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

thank you for posting con. i will just jump right in to my response. 1.The standard I"m not sure when the con proposed the standard but I disagree with your value of moral value for multiple reasons starting with: a.No such thing as absolute moral rightness First of all we must all agree that not everyone agrees on what"s morally right so in some tribes it is morally right to eat humans while in America it morally right. Thus if we make moral rightness the standard then no one can achieve it. b.It isn"t the government"s job to insure moral rightness. It would only make sense that the government is the actor in today"s round seeing as they are the only entity that could make a serious difference in economics. With this in mind we also see that we don"t want a government that ensures "moral rightness". Hitler and much of Germany thought they were morally inclined to purify the human race. Instead we want a government who sole purpose is to protect our human rights (which is my value or standard today. A value or standard helps decide who wins based on who best achieves this) thus not having an ability or freedom to violate our life, our freedom of religion and/or liberty. 2.Human rights We seem to have some confusion on what human rights are. There are three main human rights life, liberty and property. All other rights such as freedom of the press and such spring from one of these three rights. Things like health care are not a human right. Human rights are things that all humans are born with and they can be violated by a tyrannical government such as property is violated when the government takes your money and gives it to some who they think deserves it more. No matter what stealing is wrong it doesn"t matter if the government is the one stealing. Just because the European Convention on Human Rights says its right doesn"t make it right. Under English law in the mid 19th century women weren"t allowed to own property that doesn"t make that violation of property right just because some aw says so. 3.Contention 2 As the pro I argue that the government deregulated in order to create more fairness seeing as the poor weren"t able to qualify and I didn"t post any proof but I will do so presently. When talking about congressmen franks attempt to create fairness by lowering the standards for getting a loan: "His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators." It all started in 1992 the government made the rule that 30% percent of loans had to be subprime. Over the years it slowly increased until in 2007 bush passed a law that 55% of the loans that the banks bought had to be subprime loans. The article goes on to say "By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million sub-prime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis." THIS WAS A DRIVE FOR EQUITY BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO THE POOR AND IF WE WILL REMEMBER THE DEFINITION OF EQUITY WAS THE QUALITY OF BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. 4.Contention 3 I stand by the fact that the bloom was caused by war and innovation but to look at what your argument we can see you aren"t arguing equity v freedom you are arguing government intervention v freedom which as the affirmative I agree with the government can help if the economy is failing what we are arguing is whether or not the government should limit our freedom for what they consider fair thus your whole argument to my third contention is irrelevant. 5.Contention 4 Again this is irrelevant to today"s debate round we aren't arguing whether or not the government should have no hand in the economy but whether or not they should be able to force their morals on us in the economy. what this debate is really asking is weather or not or human rights to liberty should be limited for such a vague idea like equity. Thank you!