• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?


  • Total voters
    43
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ideally, the politician. In reality, both tend to be bad, but one of the people I admire most is a businessman.

So, basically a choice between my ideal and a person I admire.

Since judges are a type of politician, that spikes politicians some points; there are few persons I admire more than judges, and the judicial branch is my 'preferred' branch of government.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you just don't understand the power of good business and blurring the line between need and wanting?

Perhaps not in the sense that you understand "good business" or "blurring the line between need and want." I really mind the businessman's attempt to claim my want is an actual need, because he has no power to control my purchasing decisions. Governments, on the other hand, are notorious for blurring this line.
 
Let's say there's a firefighter who goes home and beats his wife and molests his kids. I don't admire this person, regardless of his occupation. He's a piece of ****.

Now let's say there is another guy who got laid off from his job and is having so much trouble making ends meet his kids are starving. He's at the end of his rope, so he decides that dealing crack and risking his life and freedom is worth it to keep his kids' belly full. I don't agree with his choice, but I do admire the fact that he's willing to do whatever it takes for his kids.

Of course there are exceptions. You honestly think I don't know that? But stop kidding yourself for a second and just recognize that society DOES, in fact, admire certain occupational positions over others. It is honorable to save and protect lives for a living.

And your last paragraph has to be a joke! Selling poison to feed your children is admirable in your opinion? "Do whatever it takes for his kids?" How about robbing a liquor store? Is that admirable?
 
Teachers. Duh.

Not really. Teachers help to generate or regenerate creativity and knowledge They do not, necessarily, build the society from the bottom up (Ford built something, a teacher would simply tell his story and hope that it fuels more creation and discovery).
 
The creation of, the maintenance of, and the amending of the state. Without a state (or substituted authority), we would live in chaos, but instead we have a state that proposes to have the twin goals of providing the best it can for the commonwealth as well as protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We do not have to like what each politician does, but the suggestion that all he/she does is talk is ridiculous and goes against the poster's well-known post history.

You should read Hakim Bey. I'm not an anarchist, but I tend to be very skeptical of the idea of a complete chaos as a result of the diminishing of a state. Think about when you get together with your neighbors and have a BBQ. It's a communal practice that requires no governmental planning. The state, temporarily, does not exist in a neighborhood gathering and yet there is no chaos.
 
Teachers do much more than teach what is in a textbook. I would say its 40% what is in a textbook and 60% understanding the childs problems, teaching them how to stay in line, and teaching them to get along, etc

What an idealistic fantasy?!
 
Well, you're putting the ridiculousness of your own question into the light here. A dictator is a politician, and a crack dealer is a businessman.

You can't really compare people like that just based on what they do. There are both good and bad politicians, and good and bad businessmen, so just saying which do you admire more, a politician or a businessman, is not answerable. You could be comparing Hitler to Warren Buffet. Or you could be comparing Abraham Lincoln to Bernard Madoff.

I commend this response. IMHO, this is perhaps the most well thought-out response against my original argument. If you were a libertarian who believed in the legalization of drugs, you would beat me in this debate. But instead, you're "slightly liberal" which leads me to assume you don't agree with the legalization of drugs. Therefore, crack dealing is an illegal business as we now see it. You cannot compare a legal occupation to an illegal occupation in this debate.

But for the most part, your argument contains great merit. There are bad businessmen and good politicians. I'm just under the assumption that the collective good of society stems more from the productive actions of businessmen versus the productive actions of politicans. It's a very generalized debate.
 
At the same time many of these concerns travel to the politician's occupation and impact that vote, even if those criteria are nearly out of his or her control or factor into governing styles, amendments, and so forth.

That's a nice way to conceal the general motive of which each occupation stands to survive. Politicians, through historical practice, care more about concentrating power in their own hands than they do about actually improving society. Businessmen care more about success and profit than they do your health and wellness, but somehow their greed ends up benefitting all of society.
 
I don't know - did the firefighter set the blaze before he went to fight, killing a child and her mother?
Is the Doctor a quack working out of a storage shed?
Do the nurses secretly kill their patients?
Do the teachers molest their students?
Are police officers under-the-table thugs acceptign a blind eye to crime?

Is the minister a pedophile?
The blood-splatter-analyst a serial killer?

Is the crack dealer only a crack dealer because it's the life that thug Mom and Dad thrust him into when he was 10 to satisfy their own drug habits?
Dictators - again, some are bad and some are good.

Occupation doesn't mean a ****ing thing, apparently.

Oddly - I could think of more real-life examples of a "bad" cop/officer/lawyer/judge/politican/priest/teacher than I could good examples of a crack dealer/gangster/rapist.

Seems that crime is afoot and comes in all colors.

