Economic Understanding should be Acquired Before Exercising Union/Voting Powers

In this closing round I will answer to my opponents objections and provide a short summary of the case as I understand it. Misconstrued arguments (Economists and the deficit II)Pro informs me that I have been somewhat hyperbolic, and feels I have overstated his proposal. That is unfortunate, but more unfortunate for his position than my own, as a more modest proposal on his part only serves to make mine an a fortiori argument against it. After all, if people with an expert handle on economics would not vote differently than the general public, then one can hardly expect a legion of amateurs to make much difference; much less that the government would be revolutionized by facing "the demands of a more worldly-wise audience. "Pro disagrees with my contention that economics has little if any relevant predictive value. I insist it is the case, as the world of economics is divided between people who follow theories which did not see the economic crisis of 2008 coming and those who predicted 14 of the last 3 disasters. To take only what he considers to be a clear cut argument. He says that it is inevitable that overspending leads inevitably to austerity measures. I tend to agree. As he says overspending leads to increased borrowing, which if not eventually payed for leads to creditors refusing to risk lending more money which necessarily leads to either austerity or a default. Keynesian economists, on the other hand, beg to differ. They would argue that government spending has a multiplying effect, and as public spending increases, the economy as a whole produces more, which in turn leads to more tax revenue which leads to the possibility of greater government spending in a glorious spiral of economic bonanza. (1) I may have put this in tone of parody, many however do believe this to be the case, and are every bit the economists as those who agree with my opponent and I. This leads me to what is perhaps the most important point in my case. If experts in economics (who no doubt know the difference between deficit and debt) cannot agree on anything beyond that, how would a mass of beginners fare any better? Are good union leaders necessarily adept at economics? Pro cites the fact that Cesar Chávez was once in debt as evidence that he had the economic grounding that my opponent would have us ask of any who wishes to exercise voting or union privileges (describing them as rights being too generous under his proposals). There are many who Pro would characterize as economically illiterate, following his criteria of being able to distinguish between debt and deficit, who have faced similar situations. Micro-economy and macro-economy are not the same thing, and experiencing certain things firsthand on the level of a household cannot automatically be taken as having insight on the workings of a national economy. Chávez ended his formal education in the seventh grade to work in the fields as a migrant worker,(2) it very unlikely he would have passed the type of test that my opponent proposes. As for Lech Walesa, he eventually did gain a better understanding of these issues, mostly due to the briefings from his ministers and advisers, but during his Solidarnosk years I am unable to find proof of his having a particularly good grasp on economic theory. This is particularly relevant, as his knowledge in these matters is of so little bearing on his work, most biographers seem not to feel the need to mention it. To say that knowledge of economics is necessary for participating in unions and to respond, after being shown an example of an effective union leader, that he must have understood economics because he was an effective union leader is circular reasoning. All of this goes to show that one can say one of two things about my opponent's proposal. Either it is so stringent that these two great men would not meet his criteria, or it is so weak it would make no difference anyways. In neither case is it a policy worth following. Government and Children (on the essence democracy)If what Pro wants is to have the majority of the population exposed to basic economic concepts then what he ought to propose is for Civics and Economics to be offered before the end of mandatory education and make sure that the curriculum includes these matters. His proposal, however, goes further; and there is no reason to exclude other disciplines from his litmus test. Now, Pro asserts that this is an invalid argument, however he makes no argument to support that assertion beyond the bizarre statement about Canada being socialist and America right winged I fail to see the relevance of (particularly seeing as Canada currently has a conservative Prime Minister and the United States one of the most left-winged presidents of their recent history). He does, however, make an excellent point in mentioning the extension of the vote to seven year-olds. Regrettably for my opponent it is once again a point in my favor. You see, we deny the vote to children because we believe children are the responsibility of others, their parents or guardians. It is they who decide for them while they are developing into adults, from what they eat and what they wear to who governs them and by which laws. In arguing that those millions (the 34% who my opponent affirms do not know when they will get out of debt or the generic "many" who cannot differentiate between debt and deficit, which may be half the country if the US is anything like England (3)) ought to be treated as children one is no longer arguing for a better democracy but for the replacement of that democracy for an aristocracy, in that original sense of the government of our betters. He may extend this to be a very numerous aristocracy, or a very un-technical technocracy, but in no sense of the word would it be a democracy. Summing up:1. My opponent's rationale for proposing that voting and union powers (formerly known as rights) ought to be restricted to those with a certain level of economic understanding is that this would force governments to change their current spendthrift behavior. We have seen no evidence of this.2. My own argument that, as economic theory allows for as many interpretations as one would be pleased to find, it would make little difference if people's economic knowledge were at a doctorate level, that of an amateur or non-existent was not addressed in any relevant way. The assertion that the pseudoscience of economics does have predictive power was not adequately supported and must be considered debunked.3. The example of two extraordinary union leaders who did not have any economic expertise to speak of as proof-positive that this is not a relevant criteria for placing limits on the right to form unions was only met by the rather weak argument that, as they did well, they must have known economics. This is an illogical statement and a petitio principii.4. Pro affirmed his was a way to perfect the democratic process, I argue that it is a very effective way to destroy it. His argument in favor of disenfranchising those who do not have what he deems to be adequate economic knowledge comparing them to children only cements that contention. On the basis of these facts I see no alternative but to reject the resolution, and I hope our voters agree. Sources:(1) . http://bit.ly...(2) . http://bit.ly...(3) . http://ind.pn...