The Meaning Of Government

To begin, I think we can both agree on the notion that government and civilization as a whole, Were concepts brought life due to practical reasons. Humans could simply do more and do better when working as a group compared to working as individuals. I also think you are correct in the need to split up the historical purpose of government and more modern take on the purpose of government. Lets now, However, Cover what you brought to debate in your argument. "This means not to achieve equality of outcome, But a decrease in poverty which is the actual problem our society has. " - Poverty is a serious problem facing our society, But it is important to note where that poverty comes from. It comes from an unequal distribution of wealth, Which is propped up by a government with laws and policies that do not evenly spread out the costs and benefits of a society. Poverty then becomes a problem of unequal distribution of justice, Which entails that the well-off get too many of the benefits while the poor front the costs. "Firstly it is the fallacy I have touched upon already which is the false analyses of looking at wealth as a fixed amount where the only way to get rich is by stealing from the others. " - Nowhere in my argument did I bring up the need to take wealth from others, If a government is capable of creating wealth through other means then by all means. However, If a government is not capable of creating wealth, I believe it still has an obligation to strive for equality and should take steps to guarantee that equality. Like I stated in my argument, Societies that suffer from inequality also suffer in terms of health, Education scores, And overall happiness. These are serious impacts that inequality has on people and societies as a whole. "Most of the benefits you see with having less economic inequality are mainly a correlation and not causation as Kelley and Evans showed in the paper Economic Development and Happiness. " - After reading the paper you cited, I have come to believe that you have missed the point of the paper. The paper found a relationship between economic development and happiness, Nowhere in the paper does it argue that the benefits I listed from less economic inequality are nothing more than the correlation. These benefits are not mutually exclusive to either side of this debate, Better health, Better education, Etc. Can all be brought about in different ways and to varying levels. If a society, For example, Discovers some new medical technology, Average health for citizens could go up, And this has nothing to do with either one of our arguments. "The social goods that you describe coming from equality are mostly due to increasing the other factors that clearly impact human flourishing, Such as GDP, Education or democracy in a country. It is thereby important to stress this difference between decreasing poverty and enforced decreasing inequality. " - Gross domestic product is a terrible measurement of standard of living, For example, According to Michael Madowitz and Seth Hanlon from the Center on American Progress, GDP might be on the rise but workers wages are stagnant, This is consistent with other studies that have found that GDP is a terrible tool for measuring the standard of living of people in a particular society. "But most of the countries that are at the top of the world on all of those rankings, Do just that and try to adjust for differences in opportunity, By for example making health care universal, Education for free, Provide a social safety net, Invest into public services and so on. All of that is not equality of outcome but equality of opportunity. " - There is still progress to be made, And the current system of equality of opportunity has made as much progress as it can. There are still people falling between the cracks and is the government's duty to lift those people up and guarantee them a certain standard of living. It is not enough to simply allow everyone the same opportunities if some people have an unfair advantage just because of their situation at birth. This debate has boiled down to a difference of opinion in how to encourage human development and combat poverty. My opponent argues that governments that encourage equality of opportunities are in a better position to do just that, While I believe that governments that attempt to guarantee positive outcomes are far more suited to actually bring about progress and a decrease of poverty. The evidence I have and will continue to bring forward proves that such policies of equality of outcomes are far more effective at bringing about the highest standard of living for people and the most effective tool in the war against poverty.