Limiting economic inequality should be a more important social goal than maximizing (cont.)

Because I value the economic freedom (and the economic inequality) that a $100 cash prize would provide to me, I must negate the resolution. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income (Wikipedia.org) OUGHT: should (Dictionary.com) SOCIETAL GOAL: an aim or end of or pertaining to human society (Dictionary.com) ECONOMIC FREEDOM: freedom to produce, trade and consume…goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft (Wikipedia.org) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: OBSERVATION 1: The resolution asks us to evaluate economic equality and economic freedom as social goals. A social goal is a goal that is pursued by a society, and thus it must be beneficial to a society to be pursued. Therefore, we must view the round from the point of view of a society, and decide which priority – limiting economic equality, or maximizing economic freedom – is most beneficial to the society. OBSERVATION 2: Economic freedom and economic equality are on a spectrum. An increase in economic freedom will lead (and empirically has led) to a decrease in economic equality. An increase in economic equality will lead (and empirically has led) to a decrease in economic freedom. The resolution asks us to which side of the spectrum we ought to lean to. OBSERVATION 3: Neither side is obligated to uphold the extreme of their position. Absolutely limited economic equality would mean that every person had the same amount of money down to the last penny. Absolutely maximized economic freedom would create an ultimately laissez-faire economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes are beneficial or practical for a society. We must therefore evaluate the two priorities on the spectrum as intimated in Observation 2. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into three points: CONTENTION 1: ECONOMICALLY FREE SOCIETIES FARE BETTER COMPARATIVELY The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation cooperate each year to compile an "Index of Economic Freedom" measuring many different factors. One look at the Index shows the benefits of economic freedom. The "most free" nations are places like Hong Kong, Australia, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland: what we would consider prosperous first-world countries. By contrast, the bottom of the scale includes nations like North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe – nations with notoriously low standards of living (Zimbabwe is rated last on the U.N. Quality of Life Scale; North Korea and Cuba have no rating). In addition, the most economically powerful nations tend to land closer to the "most free" side of the spectrum rather than the "least free" side of the spectrum. CONTENTION 2: CITIZENS IN ECONOMICALLY FREE SOCIETIES FARE BETTER COMPARATIVELY Some would look at Contention 1 and say, "Well, that doesn't consider how the people in those countries feel about it." Think again. According to the Buckeye Institute in 2002, citizens in countries that make up the top 20% of the IEF have an average income of $23,450, while citizens in countries that make up the bottom 20% have an average income of $2,556 – slightly more than one tenth of their freer counterparts. But what about the poor? When the same source measured the average income of the poorest 10% in each country, the disparity remained – in the least free countries, the average income of the poorest tenth is $728; in the most free countries it is over $7000; again, the freer nations enjoy about ten times as much income as the less-free. But the benefits of economic freedom are not limited to monetary advantages. The average life expectancy in free nations is 20 years longer than in less free nations. Thus, maximizing economic freedom is beneficial both for the country as a whole and for the individuals inside it. CONTENTION 3: MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC FREEDOM OUGHT TO BE A MORE IMPORTANT SOCIAL GOAL THAN LIMITING ECONOMIC INEQUALITY As Observation 1 stated, we must view the round from the point of view of a society. Let us now consider which of these priorities is the most practical: True economic equality can never be achieved. If I have one cent more than my opponent does, that is still one cent more economic power than he does. And if my opponent lives in an inner-city slum while I live in a mansion in Grosse Pointe, I will still have more economic opportunity. The only possible method for achieving economic equality would be to create an enormously progressive income tax nationwide – and even this would not solve the disparity. Some citizens would violently rebel. Others would quit their formerly high-paying job and flip burgers because of how much less work it is. Doctors, lawyers, and every other high-paid and necessary profession would experience massive reductions and leave the nation crippled. By contrast, maximizing economic freedom is very possible. A lessening of government regulations is a simple task, and would promote competition amongst citizens. This has been empirically proven by the collapse of many socialistic nations and the continued rise of capitalistic ones. CONCLUSION Economic freedom promotes better health, wealth, and welfare amongst citizens; whereas a limitation on this freedom (what limiting economic inequality would do) reduces these benefits. For this reason, I support the CON side of this resolution. Let's move on to my opponent's case: Definition: I'm down with that. Obs 1: Can't really argue this. Obs 2: Yeah, man. Obs 3: WHOA! Just wait a minute. Here's why this argument fails: 1. The resolution does not say we must only look at the U.S. 2. It's not abusive to either side. There is a whole lot of information out there on almost every nation in the world in terms of economic equality and freedom. It took me about five minutes to find the article I needed for my case, and I found one for PRO in another five. Narrowing the field is what's really abusive here. 3. Yes, we all live in the U.S., but that doesn't mean we don't know (or can't intelligently talk about) other nations. Cont 1: 1. The only disadvantage of economic freedom brought up by the PRO is outsourcing. However, the increase in freedom does not harm the society in question, which is still getting more income and a better general welfare. Cross-apply my Contention 2. 2. If the nation being outsourced to were to maximize its economic freedom, they could reap the same benefits while simultaneously driving business back to the outsourcer's shores and improving their economic situation as well. 3. If a nation were to ban all foreign production, the economy of the banner would suffer. The Embargo Act of 1807 is a prime example of why this would be bad. Cont 2: This human laziness is exactly the reason that previous experiments in economic equality failed. The will to work was diminished under a socialistic society, because everyone would get the same outcome anyway. But on the capitalist side of the fence, people are forced to "work hard for the money," and drive themselves towards economic prosperity. That's why the USA is still standing and the USSR is not. Cont 3: 1. Economic equality is an unfeasible goal. Cross-apply Contention 3 in my case. 2. If we lose our economic freedom, we will lower our average income and life expectancy. I don't think anyone deserves this; hence it is not just by the PRO's definition. 3. Now the flipside of the coin: maximizing economic freedom will increase average income and life expectancy, as well as economic prosperity. Thus, from a society's standpoint, it is the most just and most important goal. That's all for now, folks!