- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Fascism is philosophically opposed to liberalism. This was actually explained quite explicitly by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile in the treatise "The Doctrine of Fascism".
National Socialism is actually a fairly apt nomenclature of the German absorption of Fascist ideals from a political standpoint, because Fascism specifically views the society, and its subsets of individuals, corporations and other legal entities as only relational to the nation-state apparatus.
It's also important to note that the Nazi party was quite literally the most right wing political option during Germany's elections, while they were still going on.
Multiple lines of research actually predicted this a few years ago. In fact, there was already an announcement made in 2011 that a new solar minimum would occur. You can do a quick Google search to verify this. But the expectation was that we quite possibly should have already been experiencing it.
Solar activity is generally very predictable. Around every 11 years, the sun enters a cycle of increased activity. And then after a while it settles down. If this announcement is in fact accurate, it looks like it's making the already established prediction more precise, not establishing a totally new body of knowledge that contradicts climate science.
That being said, solar activity isn't the primary agent for the current rise in average global temperatures. Multiple lines of independent evidence strongly suggest that human activity is the primary cause and that hasn't changed.
I think that they should simply implement some kind of voter-identification card upon voter-registration. And for those who are already registered and on't have such a card, they can make a route to getting it easy or something. I don't know how the exact mechanics would work to facilitate such a thing, since some people who are legal residence don't have photo identification in the first place. But, it should be done.
Why do Dems constantly credit Republicans for what they are trying to do?
I'm not a Democrat. If you read my point more carefully, you'll notice that I'm not giving Republicans credit for what the Democrats did. All I pointed out was that the final bill wasn't very Liberal and was similar to the bills Republicans tried to pass in the past.
I hear "Republicans do it" just about as much as I hear "Let me be clear."
Why don't we just elect Republicans then instead of Dems who keep saying all they are doing is what Republicans do.
I'm fairly positive that there will be a few Republicans voted into office.
Isn't he the one who passed the universal healthcare bill?
So did Republicans. But it's not the passing of the legislation that makes it liberal. What we got was a version of two different bills that had been tried in the past: the Republican healthcare reform of the 90s and the Mitt Romney bill in this last decade, with a vast number of the further amendments coming directly from Republicans (many of whom later rejected the bill on the grounds that it had legislation that they themselves put in it).
There's an important juxtaposition that's not being mentioned. Most scientists are Liberal - and that includes the "rocket scientists". Most educators and academicians are also Liberal. So while Liberals are actors, we're also scientists. While some of us are definitely under-and-uneducated, we also have the teachers and the most educated. Your point seems ultimately... pointless.
I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism.
Quick counterpoise: while watching this year's CPAC convention, I saw conservative, Republican women who were planning to vote participate in the ridiculing of progressivism. If you can't figure out the disconnect there, I can understand precisely why you also don't see the logic in liberalism.
It depends on the circumstance. In public spaces (i.e streets), there is no expectation of privacy, so you can take pictures of or videotape a vast number of things: including basically any person, people boning in a park or someone's underwear. Or even skorts.
Once again, all speculative.
You can repeat this until your fingers rot and fall off. Academic performance is quantitative. Social mobility is quantitative. The human development index is quantitative. It's not speculation.
To me, 300 million people is too much to keep in control and fully happy no matter what we do.
To you. So you're speculating. But that's shifting the goal post and obfuscating the issue. I have never once proposed that anyone can or should be "fully happy".
But no matter what, bigger government is an attack on freedom.
An unsubstantiated position. But name something that people can do in America and not in Amsterdam, or France, or Great Britain, or Iceland or Denmark.
I'm not going to address #2 because I really think it's one of the most stupid arguments I've encountered on the internet.
The government forcing people to do shit, like give up property or pay for things that they don't wish to pay for.
All governments do this. There will always be a time in any government where it will be spending money on something someone somewhere does not want to pay for. Almost all governments can cite eminent domain, stripping property from anyone--that isn't unique to socialism or communism or fascism. The State and Federal government does it often in America.
Capitalism, itself, doesn't force anyone to do anything.
Capitalism is an economic model and set of economic principles. That's it. Stop personifying and socializing it. In a free market system, the market is unregulated. That has no impact on whether the government regulates you as a person. The free-state of the market in a country has no necessary consequence to the free-state of the people.
Socialism - Pay the government or pay the consequences.
What government doesn't demand this?
Capitalism - Do what you like; i don't care.
No: private ownership of the means of production, whose labor and capital is traded on a market, and profit is shared throughout owners and investors. It ain't got nothing to do with you doing what you like and no one caring.
yes, capitalism is more free.
For companies, not for the individual.
but your free of government regulation.
You're not free of government regulation. It's a "free market" and not a "free people" system.
