Limiting economic inequality should be a more important social goal than maximizing (cont.)

I will tackle my opponent's argument in chunks for clarity. I will give the beginning and ending statements of each chunk in capital letters before my responses. Please reference my opponent's Round 1 speech in order to understand all argumentation. THIS WILL BE…OBSERVATION IS UNNEEDED That's fine. CONTENTION 1…LESS MONEY FROM 1. I am not contending that the act of outsourcing will intrinsically get more income. What I am contending is that, following the Buckeye Institute Evidence from my Contention 3, the economically free nation is still reaping more income than the economically not free nation, regardless of whether outsourcing takes place. If steps were made to equalize citizens economically to stop the outsourcing, the nation's income and general welfare would suffer. Regardless of outsourcing, the free nation still ends up better. B- IF THIS…END HURT IT 2. False. If Bangladesh, for example, raised its economic freedom, its citizens would benefit. The shirt-making jobs which go back to the United States will not be any more expensive to pay wages for than they were before the outsourcing. The outsourcing society would neither be helped nor hurt by the process; they would come out neutral. But they would still have better wealth and health than a non-free nation. C- THIS VIOLATES…SHOULD BE IGNORED 3. I did treat your case as supporting a ban on foreign production, yes. But a ban on foreign production is not the extreme of economic equality. I evaluated the effects of outsourcing, but nowhere in my three attacks on your first contention did I insinuate that a ban was the extreme of economic equality – and it is not. Therefore, this argument still stands: limiting economic inequality by stopping outsourcing would be detrimental to the society and thus not a valuable societal goal. CONT. 2…TO UPHOLD EXTREMES. 4. This cross-application does not disprove my analysis. What I am saying here is that ANY equalizing program that applies reward to those who do nothing to earn it promotes idleness. By contrast, merit-based rewards that are present in economically free societies promote competition and hard work. "Extremes" have nothing to do with this. CONT 3 –…ABSOLUTE EQUALITY 5. The "extreme" of economic equality is everybody having the same amount of cents. A progressive tax would not lead to the extreme; it would be the only way to effectively limit economic inequality. And that still links to the harms I stated in Round 1 of this debate. If you can propose a practical method for limiting economic inequality that does not lead to these harms, I'd love to hear it. POINTS 2 & 3…THESE ATTACKS FALL. I'll hit ‘em when he hits ‘em. 2. MY OPPONENT…INVALIDATING THIS OBSERVATION 6. I didn't think this was so far-fetched, but I'll provide a historical example. When the Soviet Union was formed, its founders attempted to achieve economic equality (among other equalities). The way they did this was to nationalize many industries and control the flow of capital – which both limited economic freedom. Also, the United States has worked to support a free economy; this striving has led to economic inequality. There's my evidence. I'm very interested to how you will prove that last sentence. CONTENTION 1 – MY…OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM 7. First of all, let's look at the examples. The nation I mentioned was not China but Hong Kong, which does still administer its own economy and laws. Switzerland runs a market economy. Also, The Heritage Foundation rankings for economic freedom are still based on various conditions that DO accurately measure economic freedom. Mali, ranked at 104th for economic freedom, does not qualify as a paradigm of economic freedom, so disregard this example. Mexico, according to Wikipedia, is an upper middle-income economy, and has seen dramatic reductions in its poverty level recently, a reduced national debt, low inflation, and a high national credit rating, which I consider economic prosperity. 8. I assume my opponent is stating that China and Mali kill their people, but I am not sure which of the other two examples (Mexico or Switzerland) is run by a murderous dictator. In either case, the general correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity, as reported by the Buckeye Institute, still stands. Unless my opponent can point to another factor that accurately sorts all of the worlds economic prosperity the same way that economic freedom does, this evidence holds. CONTENTION 2…IT IS DEFEATED 9. Cross-apply the above arguments. Economic freedom does lead to a longer life expectancy; give me some other criterion that follows the same correlation for all the world's nations, and I will consider it. CONTENTION 3…NOT AN ADVANTAGE 10. Even a non-extreme amount of economic inequality is not feasible. A generally equal situation provided by a progressive income tax would not be sustainable and collapse back to inequality very quickly. 11. The feasibility of maximizing economic freedom as opposed to limiting economic inequality IS an important issue in this round. If the resolution were "Creating unicorns ought to be a more important social goal than building national parks," the CON would win, because the PRO would be unfeasible. TURN- MOREOVER…SOCIAL GOAL 12. This turn is absolutely balderdash. If economic freedom were COMPLETELY maximized (to the extreme level), all equalizing programs would cease. However, poor people would not magically be granted an amount of cash that would give them equal purchasing power to the rich. If I have two dollars and my opponent has four dollars, and we were suddenly free from restrictions on spending (i.e. given economic freedom), my fourth dollar would not teleport to his billfold. Economic freedom does not equal economic opportunity; it entails a lack of restriction on economic activities. Let's rock round 3!