Way to state the obvious! Now, which occupation do you admire more?
 
Tell me how starting wars, crushing civil liberties, excessive regulations for business is productive for society?



Exactly

Wars can help create economic booms as well as help create recessions and bring down the state. Wars can also allow the state to have access to natural resources previously unavailable or deplete resources. Crushing civil liberties, if it was necessary, keeps the state in order, or it can create a seemingly unjustified tyranny. Regulations on business can improve the working of the given industry, the workers, or it can bring about unintended consequences that are negative in nature. At any rate, productive merely means the development of a given result.
 
That's a nice way to conceal the general motive of which each occupation stands to survive. Politicians, through historical practice, care more about concentrating power in their own hands than they do about actually improving society. Businessmen care more about success and profit than they do your health and wellness, but somehow their greed ends up benefitting all of society.

It is similarly easy to oversimplify the criteria that holds the businessman's attention, but I would not do so. For instance, you start with a negative and end with a positive with regard to businessmen, but hold back with the politician and do not mention the following: "but somehow their greed ends up benefitting all of society." Would not this also apply towards those who govern?
 
Last edited:
You should read Hakim Bey. I'm not an anarchist, but I tend to be very skeptical of the idea of a complete chaos as a result of the diminishing of a state. Think about when you get together with your neighbors and have a BBQ. It's a communal practice that requires no governmental planning. The state, temporarily, does not exist in a neighborhood gathering and yet there is no chaos.

I could give that author a try sometime soon, given time, of course. I suppose I am more Hobbesian than some Americans. However, when we plan a BBQ with neighbors, we still have the protection of three levels of government: the city, the state, and the federal government. When the stakes are higher, a contract, I believe would be most beneficial, which would delegate authority to some sort of body.
 
Last edited:
It is similarly easy to oversimplify the criteria that holds the businessman's attention, but I would not do so. For instance, you start with a negative and end with a positive with regard to businessmen, but hold back with the politician and do not mention the following: "but somehow their greed ends up benefitting all of society." Would not this also apply towards those who govern?

That's the conundrum of the society in which we live. The more busybodies limit our individual freedom to right all the wrongs in life, the more life turns to ****. The ones committed to creating the greatest good through legislative acts is often the creator of the most hellish tyrannies on Earth. The businessman is an average individual intent on improving his life and the lives of those around him (his family and most intimate community). Yet, the greed of rational self-interest leads the entrepreneur to create new ideas and new ways of delivering this idea to the rest of society. And these ideas almost always improve the lives of everyone. As Adam Smith once wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we receive our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests."
 
I could give that author a try sometime soon, given time, of course. I suppose I am more Hobbesian than some Americans. However, when we plan a BBQ with neighbors, we still have the protection of three levels of government: the city, the state, and the federal government. When the stakes are higher, a contract, I believe would be most beneficial, which would delegate authority to some sort of body.

I do not deny, nor oppose the protection of liberties by government. I'm arguing that the government's laws have no bearing on our individual morality, and no government is needed to actually make our individual day-to-day decisions. We can do it on our own without government planning and in the absence of chaos.
 
But stop kidding yourself for a second and just recognize that society DOES, in fact, admire certain occupational positions over others.

Nice strawman. you make it seem like I don't realize that society does this, when all I said is that I would need more detail to make the determination.

I don't admire a certain occupation over another, especially not the one's being discussed. I judge people on their character.

And your last paragraph has to be a joke! Selling poison to feed your children is admirable in your opinion? "Do whatever it takes for his kids?" How about robbing a liquor store? Is that admirable?

Robbing a liquor store to feed your family when no other option exists? Yeah, I admire a person willing to do that in those situations.



Like I said, I need more details before I can make the determination of which one is more admirable. Most politicans AND businessmen I've met in my life were douchebags.
 
That's the conundrum of the society in which we live. The more busybodies limit our individual freedom to right all the wrongs in life, the more life turns to ****. The ones committed to creating the greatest good through legislative acts is often the creator of the most hellish tyrannies on Earth. The businessman is an average individual intent on improving his life and the lives of those around him (his family and most intimate community). Yet, the greed of rational self-interest leads the entrepreneur to create new ideas and new ways of delivering this idea to the rest of society. And these ideas almost always improve the lives of everyone. As Adam Smith once wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we receive our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests."

However, as I am quite sure you would acknowledge, greed on the part of the businessman could have dire consequences towards the commonwealth if allowed. You prefer the grower of products, the direct contributor of the economy, providing for himself and for others. I do not deny such audacity, such risk, and such glorious rewards. On the other hand, I merely admire more those who are tasked to make the society orderly and lawful.
 
