• 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!

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?


  • Total voters
    80
Well, I don't know about the US article, but progressivism puts all the emphasis on the collective and gives all the control and responsibility to the government which must be controlled by progressives. Any who oppose such a government are usually considered wrong, evil, bad, selfish, or other uncomplimentary characterizations. To the progressive, it is the government's responsibility to address the major problems of humankind including poverty and only the most heartless among us would object to government programs, however ineffective or destructive, that are presented as efforts to fix what is wrong with society. We are not to question results or consequences--a noble sounding title on the program is considered adequate to support it, and good intentions are all important while the end result is immaterial. If the program is not delivering as advertised, then it is underfunded and needs to be made bigger and more powerful.

Individual initiative, liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and possibilities are set aside or squashed all in the interest of the 'common good' as government decrees it to be.

The progressive dismisses all arguments by non-progressives to end poverty. If government does not address poverty and fix it, in the progressive's mind it won't happen.

You nailed it. I'd be interested in Kobies response.
 
Go away, troll.
Taking the mirror down will help.
Regardless of your absurd comments, the ideas are still absurd and will never be implemented because they are.
 
Are you a supporter of private property, including land?

I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.
 
Well, I don't know about the US article, but progressivism puts all the emphasis on the collective and gives all the control and responsibility to the government which must be controlled by progressives. Any who oppose such a government are usually considered wrong, evil, bad, selfish, or other uncomplimentary characterizations. To the progressive, it is the government's responsibility to order society in the progressive mold and address the major problems of humankind including poverty and only the most heartless among us would object to government programs, however ineffective or destructive, that are presented as efforts to fix what is wrong with society. We are not to question results or consequences--a noble sounding title on the program is considered adequate to support it, and good intentions are all important while the end result is immaterial. If the program is not delivering as advertised, then it is underfunded and needs to be made bigger and more powerful.

Or evil, selfish, hateful, greedy conservatives prevented it from being effective.

Individual property, initiative, liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and possibilities are set aside or squashed all in the interest of the 'common good' as government decrees it to be.

The progressive dismisses all arguments by non-progressives to end poverty. If government does not address poverty and fix it, in the progressive's mind it won't happen.
I don't think you're describing actual progressiveism here.

Sounds more like communism without the naked force.
 
I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.
So in other words, you do not support private property.

The whole line of reasoning makes no sense at all.
 
I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.

I agree with you that possession of land is not a legitimate form of property, however I do have a question about this "fee" you are referring to. Who is the "fee" paid to? Where does it go?
 
I agree with you that possession of land is not a legitimate form of property, however I do have a question about this "fee" you are referring to. Who is the "fee" paid to? Where does it go?

Government. He is talking about an element of Georgism, btw.
 
So in other words, you do not support private property.

Which makes no sense at all.

Land is not property. Property comes with an inherent right to destroy, and you have no right to destroy land. Property also presupposes creation, land can not be created.

Supporting "private property" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting mythical creatures. Private property does not exist, therefore any "support" for it is meaningless and subjective.
 
So in other words, you do not support private property.

The whole line of reasoning makes no sense at all.

It's Georgism. It runs on the false belief that we all own the earth. Anyone with that belief can't be expected to establish the ownership of all the land of the earth to all the people of the planet. It's a false belief that has to run on the unproven assumption that because we are born we own something other than ourselves.
 
I support the private possession of land. But I do not view it as property in the sense that capital is property. Capital is created. Land is not. We are all born with a right to access what nature has provided. It only makes sense that I pay a fee if I am to hold it in exclusion.

Is that not property taxes and the purchase of the property? Are you a socialist?
 
Land is not property. Property comes with an inherent right to destroy, and you have no right to destroy land. Property also presupposes creation, land can not be created.

Supporting "private property" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting mythical creatures. Private property does not exist, therefore any "support" for it is meaningless and subjective.
:doh
Land is, and has been, property. It is owned.
 
I don't think you're describing actual progressiveism here.

Sounds more like communism without the naked force.

At such time as the government decides to confiscate all the property and private businesses and make them part of the collective, that's pretty much what it will be as it exists or has existed in totalitarian countries. The naked force is already in place.
 
:doh
Land is, and has been, property. It is owned.

Nope. Land has been homesteaded and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.
 
It's Georgism. It runs on the false belief that we all own the earth. Anyone with that belief can't be expected to establish the ownership of all the land of the earth to all the people of the planet. It's a false belief that has to run on the unproven assumption that because we are born we own something other than ourselves.
:thumbs:
Yes, I am aware of his beliefs. He makes them known all the time.
 
Nope. Land has been homesteaded, and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.
Wrong.
 
Nope. Land has been homesteaded and possessed. It has never been owned. Ownership presupposes creation and the right to destroy. Land "ownership" entails neither.

No, it doesn't. You own things that come from the earth like apples, and acorns and there is no requirement that you planted the tree yourself.
 
Land is not property. Property comes with an inherent right to destroy, and you have no right to destroy land. Property also presupposes creation, land can not be created.

Supporting "private property" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting mythical creatures. Private property does not exist, therefore any "support" for it is meaningless and subjective.

Very Marxian in concept. :) However, we Americans pretty much go with the English common law concept when it comes to the land. In English common law, real property or real estate or any immovable property that is legally defined along with improvements to it such as buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. are indeed a person's private property when legally purchased or acquired. Real property and personal property are the two main subunits of property in English Common Law.
 
IMO the best way is to minimize regulations, requirements, and taxes.

Not eliminate, for there are good reasons for some regulations and requirements.

Taxes to.

But the less regulations and requirements someone needs to meet, the faster they can get stuff done.
 
You own things that come from the earth like apples, and acorns and there is no requirement that you planted the tree yourself.

Ownership doesn't presuppose your creation, it presupposes creation in general. You don't have to create everything you own for you to own it. It can be created by someone else and then traded or bought. That is the legitimate transfer of property. If I plant an apple tree, and then trade you some of my apples for your oranges, that is the legitimate transfer of property.

The same thing cannot be done with land. Land was always here and it is commonly owned by everyone. No one individual has a right to land just because they say they do.

I am not against the possession and homesteading of land, however it is important that we establish it is not a legitimate form of property.
 
Very Marxian in concept. :)

Karl Marx is highly propagandized. I didn't agree with all of his ideas, but he laid out some very legitimate, intelligent arguments for a system he supposed would end or reduce poverty and human suffering. There were some good ideas, there were some bad ideas, but he is nowhere near the villain that the Right would like to make him out to be.

However, we Americans pretty much go with the English common law concept when it comes to the land. In English common law, real property or real estate or any immovable property that is legally defined along with improvements to it such as buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. are indeed a person's private property when legally purchased or acquired. Real property and personal property are the two main subunits of property in English Common Law

I'm aware of how America approaches "property", however I simply disagree with it. I don't think land can be legitimately owned in the sense that you can own an apple or a computer. I am not against possession or homesteading of land. People would still own houses, farm/maintain land, and enjoy a little piece of the world. However claiming that land is "property" has some very disastrous environmental and social consequences. It's important that we understand and recognize that the Earth is owned by everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom