• 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
If instead of using the term "politician" you had used "statesman" in your poll I think the result would have been different. Politicians and businessmen are a dime a dozen. A statesman only comes once in a generation, if that.

One man's opportunism is another man's statemanship. I should have used the words "what occupation" instead of "who."
 
One man's opportunism is another man's statemanship. I should have used the words "what occupation" instead of "who."

Well, while I understand what you meant, I think it is more about the "who" than the "what." Who is more admirable? I'd place people like Konrad Adenauer, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, and Winston Churchill against any businessman. All of these men stood for something other than money.
 
Well, while I understand what you meant, I think it is more about the "who" than the "what." Who is more admirable? I'd place people like Konrad Adenauer, Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, and Winston Churchill against any businessman. All of these men stood for something other than money.

Each of these men did have their ideals, and some were very instrumental in doing good things, allowing good things to happen. However, it is wrong in my personal opinion to put such powerful men above the individuals who actually create society. Leaders of a society do not create anything. They can either regulate creation or allow it to happen without interferring. Some may stand for a new status quo that brings more liberties to more individuals, and I commend those individuals. But it is the businessman that creates innovation and discovery.
 
Each of these men did have their ideals, and some were very instrumental in doing good things, allowing good things to happen. However, it is wrong in my personal opinion to put such powerful men above the individuals who actually create society. Leaders of a society do not create anything.

In a state of anarchy, businessmen are free to create whatever they want. And yet they don't. Why is that? Because it's the politician who creates the environment--establishes the rule of law, a system of weights and measures, a taxation system that allows for the construction of basic infrastructure, etc.--that permits a society to rise above anarchy and prosper.
 
In a state of anarchy, businessmen are free to create whatever they want. And yet they don't. Why is that? Because it's the politician who creates the environment--establishes the rule of law, a system of weights and measures, a taxation system that allows for the construction of basic infrastructure, etc.--that permits a society to rise above anarchy and prosper.

Nobody creates anything in a state of anarchy? Are you sure about that?
 
A politician who is in politics for the right reason is much more rare than the endless supply of people who wish to make themselves rich.
 
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.

those of us who agree with him would probably shoot you if you tried that. That is how things work in a free society
 
Nobody creates anything in a state of anarchy? Are you sure about that?

In a state of anarchy, I suppose there is nothing in principle to stop people from cooperating, creating, and producing. But when one looks at successful societies, they tend to have one thing in common: good governance. How many admirable businessmen do you find in societies that don't have good government? You see any admirable businessmen in Somalia? :confused:
 
Last edited:
If instead of using the term "politician" you had used "statesman" in your poll I think the result would have been different. Politicians and businessmen are a dime a dozen. A statesman only comes once in a generation, if that.

You mean a promoter of the common good?
No thanks. I want politicians who get out of the way. That gives every individual has an opportunity to succeed on their own.
 
History is filled with great and noble politicians, not so with businessmen.
 
History is filled with great and noble politicians, not so with businessmen.

but I don't recall any businessmen killing millions of innocent people



history is full of politicians who did


Henry Ford was a great and noble businessman, in fact most of life's comforts come from such people
 
well, let's see; one of these professions creates prosperity by placing something of his own at risk, and is the basis of our society.

and the other believes that they are demigods because they were willing to suck up to the right party bigwigs and donors, and then ran a decent enough campaign in the right year to get elected.

one of them must be constantly innovating, growing, and better meeting the needs and preferences of others in order to survive.

the other has gerrymandering to ensure an over 90% retention rate.

one wants to trade me something for my money, and i am free to tell them to go to hell.

the other wants to take my money and give it to someone else; and what they are willing to 'trade' for this is me not going to jail.


there are fdew politicians that i respect, and most of them are not career. but respect is my default position for the small businessman. Term Limits.
 
but I don't recall any businessmen killing millions of innocent people



history is full of politicians who did


Henry Ford was a great and noble businessman, in fact most of life's comforts come from such people
I didn't say there weren't ignoble politicians.

By the way, Henry Ford was a loony anti-Semite and unethical businessman.
 
I didn't say there weren't ignoble politicians.

By the way, Henry Ford was a loony anti-Semite and unethical businessman.

does hating business go hand in hand with being liberal?

name a great politician
 
Otto von Bismarck.

