A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap betweem its rich and poor citizens.

=Negative case=Observation: The resolution is only coherently affirmable in one way: stealing from the wealthy to give to the poor. Government actions that inadvertently lead to lower income inequality count as affirmative ground in the same way walking outside and getting bitten by a snake counts as a suicide. In other words, they don't since governmental policies in the affirmative world have to have the intention of stealing from the wealthy to hand out to the poor. Justified or not, my opponent must concede that his policies are plain and simple theft, or else the debate is a non-starter (and auto-win for the negative).Value: Private Property. All rights derive from self-autonomy because that's the only way they can be willfully exercised. Individuals own themselves, quite obviously, and can do whatever they wish so long as it does not harm others (to deny this is a mountain to climb for the affirmative; similarly inidividuals have the right to do what they wish with their own property and income so long as they do not aggress on others. The only morally justifiable role of a government is that of protection its citizens from aggression both foreign and domestic. Criterion: Adherence to the non-aggression principle (meaning not initiating coercion with force, threats, or lies). A just government exists to protect rights, such as the right of one to hold their private property, not take them away. The NAP is self affirming because to attempt to logically disprove it uses it. That is, if my opponent comes to my house and shoots me, he hasn't rationally defeated my argument, he's just committed aggression. To rationally disprove anything requires the use of the non-aggression principle, so it is irrational to deny it.C1: Economic deterioration Everywhere it has been attempted, Marxist philosophy has failed. This should be obvious, given that it is contradictory to human nature. After all, what incentive does one have to produce more when more production leads to greater wealth depletion since more is stolen from you as you get wealthier? Measures that take action to take money from the wealthy to give to the poor decrease the incentive to be a producer in order to increade the incentive to be a non-producer. It should be no small wonder that socialist Europe is facing such economic failure as of late given that its economic policies are contrary to human nature. C2: UnjustNo matter how it's spun, to steal from the rich to give to the poor is flat out theft and unjust. The only way around this argument is to claim that all wealth belongs to society-that is, to evoke communism, a failed ideology that left two of the greatest nations in history (China and Russia) economically and culturally destroyed, and is responsible for the genocide of an estimated 110,000,000 people[1]. C3: Better waysIf I conceded that inequality is bad (I dont) there are better ways to end it than theft and redistribution. Like, for example, ending ridiculous "corporate welfare" and political lobbying that helps only the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. =Affirmative case== Value: My opponents value is correct in the sense that a government should protect it's citizens rights. However what it is doing in his case is a mystery given that it allows me to circumvent all of his arguments by invoking the non aggression principle. TURN: A legitimate government would not aggressively redistribute wealth. Criterion: The United Nations has a long history of saying things that are innaccurate and false. My opponent gives a prime example, the idea that everyone has a right to "equality" is laughable at best, disturbing at worst. If my opponent, and the UN, truly believes this, he should give away all his wealth and get himself surgically and chemically altered to reflect the average of humanity. Without this, equality cannnot be achieved since people are born differently. My opponent needs to do a lot better than cite a scrap of paper asserting absurdum from a useless organization, compare that to the self-affirming moral principle implemented in my case. C1 --> No warrant on how a representative government is inherently good, other than the ridiculous assertion that a represntative government is the only way to protect " equality, fairness, and justice ". If this is true my opponent needs to explain why the 20th century, the age of democracy, was the most murderous in human history. --> He provides no solvency. How are we supposed to affirm the resolution when he doesn't even explain how to do so?--> His argument is a misrepresntation of politics. The idea that the voice of the rich will drown out that of the poor presumes that America (seeing as he's only cited evidence from America) has an "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to the poor and the rich, which is simply untrue. In the 2008 election, 52% of the wealthy voted for Barack Obama[2] even though it was against their economic interests. There are many extremely wealthy who advocate higher taxes on the wealthy, wealth redistirubtion and other liberal policies, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Clintons, the Kennedys, and George Soros to name a few. Conversly, there are several conservative people of wealth such as the Bush family, Mitt Romney, and Amory Houghton. This shows that the electorate is not polarized along class lines as my opponent posits.--> My opponents card attacks capitalism while never offering a solution of its own. It needs to be thrown out since capitalism is the only system to historically work, and the only justifiable economic system (NAP). --> He argues no moral impact because his entire position rests on a flawed moral system. --> He gives only theoretical evidence, because the empirics contradict his claims. --> He does not define "rich" or "poor" in terms of an objective standard, just subjective terms like "abundant wealth". HOW ON EARTH can we be expected to affirm if he doesn't even give the most basic and critical information for the round, which is what percentile/absolute earnings count as wealthy? C2. A: Capitalism bad--> It's unfair to criticize capitalism without directly offering an alternative. This throws the burden to me to refute EVERY economic system. That's absurd. He gains no advantage from this point since he has no advocacy. --> His argument is a blatant appeal to authority.--> Wilkinson posits that humans are automatically programmed to, among other things, cooperate. Not exactly. Cooperation furthers (in most cases) rational self interest, specifically in the sense of economics an individuals pursuit of wealth. Humans are not programmed to do anything for others at their own expense (like giving away all their money), no animals are. My opponent needs also to explain away why capitalism has succeeded everywhere its been implemented if its contrary to human nature. --> My opponent argues that social ills are increased by the competiton from capitalism. Well, he's right that we would be stress free without competition but we would also live in poverty and have no innovation. He doesn't weigh it in this context. B: Poverty bad--> Ummm no. Poverty is the result of a lack of production. If anyones human rights are violated, it is that of producers having to pay for non producers to live. --> He lists a bunch of rights that those in poverty supposedly lack. He gives no example or empirical evidence. This is yet another assertion. --> Healthcare is not a right, it's a service to be paid for. --> He asserts that people in poverty can't become successful. That's false. There are 946 billionaires who started from scratch[3]. Barack Obama is the grandson of a goat herder. That's the glory of capitalism, that anyone who produces can one day become wealthy. Compare this to communism where everyone is in poverty because the economy is destroyed. --> No plan to get rid of poverty. Vote Con.1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...;