resolved that in the realm of economics freedom ought to be valued above equity

I didn"t see any rules so I will assume that Pro has the BOP. I will then respond to what she perceives are "arguments" and the voters will judge if I correctly denied her claims. R1 : Response to : Contention1- equity violate liberty and freedom of thought First of all, I absolutely do not deny Pro"s definition of equity, but since she precised that this debate is limited to the realm of economics, I assume that we have to be talking about the economic definition of equity for this to make sense : " Equity or economic equality is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in regard to taxation or welfare economics. More specifically, it may refer to equal life chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution. (1) " I will start by denying Pro's initial postulate : " Economic freedom and liberty are the same thing but a lot of times we over look the human right of liberty. ". Pro states that the " freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others" rights to do the same" " is the same thing than " the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people. " only based on the provided definitions. Pro assumes that both concepts " Economic freedom " and " Liberty " are the same thing because the definitions seem to have the same goals. The problem is that " Economic Freedom " do not only refer to a general definition. It refers to an economic system that intends to reach that definition(and in my opinion utterly fail to). It would be easy to find many, many quotes of economists that have defined what economic freedom is, I will provide a simple one : " On one side of this debate have been those philosophers and economists who advocate an economic system based on private property and free markets"or what one might call economic freedom(2) " Pro utterly fails to recognize the difference between liberty as human rights and the economic freedom as an economic system. By believing falsely that they are the same thing, she then argues that following equity in economics deprives people of liberty. While equity does contradict an economic system like economic freedom, it does not deprive anyone of liberty. Pro did define Liberty as : " the freedom to think or behave in the way that you want and not be controlled by a government or by other people. " I agree with that definition, now I am patiently waiting for Pro to prove how progressive taxation and welfare state deprive someone of his liberty. I read the example given by Pro and I was completely baffled by how irrelevant it was. Her own title states explicitly : " In the realm of economics ". Her example may oppose religious freedom and freedom of expressions(As pro stated herself! ), but it is completely irrelevant to the present debate about economic equity and economic freedom and I will ask the voters to ignore that example. Finally, I do not have to prove that equity do not violate the freedom of thought since Pro utterly failed to make an argument on the matter. -- R2 : Response to : Contention 2- equity hurts human rights Pro"s second argument works completely in my favor. Her whole argument consists of one example : " For example, consider the root of the 2008 collapse of the financial market. Beginning in the 1970"s, the government began enacting legislation that directed banks to extend more home loans to low income and minority families who would not otherwise qualify. So long as the housing market continued to expand, the market could support the rapid increase of subprime mortgages. " First of all, there is absolutely no link between equity and these particular legislations. The reasoning is actually the opposite : Bankers wanted to have the freedom to loan to more americans even if these loans would be riskier. These same americans didn't think that the government should limit their freedom to take loans even if they should not qualify. As Paul Krugman(Renown economist) said : "The bankers " liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn"t believe in regulation " responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. (3)" It was by removing restrictions on loans and with subsequent deregulations(which, the point of deregulation is to prevent government intervention, thus enabling total economic freedom) that the problem of subprimes was created. The intervention that Pro argues against was an intervention to remove state intervention and enable economic freedom. Thank you Pro for giving me arguments ! -- R3 : Response to : Contention 3- economic freedom supports human rights Pro didn't show any evidence of that claim. She merely quotes an author from a Conservative Research Think Tank(You can hardly find more biased than that, I would like the voters to take this into account) that says there is a link between economic freedom and human rights. How so ? I, on the contrary, have objective information. The years between 1940 to 1970 has been considered as a golden age since it is the period of the fastest economic growth of all time. Coincidentally, it is the period where the complete economic freedom started to be more and more regulated. It is the period of the welfare state. Of Keynesian economics. Could we really doubt the link between the best economic period and the changed economic policies ? French economist Jean Fourasti" defines " Les Trente Glorieuses " : " No matter how the thirty-odd years after the end of World War II were characterised by Europe's various cultures, they stand out as the period of the fastest economic growth in the continent's history. In retrospect, the years between the late 1940s and the early 1970s have been seen as a Golden Age, when the foundations of future prosperity were established on firm ground. (4)" -- R4 : Response to : Contention 4- economies work themselves out Pro"s personal example will once again work in my favor as it actually shows a good concept on a very small scale : " If someone doesn"t sell to you because you"re a Christian you go to another store " And thus, the economy is based on demand. When people like Pro demand for some goods, then market will indeed respond to that demand. The problem is, what happens when people like Pro can no longuer afford it ? What happens during a crisis ? The cause of it is not important, it could be an oil shock or an economic bubble. The thing is : When the economy fails and people lose their job, when money devaluates and inflation keeps being an issue, how can we get outside of that kind of situation ? And the answer is : through government intervention, by stimulating demand, investing, creating jobs : using the multiplier. These are principles that a famous economist, John Maynard Kaynes, proved a long time ago(5). There are of course other ways intervention proved to be necessary as the economy did not "work itself out". The regulations that prevention an economic crisis as described in Contention 2 is a good example of it. Your turn Pro ! (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.econlib.org... (3) . http://www.newsmax.com... (4) . http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com... (5) . http://cas.umkc.edu...