: a government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor citizens

Today I will be debating on the negative position and go against the status quo which states: a government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor citizens. Therefore I have three contentions and a value to back up our reason to go against the status quo. Value: Private Property. All rights derive from self-autonomy because that's the only way they can be willfully exercised. Individuals own themselves and can do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others individuals have the right to do what they wish with their property and income as long as they do not aggress on others. The only morally justifiable role of a government is that of protection its citizens from aggression both foreign and domestic. 1st contention: Individuals must have a right to choose their own career path. 2nd contention: inequality for the rich 3rd contention: the government is not responsible to administer gifts and talent. For my first contention individuals must have a right to choose their own career path. My first contention is individuals must have a right to choose their own career path. Sub point A: teachers. Teachers don"t make a lot of money maybe 56,000 dollars a year and that may not be enough if you are a single parent but that may be what you want to do or what makes you happy. Sub point B: government trying to give jobs. The government just can"t tell them quote "oh you should work there and make more money or ill just give you money from the rich." First of why would you take them from the job they want and put them to something just for the money, most people work for happiness not for money. Second if all the teachers stop working to work somewhere else for the money how will we get an education to learn and make the next generation better? Sub point C: bus drivers/ cafeteria workers. They don"t make a lot period and if they stop working then how will we get to school or get fed hot lunches and snacks and breakfast. Like I said they work for happiness not money. My second contention is inequality for the rich. Sub point A: you can"t just raise taxes on the rich to give the unfortunate money. The rich worked hard for their money so they should keep it. Also the rich people may not need all that money but that is what may keep them happy. Sub point B: even though the unfortunate people work hard and just don"t get paid much does not mean they necessarily want money. Not all the unfortunate are homeless men/women on the street they also are teachers like I said, the rich people are only rich because they set a goal to be rich. The not so rich people are teachers who just want to work for happiness. My third contention the government is not responsible to administer gifts and talents. Sub point A: the government does not bore you. The government does not make you in any way all they do is collect your taxes send you welfare checks and etcetera. The government can"t give you talents that you don"t have, some people weren"t meant to be 6oot 9inches and be a star basketball player, just like some people weren"t meant to have a 180 IQ its just life. Sub point B: the government is not your biological parent"s. The government is not even a real human being it is just an organization created back when the first 13 colonies were formed. The government cannot force you to be what you are not. That is why I urge you to vote negative for this debate.