Seriously? he was a great politician but his anti-papist and anti polish policies certainly showed him to be bigoted and flawed

he also couldn't stand socialists so he has some admirable qualities
 
Seriously? he was a great politician but his anti-papist and anti polish policies certainly showed him to be bigoted and flawed

he also couldn't stand socialists so he has some admirable qualities
Nobody is perfect, but he's more good than bad. Can't say the same of any notable businessman I've heard of. Bismarck is worthy of my respect in the way a snake like Henry Ford is not.

Maybe Bill Gates, but he also happens to be a monopolist, or at least he was.
 
Each of these men did have their ideals, and some were very instrumental in doing good things, allowing good things to happen. However, it is wrong in my personal opinion to put such powerful men above the individuals who actually create society. Leaders of a society do not create anything. They can either regulate creation or allow it to happen without interferring. Some may stand for a new status quo that brings more liberties to more individuals, and I commend those individuals. But it is the businessman that creates innovation and discovery.
I think businessman and entreupeneur (spelling?) are not always the same thing. Someone can create something new, or innovate, or invent, or build, all things related to producing a product. The average businessman is just a salesman, making a commission off the creativity of others. Not saying it is bad, just that selling isn't really something special.
 
I want politicians who get out of the way. That gives every individual has an opportunity to succeed on their own.

In a state of anarchy, that's not a problem. No politicians.
 
Nelson Mandela too.
 
In a state of anarchy, businessmen are free to create whatever they want. And yet they don't. Why is that? Because it's the politician who creates the environment--establishes the rule of law, a system of weights and measures, a taxation system that allows for the construction of basic infrastructure, etc.--that permits a society to rise above anarchy and prosper.

You are partially right, but generally the statement is false. Governments can set a standard of weights and measures, and this was the Qing Dynasty's greatest achievement. But it is not required in order to create society. Government does establish the rule of law, so that businessmen and women can go about their lives creating without fear of injury from their neighbors. This is something that Libertarians fundamentally agree is a necessity. A taxation system does not allow for the construction of basic infrastructure. It allows for the rule of law to be enforced. Taxation, in largely other forms, simply takes away the earnings of one set of citizens in order to distribute largesse to another set of citizens. Taxation NEVER builds, it only takes away.

And if anarchy is daily life without government interference, then perhaps we should look at our daily lives. We go our whole lives nearly detached from the government. Yet, we still live our lives and we still prosper. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment: "Live and let live!"
 
In a state of anarchy, I suppose there is nothing in principle to stop people from cooperating, creating, and producing. But when one looks at successful societies, they tend to have one thing in common: good governance. How many admirable businessmen do you find in societies that don't have good government? You see any admirable businessmen in Somalia? :confused:

That is a common misconception, and I'm very technical about terms so you might become suddently agitated. Anarchy is the total absence of government. If a Warlord is your head of state or the politician that has direct control of your life, then that is not anarchy. A failed state is not the same as anarchy. Anarchy, in its purest sense, is total individual liberty. It is impossible, which is why I'm a Libertarian. I do believe in a government that serves fundamental purposes.

We don't see any admirable businessmen in Somalia (as opposed to the United States) because people in Somalia are not free.
 
History is filled with great and noble politicians, not so with businessmen.

How long would it take me to write down the names of every single "politician" in history whose actions would disgust the average decent being? "Good politicians" are extremely hard to find. Good Businessmen are a dime a dozen in free countries.

And as a future poster already has mentioned, politicians can kill large numbers of people legally while the businessman is confined to selling us stuff.

Politicians often kill smart, savvy businessmen. Businessmen do not kill politicians.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say there weren't ignoble politicians.

By the way, Henry Ford was a loony anti-Semite and unethical businessman.

Of course he was! But look at the results of his actions. FDR was an anti-Semite. Do you despise FDR for that? He also interned more than 120,000 innocent Japanese (2/3 were citizens) and packed the supreme court. Our founding fathers owned slaves, and they were decent politicians in my regard.

Ford did something truly amazing. He put America on the road. He put Americans behind the wheel and gave them the transportation to move from one area to another very quickly. MOBILITY. The mobility of a nation creates great prosperity, and allows for the average working man to rise up and out of his economic status. And he did for the average working man, not the most elitist subjects. You have to balance out the decencies with the humanist flaws.
 
Back
Top Bottom