Resolved: Redistribution is ethical

P1: So? It"s quite easy to scale them. We just look at the end results. Consequentalism 101. Intent doesn"t matter. But neither do actions. What matters is where everybody is when everything is over. The action itself isn"t wrongful. No one would care about a theft if it was so minor that nobody even noticed (say, someone stealing a twig from your property that was full of twigs). Con"s argument that the action is wrong misses a crucial point: The action is also to save the loved one, since that is the result of the action. Con creates a separation between intentions and actions that do not exist. For intentions to be different from actions, the intended action must fail: For instance, stealing the medicine and failing to save a life. Even then, when making decisions the most ethical one is the one that has the greatest probability of the greatest increase in utility; all actions have the risk of backfiring. All actions"and all inactions"have consequences. By refusing to sell the medicine at a fair price, the pharmacist is responsible for your loved one"s death. He could have stopped it, he was that link in the chain, and he refused out of greed. To speak of time ignores the fact that your loved one could have years if not decades of happy, healthy life with the medicine. P2: The Goals of Redistribution are Reached: Con"s own definitions in the first round refute his allegation that we are not talking about welfare: He defines redistribution as: "Redistribution - "Taxing higher income people to pay for a basic standard of living."" This is the definition we agreed on prior to the debate. If you examine Justin"s profile, I wrote the following comment two weeks ago: "Redistribution, in the sense of taxing higher income people to provide money to pay for a basic standard of living (healthy food, adequate shelter, et cetera) is ethical." His response was: "Fair enough. You'll go Pro I assume?" Clearly we are speaking of redistribution in the broad sense. Con"s arguments apply not only to redistribution to provide a basic standard of living and lower the level of income inequality, but to anything paid for with taxes. Con then argues that the Heritage Foundation has rated countries like Australia, Sweden, Norway, et cetera quite highly. True. Let"s look at what the Heritage Foundation calls property rights: "100"Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces contracts efficiently and quickly. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private property. There is no corruption or expropriation[1]." This has nothing to do with taxes. What, then, measures the tax burden and the involvement of government in spending? Answer: The "limited government" section, which, when we rank by it, reveals that Sweden is extremely low, at 39.6, and Australia is 66.4[2]. High ranking countries in this section include Bahrain (99.9), Kuwait (99.9), the UAE (99.9), Qatar (99.8), and Saudi Arabia (99.6)[2]. Why, then, does Sweden, which has a heavy amount of welfare/redistribution and a top income tax rate of 57% and government spending about equal to half the GDP[3]. Rather ironically, Americans really do prefer such an income distribution[4]. And the Swedes spent, in the nineties, 33% of their spending on welfare and redistribution. Since then, average quality of life has actually fallen as they cut taxes and slashed social programs"though they are still significantly higher than the United States[5]. My opponent seems to be under the impression that redistribution means that everybody will have the same income. This is not the case. It merely means that income inequality will be lessened. I have already shown the advantages of this. Also, keep in mind that wealthy is a relative term. In many European countries, the wealthiest Americans have a net worth far more than the counterparts. P3: I Haven"t Conceded Firstly, if you view the comments on each of our profiles, nowhere did I agree to such a definition of ethics; my lack of objection to my opponent"s definition of ethical was based on the theory that he couldn"t actually be trying that. In any event, since people can believe rather contradictory things regarding ethics, I would point out that most people see exceptions to the rule of theft being immoral, and that if most people support income distribution similar to Sweden"s, they implicitly favor redistribution. 1.http://www.heritage.org... 2.http://www.heritage.org... 3.http://www.heritage.org... 4.http://www.rawstory.com... 5.http://rwer.wordpress.com...