Conservative (right wing) values are inherently detrimental to society and human values
Debate Rounds (3)
When right-wing people are worried about left-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be allowed to make as much money, or that their money will be taken away. They're basically worried that they won't be able to be better off than everyone else. This can be seen in many countries where the right wing party vote against corporation tax or inheritance tax, basically any thing that will tax people who are rich.
Before I begin, I'd like to clarify a couple terms that you're using (improperly) as snynonyms: "right-wing" and "conservative". "Right-wing" implies the ideals of the GOP, which have recently been left to question, while "conservative" can mean any number of different values.
Now that we have that out of the way:
You claim that right-wing ideals are "essentially about the protection and promotion of oneself". To demonstrate your point, you claim that any advancements made by the free market and free economy are purely coincidental. However, you provided no evidence or example to suport this claim. I propose that the free market, while not perfect, is the best and most innovative possible structure an economc power can have. When everyone has a voice, and the (somewhat less so nowadays) unrestricted capability for entreneurership, that the general standard of living improves. In a free-market system, if someone has an idea, that is either more convenient or cheaper than that of the status quo, they can turn this idea into a reality, rewarding their cleverness and improving society. So, in a free-market system, improvemet to society is the driving force of the economy itself, not a coincidental byproduct.
I've noticed that people don't particularly enjoy having their hard-earned money stolen from them to provide aid for those too lazy to work... When a liberal (and/or progressive) mindset dominates our government, interesting things start happening: the government begins to go above any beyond its authority, passing unfair taxes on items it considers immoral (cigarettes, for example), and takes money from those who have it (and earned it by working) and gives it to those who don't have it, be they actually incapable of earning money or just too lazy to work. That's where the worry comes from having liberal politicians.
As for progressive income taxes; why should anyone be punished for success? Most of America's rich are business owners, so what do you think will happen if you tax them to death? Their businesses starve,and employees (the ones who aren't layed off) recieve massive wage slashes. Do you think that this is a good thing?
You argue about people not enjoying their hard earn money, yet the question is asking whether it is detrimental to Society. Although this distinction may seem pedantic, it really is the weakness of Right wing politics. You yourself mention how people don't particularly enjoy having their hard earned money taken away, yet the right wing policies (and its subsequent economics) means that the people who already have the money will keep profiting, and the people without it are left to fight for the scraps. What kind of human values are let the weak suffer as the powerful thrive. You also argued that "In a free-market system, if someone has an idea, that is either more convenient or cheaper than that of the status quo, they can turn this idea into a reality, rewarding their cleverness and improving society." However the competition is not able to flourish thanks to the already powerful Big Business who get more money because of this system.
Perhaps I'm being equivocal so I'll give you a clear example. One of the weapons used by many Right wing politicians in the UK and US alike (and obviously many countries) is the Trickle Down Effect theory the theory that economic benefits provided to upper income level earners will help society as a whole. In theory their extra wealth will be spent into the economy, providing wealth for lower income earners and creating jobs. This wealth in turn is spent back into the economy. Even talking about this in layman terms show how illogical this is, give a working class individual money they'll spend it on essentials give a middle class individual money they'll spend half and save the other half, give a rich individual money they'll spend a quarter and save the rest. The values are not important, rather the idea. Now as we an see it's mostly the rich who will support this right wing idea as it is benefiting them, yet again showing that Right wing ideas are detrimental to society as it turns people against each other. Now as for actual proof the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says "Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels."
Surely it is not punishing, rather it's contributing back into society to help those less fortunate than themselves and I certainly don't see anything wrong with that. If you profited from the system, why would you not want other people to profit as well unless you have questionable morals. From my view point, left wing ideals are a lot more progressive and have more emphasis in helping society as a whole and I don't see anything wrong with that. We (in the UK) have the National Health Service, the NHS, which was formed under a Labour Government and is one of the biggest political successes. Everyone contributing for free health care. This idea is bad according to what you're saying.
The "Trickle Down Economics" theory, depending on hoe you look at it, is a fact of economics. Rich business owners invariably spend their money to pay employees and maintain facilities, which both maintains jobs, creates temporary jobs, and provides stability and circulation within the economy. The idea that the rich only spend money for themselves is completely absurd, as most (as I said earlier) are rich due to their businesses. Of course the rich oppose progressive taxes, they basically confiscate money from the successful and hand it out to the less successful. In another era, this was known as Communism.
As for your "contributing back to society" argument: Government has no business whatsoever dictating morality. If someone wants to donate money for what they judge to be a good cause, by all means, let them, but when the government takes more money from working citizens to pay others to not work, that's not moral, that's buying votes.
One last thing: how does it aid society to give money to those who won't work? Does leeching money from productive businesses to provide for those who won't pull their own weight sound like a good economic policy to you? If handing out money aids society, then doesn't the idea of keeping what you earn aid it even more?
YasirWhy forfeited this round.
I have nothing further to say.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Ff by pro. Arguments: I'll not cast a vote since it was close in this area, but Con did a good job of countering all arguments brought to the table by Pro, as well has having them left untouched at the end of the debate. Regardless, I'll cast my vote only in terms of conduct, as I don't see it of merit to award Con both conduct and arguments, as the there was a lot of grey area in that particular aspect.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.