Right Wing Liberarianism is better than Left Wing

I am going to argue to the contrary. I believe that policies that lean towards the common-good are far more moral than policies that maintain elitism. I will even argue that a society built around the common-good, with emphasis on community values and freedom of expression, will actually be far better economically than one built for the benefit of the elite. Right-wing politics (or the politics of elitism) is far less economically efficient than a society built for the common-good. Elitism is defined by monetary profit, the measure of power is therefore in monetary form (or physical power, but this is not relevant here). In a elitist society, it is obviously desirable to be an elite, so the drive for monetary wealth and excessive profits is inevitable without adopting socialist values. This drive for profit leads to such things as planned obselecence and the rejection of certain brilliant technologies-such as the water car (1): technology with potential to make oil obsolete and end the fossil fuel crisis; bought up and retained from society by big buisness. Both these things cause excessive damage to the environment that is totally avoidable, indeed the excess is to maximise profit for the elites.These things (planned obselecence and technology rejection) would not exist in a society made for the common good, because they create more human work, create more environmental damage, make more waste, cost more rescources and increase consumer costs. A world made for the common good would share this workload and thus strive to reduce it, also the cost to the environment is a factor that concerns the 'common-good' society, unlike an elitist one. This is because the nature of a society modelled by the elite is only concerned with the preservation of that which the elite can enjoy, all other conservation is the result of non-profit, activist groups. The right-wing political ideology is not a responsible keeper of the environment, this is clear based on observations of our current capitalist nations, but also in theory: because elitist, right-wing political societies are either authoritarian, and this is irrelevant as I don't guess my opponent is arguing in favour of them, or capitalist. Capitalist societies, that lean to the right, are based around maximising profit and individualism. A society that rewards greed, and that is not guided by the common-good, but rather allowes itself to be dictated by the desires of individual men-for their materialistic gain-is doomed to failure and inevitable exhaustion. The power of mankind over the earth is far too great now for such recklessness, it may of been less damaging before the days of industrialisation, but now the power of mankind to destroy and exploit the earth is at a level whereby intelligent thinking is needed to ensure its responsible use, . Points: Right-wing ideology is worse for the planet. The preservation of the environment is in the interests of the common-good. A society with the common-good in mind, protects the world for the good of mankind. If individuals have the means to make personal profit at the expense of a portion of the environment, they will, or somebody else will. Another thing that demonstrates this to be worse is the water car example. People work less hours. A society that shares its workload acts to reduce it, in a capitalist world those in power are always trying to increase their profits, thus resulting in lower-wages and longer working hours for the powerless. Don't forget that because prison and Medicare are profitable organisations, they almost cancel out the reason why they exist in the first place, as they seek to ensure they remain in business. Medical companies notoriously conceal cures in favour of more profitable treatments-always at your expense. For if they cure you, your no use to them-the system itself is flawed. Same with prisons; its not because the criminal justice system is stupid why 2 thirds of criminals re-offend. Apart from ill health and criminality, this increases human work even more so. People would be happier. Capitalism requires people to be materialistic to ensure its continuation, it encourages and creates this mentality anyway wherever it goes by tempting our desires and twisting our human nature to fit consumerism. A mind filled with consumer goods and fit for consumerism is less happy than a mind interconnected with its community and guided by spiritual fulfilment. We have been conditioned to find this attitude unworthy of respect, so I implore you to think again with an open-mind. Our current culture is consumerism and its been encouraged by right-wing ideology. This orchestrated cultural mentality is created by the big businesses of capitalism and is designed to make us feel disconnected from one another and 'empty'. They then offer a solution to this feeling in the form of their product. This is not my observation, its the accepted marketing strategy observed by social thinkers in the field of sociological research. This is why I have no specific reference. My point is however, that this kind of mentality is an unpleasant one but necessary for consumerism and elitism. However this mentality would not be encouraged in a collectivist society as its wouldn't be needed to maintain consumerism, so the psychological health of people in a collectivist society would be bette than those in an elitist one. Also in an elitist society, the vast majority of citizens are second class citizens. This surely would have an impact on their social well-being and self-esteem. Democracy is more true in a representative world than in an elitist one, this is obvious, as the elites which to maintain their position and can only do so through administrative means which involves governance. Capitalism is innately self-destructive. This is true in two ways: firstly, companies initiative to reduce workforce costs will result in loss of jobs. 6000 words! I have to continue next