Among the lowest social mobility:
Hertz, Tom. "Understanding Mobility in America". American University For the Center for American Progress. 2006.
Julia Isaacs et al. "Getting ahead or losing ground: economic mobility in America". The Brookings Institution. 2008.
Mazumder, Bhashkar. "Fortunate Sons: New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States Using Social Security Earnings Data". Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Sawhill, Elizabeth and John Morton. "Economic mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?".
Stephen Machin et al. "Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America". Center for Economic Performance. 2005.
Standard of Living
America is also lagging behind in terms of its human development index. There is also negligible difference between the American standard of living and high-income quasi-socialist (according to American standards) countries like Denmark (which should be an example to all other countries on the planet).
American students compare poorly to their developed counterparts. It's not all speculation.
Government regulation uses force.
All systems use force, or there would be no way to maintain the system. The fundamental distinction is whether the force is passive/tacit, or overt.
Capitalist freedom does not. You are able to choose for yourself under capitalist freedom.
You can choose to do anything under any system of discipline. Only the consequences differ. In school, you can choose to not study or even attend. But there will be consequences. A government can create laws, but you or anyone else is free to break those laws. But there will be consequences. You can freely choose to not participate in a Capitalist system, but there will be consequences. Consequence is force. The threat of starving for the rest of your life or not being able to participate in the sociopolitical process is force.
If you mean basic government functions, that's under both socialism and capitalism, but socialism adds a shit load more force.
Socialism doesn't add anything, as we can see by countries like Denmark, Holland, Germany, France. These people aren't magically more unfree or under the durress of government involvement than Americans because they have higher levels of public institutions and involvement. That is absurd. Again, reality is trumping you.
Well, I'm not a Conservative so I guess this didn't apply to me, thus meaning that it was irrelevant to what I was saying.
Based on the history of your debates on this website, you are most definitely Conservative. And you're not moderate. Your statements are a matter of public record here.
Like the government.
Not inherently. And this is precisely evidenced by the fact that in many countries around the world, the government has played an inestimable role in increasing social mobility, overall happiness, standards of living, academic advancement and scientific literacy, among other indexes of modern nations.
Only difference between government regulation and Capitalist failure is that government regulation is by force.
All systems use force.
Seems way more unfair than just letting people try to solve their own damned problems.
Most people do this anyway.
and yes, if a guy can't get laid and you can, it would be leveling the playing field to give him a bit of the action that you are receiving.
I find it interesting that it's conservatives who invariably look at their fellow human beings as chattel. Women aren't property. But this is nothing more than a poorly constructed false analogy.
1) Try not to argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
2) Fail 1) occasionally.
3) Always bring a handkerchief.
4) There are no women on the internet.
5) Greet others more often.
6) Smile more.
7) Make sure to hit the bowl.
8) Go #2 heartily and with great enthusiasm.
9) If you are a man, when using public facilities look straight ahead.
10) Be aware of the bear and nondescript vans.
11) Regardless of what country one comes from, male genitalia should be considered a national treasure.
12) Be careful of traps. The other kind.
13) Be prepared at all times to use a spoon to kill someone.
14) A fool has to say something, a wise man has something to say.
15) Your cup of knowledge should always be empty, even as it is being filled.
I'm going to downvote you and give you a reply.
you know... leveling the playing field.
That isn't leveling the playing field. That's just letting you fuck someone's wife/girlfriend.
Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.
Or! Or... we can be a little more honest and recognize that there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.
And idealism doesn't trump reality. For example, America has one of the lowest social mobility indexes in the developed world. All of those quasi-socialist European countries, with their government involvement and socioeconomic regulatory mechanisms are performing better than America in nearly every quantitative and qualitative index. And, yes, I can support these assertions.
I don't know how else you interpret "provide" Of course it has to be defined how it does that, but that it does it is the important point.
You may have read a part of the legislation (or all of it), but you clearly don't fully understand the writing. As per Title I. Subtitle B, the government is only facilitating an environment wherein high risk customers can buy health insurance from health insurance issuers.
OK, so I've been reading through the bill and I came across this just as an example of how the government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives.
Title I. Subtitle B is about the creation of an interim high risk pool: including people with preexisting conditions. Eligible individuals (d) will be able to purchase health insurance from already existing providers (B)(C)(e). They are also afforded regulatory protections (e) as participating members of the high risk pool. The subtitle also goes on to explicate possible management options for this high risk pool. The suggestions range from non-profits to the various states (2).
OK help me with this one; how is the federal government providing health insurance to millions of Americans not nationalized health care
The federal government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives. That was the point of the Public Option, which doesn't exist anymore. And a Public Insurance Option isn't "nationalized health care".