Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

My opponent makes a lot of quotes and a lot of claims, but he says very little and provides no objective sources to support those claims. Not only this, but he tries to deflect from the resolution by placing the blame for society's problems on Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan. Furthermore he argues for compassion, not for equality, and he does little to explain how or why the government should encourage equality. It seems he even expects us to find the sources to his arguments on our own, well if that's the case, I urge all those voting on this debate to go watch all the videos that my opponent didn't link in his arguments; this is vital to understanding my opponent's arguments, because he does not make his own arguments, he allows unlinked movies make his arguments for him. My opponent attacked my measure of economic prosperity on the basis that GDP may increase if a natural disaster or war occurs in the country. While it is true that GDP will temporarily rise after these events, in the long-term natural disasters and wars will lead to a decrease in GDP; natural disasters allow for a temporary surge in construction and other similar industries, but once everything is rebuilt GDP declines as the new sector struggles to reach the previous level of output; wars increase output in the arms industry, but governments eventually have to raise taxes or cut programs, which leads to lower output from all industries nation-wide. [1] [2] "Wages are not just in money terms, however. You can't reduce the value of people's assets by polluting them and not polluting others…. Pollution control has nothing to do with the resolution, and while enforcement of the law does share a relation with economics, it does not support or disprove the resolution. Enforcement of the law allows for greater economic prosperity and pollution control increases quality of life, but they have nothing to do with whether or not people are getting paid fair wages and they certainly have nothing to do with income inequality. The issue here is what the law should be, not whether or not it's being enforced. My opponent is attempting to dodge the resolution with this argument. "Output is becoming increasingly hard to measure…." Many economists argue that the minimum wage actually increases unemployment by making it more difficult for younger Americans to gain entry level jobs. The minimum wage also increases inflation, which makes the wage increase given by minimum wage worth less. Oh, the people that get paid over minimum wage are hit hard by the minimum wage induced inflation as well, so isn't that a kicker? This is an example of the government trying to promote economic equality, and also an example of that good will actually hurting the poor that they seek to help. [3] Furthermore the income tax takes more money out of the hands of the rich, which could be put back into the economy to create more and better paying jobs. There really is no reason to have an income tax, since most taxes received from the rich are from business transactions and capital gains. Oh, and the income tax actually puts another tax on the poor, which just makes them poorer. It also over complicates things and allows for special interest groups to take full advantage of our tax system! [4] Also, I don't see why people that choose not to work or are fired should get a free ride from the system. The only thing the government should provide for these people is an opportunity to get back into the work force, not a free pay check for a prolonged period of time. Now if you can't work or you're too old to work, that's a different story, but that also has nothing to do with the resolution. We're talking about income equality after all, not whether or not we should have a societal safety net. "First, it must ensure fair work.…" Actually slave labour is not the most effective way to create prosperity. If you were to compare the free states of 1855 America to the slave states of 1855 America you'd see a huge difference in prosperity between the two; namely that the north was much more prosperous than the south, because it had a free labor system, where people were free to prosper on their own merits. Also, my opponent is attempting to put up an Egyptian straw man here, while Egypt has nothing to do with his resolution. [5] Furthermore, you say the government should ensure fair work, but you don't say how. Do you want the government to provide jobs for everyone? You said that economic equality isn't socialism, but what you are suggesting sounds an awful lot like socialism. What is it that you want exactly, because I have no idea from reading your argument? "Compassion is so important because…." MY opponent is arguing for the logical extreme here. The Soviet Union had economic equality; everyone was poor. The Soviet Union also touted the most oppressive dictators and oppressive regimes known to mankind, killing millions of its own people. Is that not psychotic? Is it psychotic to allow people to fail or succeed on their own merits, and not give them more taxes when they succeed to take care of the poor? No, it is perfectly sane to allow people to enjoy their hard earned wealth. Compassion has nothing to do with this argument. As for the free market, there are bubbles and busts in every free economy. One of the worst economic crises in US history happened during a period when we had a lot of welfare programs for society, when government was at its largest. I'm referring to stagflation of course. Cutting government spending and lowering interest rates got us out of that economic crisis, and yes we've had crises since then, but none have been so big as the one in the 70's. When you give people the right to make choices, they will make bad choices sometimes, that's just the way it works, but they are also much more likely to make the right choices and come to the right conclusions than big government ever will be. "Curtis argued that Greenspan's policies mirrored…." President Clinton's administration lower interest rates and cut government spending while they were in office, which was almost a decade before the Great Recession. What happened between then? Oh yea, two wars and a massive increase in government spending. You know, the same things that lead to the stagflation crisis of the late 70's and was remedied by lowering interest rates and cutting spending? I rest my case. [6] Conclusion My opponent has tip toed around the resolution, hitting points that have nothing or little to do with economic equality. Furthermore, he provides no sources and actually tells you to go look it up yourself. Need I say more? [1] http://michiganjb.org... [2] http://economics.about.com... [3] http://www.thefreemanonline.org... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] http://www.socialstudieshelp.com... [6] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...