Last edited:
I'm also packing and moving over the next week, but I would also put out there that politicians are also big idea producers which can improve the lives of "everyone."
 
I'm also packing and moving over the next week, but I would also put out there that politicians are also big idea producers which can improve the lives of "everyone."

And which idea is that? The idea to live and let live is a good idea. I'm not sure a politician created that one.
 
You should read Hakim Bey. I'm not an anarchist, but I tend to be very skeptical of the idea of a complete chaos as a result of the diminishing of a state. Think about when you get together with your neighbors and have a BBQ. It's a communal practice that requires no governmental planning. The state, temporarily, does not exist in a neighborhood gathering and yet there is no chaos.

What would stop me from coming over with a group of my friends, after you've already cooked up the steaks, and forcibly taking them? Nothing. There may be no governmental planning, but without governmental protection you'd be a lot less secure.
 
And which idea is that? The idea to live and let live is a good idea. I'm not sure a politician created that one.

What about something like the TVA? That produced jobs and electricity that have overall been a huge public boon. Or the freeways we drive on. These things are tremendously helpful to everyone, and would likely not have happened without the government.
 
Good politicians are good

Bad Politicians are bad

Good Businessmen are good

Bad Businessmen are bad

Good politician vs. Bad Businessmen = Good politician

Good businessmen vs. Good politician = Good Businessmen

Next class we'll teach you how not ask questions that can't be answered in a black and white fashion.

I hope you're not he teacher.
 
What would stop me from coming over with a group of my friends, after you've already cooked up the steaks, and forcibly taking them? Nothing. There may be no governmental planning, but without governmental protection you'd be a lot less secure.

As I said, I'm not an anarchist, but I do understand temporary autonomous zones. I'm a libertarian, which means I believe government should be strictly limited to protecting our fundamental rights (not materialistic rights - ie universal health care, paid vacations, etc) and should protect our liberties from the obstructive acts of other individuals or institutions. Therefore, it follows, I do not believe in privatizing the military or the police force.

Just to argue devil's advocate, the major reason why you wouldn't come over with a group of your friends to steal my steaks is because (in a world of anarchy) I might possibly be armed to the teeth and you could very well die. So I guess, when you boil it down, government DOES NOT create morality through legislation. You would not do such a thing because you want to live FIRST and the steaks are not worth a painful death. You would refrain from committing harmful acts against other human beings because of the possible repercussions. Because other human beings are just like you. They just want to live life without annoyance. Those who kill, rape, and molest have little regard to human life and therefore exhibit no decency in the presence or absence of law.
 
Nice strawman. you make it seem like I don't realize that society does this, when all I said is that I would need more detail to make the determination.

I don't admire a certain occupation over another, especially not the one's being discussed. I judge people on their character.



Robbing a liquor store to feed your family when no other option exists? Yeah, I admire a person willing to do that in those situations.



Like I said, I need more details before I can make the determination of which one is more admirable. Most politicans AND businessmen I've met in my life were douchebags.

This is quite a strawman argument. Only, you're putting up the strawman and I'm bored enough to break it down. Here's an easy way to find out if you admire an occupation (I, of course, honor human beings before intangible occupations...but this thread is specifically about occupations):

Are you employed? Have you EVER, in your entire life, wished or fantasized about working in some particular field for a living ("What do you do for a living?" haveis often a question about one's own occupation)? If the answer is yes to either one of these questions, then you have, in fact, admired certain occupational positions throughout your life. This wasn't meant to be as deep as, "Who has been your favorite human being(s) in life?" This is more like, "What career would you choose if you had these two choices?"
 
However, as I am quite sure you would acknowledge, greed on the part of the businessman could have dire consequences towards the commonwealth if allowed. You prefer the grower of products, the direct contributor of the economy, providing for himself and for others. I do not deny such audacity, such risk, and such glorious rewards. On the other hand, I merely admire more those who are tasked to make the society orderly and lawful.

Like I've stated before, I support a limited government that will protect the fundamental rights of human beings to live free and just lives. Thomas Jefferson once said, "If it doesn't break my leg or pick from my pocket, I'm fine with it." If the businessman's greed is so vile that he's actually committing fraud and abuse, then he should be absolutely punished by society. If, however, a young couple buys a home with a ridiculous, interest-only loan (it happens all the time) without reading the contract first, then it is not my responsibility to pay for their mistake or to pay for some inefficient oversight commission that will do little to prevent ignorance from happening. Any student of regulatory capture understands the dire consequences of governmental interference.

And who makes society orderly and lawful? Mussolini made the trains run on time. Is that order? And who creates the criminals? The more LAWS you create, the more CRIMINALS you create.
 
Back
Top Bottom