. Why do you think all of the wars in the world happen in impoverished, backwards, or anti-capitalist nations?

[huskertim]

as to water, many wars have been and will be fought over water rights Desalinazation is a very costly process and btw requires a level of coordinated technilogical developement that could only have been brought about by an industrialized society which is, in itself, antithetical to the utopian society this doucebag envisions.

 

Also, if sex ins't neccessary to the survival of a species not to mention personal fufillment, then what the hell is?

 

Personnally, I wouldn't bother with this arguement, the guy is obviously not going to be swayed by even the most obvious of facts.

[mmmtodd]

Here is the answer...

[jnkyrdoff6]

This is off topic, but it got me thinking of the day I quit McyDs years ago. This lady was being a real witch to me, and I walked out flipping her off and giving her the suck-it sign all the way to my car with a giant smile on my face. There's a lesson there though. People are a**h*l*s that are motivated by money and sex to their core.

[huskertim]

Here is the answer...

 

 

love it, gonna miss me some D Adams.

[huskerjack23]

Resources are not evenly distributed around the world. Some locations are more desirable to live than others. I can think of a million other reasons why this utopia couldn't possibly work as he describes, but there is only one true way to bring about any world peace and I am kind of surprised that it is explicitly outlawed in your friend's idea of the perfect world. What way is this, you ask?

 

MONEY

 

Money isn't evil. It is really the only way we will live in peace. Free Trade = Peace, and unlike your friend's bullsh#t Utopian idea, this thinking is actually based on historical fact and trends.

 

Let's say, oh, one thousand years ago, Civilization A hates Civilization B. They speak different languages, have different religions, different customs, and are separated only by a narrow body of water and both nations are both strategically important and rich in resources.

 

A wants what B has and vice versa, and they figure that the easiest way they can "have it all" is to destroy each other and take over the other country's land. Lacking any significant trade, sometimes explicitly outlawed trade, and extortionately taxed trade, and horrible infrastructure and communication, war becomes the only way for them to settle their differences.

 

A state of war exists between these nations for several hundred years. More than eight hundred years. As time progresses, the wars become less frequent and less prolonged. What were once prolonged conflicts ranging hundreds of years turned into smaller skirmishes over distant territory. Global infrastructure and trade also increases as time goes on. These trends are not coincidental. It is based on simple human principles:

 

1) People would rather have everything they want and not go to war than go to war and risk being destroyed and lose everything.

 

2) When people realize that they can be at peace and trade for the things they want, they will not go to war, because at the end of the day, Civilization A wants the furs from the forests of Civilization B, and Civilization B wants coal from the hills of Civilization A. They would rather not fight over it, and if an efficient way of trading these resources exists as to be profitable for both parties, both would rather trade than go to war.

 

3) Even though they come from radically different cultures, trading forces them to be at least tolerant of each others' differences so they can conduct business. Over time, they realize they are not so different and are both interested in continued profit and peace between them.

 

4) They will no longer want to go to war with each other because they will have become amiable and dependable trading powers and perhaps support each other in the future.

 

Civilization A is England (Great Britain) and Civilization B is France.

 

A similar situation exists today with the United States and China, and basically most civilized nations of the world. The more access to free trade and global infrastructure that exists to a people of a nation, the less likely they are to go to war. Why is North Korea so militant? Because they have no free trade, no trading history, and they are essentially stuck in the dark ages before the enlightened concepts of global trade. Their only way of acquiring what they want is through war or the threat of war, which is an outdated strategy. And they suffer for it.

 

World governments are in a more stable state and on more stable standings than they have ever been in the history the world. This is largely due to the fact that all of these nations belong to such a globally interdependent society, where almost any war at all between a world power would lead to a far greater poverty than any possible gain. Why do you think all of the wars in the world happen in impoverished, backwards, or anti-capitalist nations?

The argument to this was that people can't own land...it was so hippie. We all use the land for everyone. Not just us but ALL of us. It was so stupid.