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

Round 3: FIGHT! The definition I have for this debate are as follows: Justice: Giving an individual his or her fair due (Black's Law) Observation 1: The title is not the actual topic The title spot did not allow for the whole topic to fit. The topic that we will debate is "Limiting economic inequality should be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom" Observation 2: What is best for the society should be the more important goal. This follows simple logic. What most beneficial must be held as a more important goal. Thus, I just need to prove that limiting economic inequality is better for the society than maximizing economic freedom. Observation 3: The society that must debated is the United States SA- We must narrow the field of debate to one society/nation. Otherwise, this would be abusive to Pro as Con could simply spend the whole debate bringing up societies (including those without economies) and challenging Pro to fulfill his burden of proof. This would, in fact, the destroy the purpose of debate SB- The U.S. must be the nation/society of choice. This is the fairest and most logical conclusion as both debaters, all 3 judges, and the creator of the topic all live in the U.S. Contention 1 - Maximizing economic freedom leads to world-wide poverty. Hardt and NegrI, Professor of Comp. Lit. at Duke and Anarchist Intellectual, 2004 "Global capital since its movement and reach extend well beyond the limits of mational space, cannot be effectively controlled by states. Many labor unions protest the fact the mere thereat of the mobility of capital- the threat of moving production and jobs to another country where state regulations and/or labor cost are lower and more favorable- can convince states to abandon or temper their own regulatory powers. States conform to and even anticipate the needs of capital for fear of being subordinated in the global economic system. This creates a sort of race to the bottom among the nation states in which the interests of labor and society as a whole take a backseat to those of capital. Neo liberalism is generally the name given to this form of state economic policy. Neo liberalism is not really a regimen of unregulated capital but rather a form of state regulation that best facilitates the global movements and profit of capital" Contention 2 - Freedom is bad Human nature is to be lazy and accept things as they are, meaning they cannot be trusted to bring about change. The amount of choices freedom gives makes it impossible to effectively choose the best choice. Thus, because of laziness, people do nothing or go to the mob effect. Hence, whoever controls the societal norms, controls society. Allowing the illusion of democracy and freedom of choice and the ability to be different from the norm re-enforces that the people must be making the right choice because they have the choice not to do it, therefore it must be right. The freedom that is advocated in the topic is not good for society has it brings society deeper into this salvery, while continuing to re-enforce that they are free. Contention 3- Economic equality = justice The whole point of the U.S. is to create a just society. Thus, what creates more justice is held as a more important goal than those that do not create justice. As all citizens need to be valued equally in order for justice to occur, limiting inequality achieves justice, while the counter-plan of maximizing economic freedom does not. Hence, we can see that limiting economic inequality is better for society than maximizing economic freedom, meaning that it should be a more important social goal.