resolved that in the realm of economics freedom ought to be valued above equity

Contention 1 As far as I can see, Pro completely dropped her argument about equity violating liberty and the freedom of thought. She instead brings a new argument: She claims that equity violates the right of property. This isn"t the continuation of contention 1, and my intention in this debate was to deny the initial arguments from Pro. As a token of good faith, I will still answer every new arguments. I initially agreed that a violation of liberty or freedom of thought would have a negative moral value (the standard with which we judge the importance of equity and economic freedom in this debate). The right of property is different, since it is not an absolute right and restricting it or making use of it for the general interest is in agreement with our human rights. Our international standard on human rights in the present day is the European Convention on Human Rights, and I will quote the section pertaining to our present debate : " Protocols 1 article 1 ARTICLE 1 Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.(1) " The article seems clear enough to me, as it defends the right of a State to "control" the use of property. For those who are still doubting what could be included in the right of a State, the guide to the implementation detailed this point even further : " The entitlement to a pension or other welfare (social security) benefits is also capable of falling with the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has stressed in the Stec and others v. the United Kingdom case that in the modern, democratic State, many individuals were, for all or part of their lives, completely dependent for survival on social security and welfare benefits. Many domestic legal systems recognised that such individuals required a degree of certainty and security, and provided for benefits to be paid " subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of eligibility " as of right. Therefore, where an individual had an assertible right under domestic law to a welfare benefit, the importance of that right should also be reflected by holding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be applicable.(2) " The same guide refers to this as " Permissible restrictions ", arguing that the protection of property is not absolute. Contention 2 Pro still argues that deregulation was a product of economic freedom, without showing a single evidence. As it stands, deregulation consists of several government intervention that prevented economic freedom by directly restricting what banks could do, here is a small history of it : (3) One of the best example was probably the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. The Federal Reserve explained the intention of Glass-Steagall : " Congress saw the need for substantial reform of the banking system, which eventually came in the Banking Act of 1933, or the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill was designed "to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes.(4) " We can thus understand how the repeal of such an act couldn"t be motivated by equity. It was at the behest of the big banks that it was removed(5). Surely, Pro do not believe that these banks were motivated by equity instead of economic freedom, since that act did in fact restrict possibilities from them. Contention 3 It seems that pro decided to also drop this argument, since she does not attempt to show evidence that economic freedom supports human rights. Instead, Pro decides to argue against my counter-argument, she now abandoned 2 of her 4 initial contentions. I will respond by stating that this particular economic boom started during the french reconstruction, it couldn"t be attributed to anything else than the way this reconstruction took place, with state intervention and in the interest of equity : " to pre-war levels by 1947. This was largely achieved by a number of initiatives. Firstly, there was the active role of the state in industry oversaw the nationalisation of public utilities (e.g. CDF - Charbonnages de France; EDF - "lectricit" de France; GDF - Gaz de France), airlines (Air France), banks (Banque de France) and many other private companies like the Renault car factory (R"gie Nationale des Usines Renault). As a result of these nationalisations, France became the mos state-controlled capitalist country in the world. Another factor behind economic recovery was the Marshall Aid Plan an American initiative which gave grants, loans and subsidies to struggling post-war nations(6) " Contention 4 Pro didn"t respond to my counter argument, but decided to bring a new one : that the government was responsible for the devaluation of money and the inflation by printing to much of it since the early 2000. Which is, she believes, the actual problem in the united states. Her claims are easy to deny, the united states barely changed her production of money : (7) Also, the value of it"s currency barely changed at all(This shows the value of the US dollar compared to euro). (8) Hopefully, pro"s next claims won"t be as imaginary as these one" (1)http://www.globaldetentionproject.org... (2)http://www.echr.coe.int...(2007).pdf (3)http://www.cepr.net... (4)http://www.federalreservehistory.org... (5)http://www.usnews.com... (6)http://eserve.org.uk... (7)http://www.moneyfactory.gov... (8)http://en.wikipedia.org...