Republicans are inconstant in their defense of individual liberties.

1. What is individual liberty? 2. What is Republican Economic Philosophy? 3. What kind of a society results from the fulfillment of the Republican Philosophy? Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm not), but these 3 questions represent the essence of this debate. (1) Beginning with the first, what is Individual liberty? Well since you haven't offered a definition of your own, I'll offer one of mine. Liberty is the condition where individuals have the ability to act in according to his or her own free will. Now my opponent has accused me of confusion. Apparently he doesn't believe that economic constraints could interfere with freedom. But the fact of the matter is, throughout history, economic constraint has always been the single, largest impediment to individual liberty. Evidence / Example: Thinking about this reminded me of Sicko by Michael Moore. Let's take two individuals, one wealthy and one not. Both of them receive health coverage from their employment. Which one has the freedom to walk away if he chooses? We talk a lot in America about "at will" employment where the employee can just walk away any time .... but if your Life depends on the medical insurance you get from your job, do you really have that freedom? If your wealthy, and can afford your own health insurance, then of course. But if you're not, then in reality you are constrained by economic circumstances to stay at your job, even if it is undesirable. (2) What is Republican economic philosophy? Republican economic philosophy is the free market. Free market means the privatization of everything. That is what it means to be economically conservative right? Republican economic philosophy is not about freedom of the individual, it is about freedom of the market. And your right, I am very unhappy about the consequences I claim would result from a free market. Results which curtail the liberty of individuals, which comes next. (3) What kind of a society results from the fulfillment of the Republican Philosophy? What Republicans are in favor of and what the Republican ideology is are two different things. If we're talking about what specific Republicans here and there support, then this would be a meaningless topic. Some Republicans are probably constant in their support of individual liberties. And Some Republicans are not. You would probably agree that the Libertarians in the Republican Party are probably constant in their support of individual liberties. But what we're discussing here is the central agenda of the Republican party. What we're discussing is if there was no Democratic party, or any other party. The Paradigm of Republican philosophy. And in their perfect world, everything should be privatized. And once that takes place, we will have a rigid class system. Evidence: There are many general prerequisites for success. The most prominent of which is an education. In general you cannot enter into the middle class without a good education. And if education is privatized, then only the wealthy can afford to give their children a good education. Now my opponent claims I am being guided by "hysteria and unfounded fears". He has the audacity to claim "you still provided no evidence that privatized services would be less available or less effective than those currently provided by the government." Well, to the readers, I pose 3 questions to think about. 1. In a perfect Republican world, would there be privatization? 2. Would schools for the poor be better or worse without funding? After all, how much money would schools for the poor have in the free market? 3. If there is a rigid class system, would people be "locked in" to those classes? Because as my opponent said that if Republican policies would create a rigid class system, I would "have still needed to prove that people would be "locked in" to those classes." Personally I think that "locked in" is the definition of rigid class system. I hope my audience agrees. Consider these three questions as you decide whether or not Republicans are consistent in their fight against personal liberty.