Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

I will rebut them in his order. SourcesIt's not exactly as if my opponent will dispute things like my definition of psychopathy. If he did, he could simply go on Wikipedia or about. com and prove himself wrong. When I include sources, they are not the basis of my argument, nor are they required to understand my point. They are there in case anybody wants to explore my argument at a deeper level. Sources that are under copyright, such as books and movies, are not linked all the time on other debates and nobody has a problem with it - if I did link to it, that would be a crime under the law in my country. It is wrong to suggest that just because it isn't linked to on this page, although I made it clear that it can be found on the net (both the actual videos and summaries from numerous reputable sources and critics), that means it's not reputable. But even if they aren't reputable, they're not required for my points to stand. My point is a moral one, not one that can be proved objectively. Whether governments should serve their people or act tyrannically, for instance, is a moral question, not one that can be "proved" objectively. Deflecting from the resolutionMy point about Rand and Greenspan was that Rand argued against compassion, and that under her follower's influence, programmes to boost economic prosperity destroyed the economy. If that's deflecting from the resolution, then my opponent is arguing governments and the economy are unrelated, because if governments should value the economy then it is related. But I gave a reason why governments should value the economy - people. People are affected by the economy, and governments are for the people. Therefore I'm not deflecting from the resolution. GDPMy opponent accepts that GDP may not mean equal prosperity in the short term. If governments should aim to grow GDP, then my opponent would tell them they've done a great job now even if they've screwed the economy up in the long term. Every moment of equality is worth celebrating, but clearly not every moment of prosperity. PollutionIt does have something to do with the resolution. If my opponent agrees this is related to quality of life, then he should also agree it's part of your income. Being forced to breathe dirty air is a cost. It may not be immediate, and it may not be monetary, but it is paid. Having the opportunity to walk in the park is, conversely, a form of income - not transferrable for cash, but it has a cash value, because others would pay to walk in that park. There is also the effect on asset values that my opponent ignored. This is the kind of holistic approach to economics that my opponent's free-market friends keep ignoring, and that governments need to keep control of. This is relevant to the resolution because governments need to ensure fairness in this respect for a fair economy, otherwise some districts (the polluted ones) are not being paid a fair wage. Law enforcementAgain, if you're living in a lawless district, that's a cost. Imagine putting a money value on sleepless nights and constant fear of break-in. It isn't a "fair wage" if some districts have good law enforcement and others have little. That's not economic equality. Minimum wageIf you look at the European countries with the best minimum wages (. http://www.forbes.com...), they're not exactly high in unemployment or inflation. The Netherlands, with the second best minimum wage, has unemployment of 4.1% (the lowest in the EU) and only 1.3% inflation (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). #1 on the list is Luxembourg, who are unfairly disadvantaged because of their small size making it very hard for them to achieve a competitive advantage in anything, but they are close to the Netherlands on unemployment (4.8%) and about 2.1% inflation (still very good compared to most other countries - . http://en.wikipedia.org...). Why? Simple. You can see it happen all around the world. More equal societies become more prosperous. Everyone wants to live in them. That's why Amazon. com is based in Luxembourg now, of all places. That's in addition to all of the unresponded-to reasons I gave last round that a more equal society is also more prosperous. And this increase in prosperity more than compensates for any inflation or unemployment. Governments should thus encourage equality, and in doing so, create prosperity as a by-product. For equality does not result from prosperity, but prosperity from equality. Progressive taxThe idea that only rich can put money back into the economy is wrong - everybody can. Poor people do when they buy anything. Government does when it spends anything. All of this provides income to businesses, which creates more jobs, just like rich people create. Capital gains etc are also progressive, because only the rich have any significant capital. It's absurd to argue against one progressive tax in favour of another - I say we should have them both! It doesn't put another tax on the poor, the ten assertions you cited had nothing to do with the poor and this was entirely unexplained by you. As for the complexity, that's with business tax. For personal tax it's actually really simple - if you earn over a certain amount, you pay more. For business, I agree in the USA that tax is too complicated. This is not a side-effect of progressive taxes - this is because some idiot in your government wanted each special interest to have a separate tax form. You can get rid of that without getting rid of progressive taxes. Free ridersI agree again. Free riders, however, exist in every demographic, not just the poor as is commonly assumed. If people choose not to work, they should not get money from the government. They are paid in the free time they choose to have, and income is their opportunity cost. Equality is still achieved because income is not just money. SlavesEgypt was a government too, and therefore it is relevant. The northern states had slaves too until just a few decades before the war (. http://www.slavenorth.com...). And the Southern states that had the slaves were actually far richer, accounting for most of the economic activity of the US and more than 70% of exports (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).Fair WorkI would provide this with things like fair access to education and ensuring exploitation of workers does not happen, like in China's Foxcomm or France's Telecom suicides aftermaths. I said that last round. SovietsNo, they had terrible equality. Are you saying Stalin was equal with the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union? Plus they had no labour laws - Marx's greatest mistake was that he saw the world in monetary terms. I agree people should be paid only on their own merits, regardless of their background or anything else. That's what I said last round - Fayol's whole argument was this. It's psychotic to have a system dominated by an elite, and government must protect against that. StagflationAll that stuff about choice is not what I'm arguing against. Stagflation in the 70s was clearly caused by the oil supply shock from OPEC, not big government. RecessionGovernment spending did not cause the housing bubble - speculative lending did. That was only made possible with Greenspan's low interest rates and Clinton's loan schemes to uncreditworthy borrowers. Less government spending was not the cause of this crisis - it was the low interest rates this time, but that's not to say it won't be the cause next time. Low government spending means less GDP, as government spending is a part of that, so I guess we both agree that government spending should not be low.