The Instigator
ctoscano99
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Finalfan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

In the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 74973
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ctoscano99

Pro

I look forward to a great argument over this important economic issue. I will post my first argument after someone accepts my challenge: however, Con must not post any argument in the last round because I am not posting anything now.

Thanks!
Finalfan

Con

Acceptance round as agreed upon. Game on!
Debate Round No. 1
ctoscano99

Pro

Thanks so much to Con for accepting, I look forward to an awesome debate! For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to be using the rules of Lincoln-Douglas Value debate in this round. They're easy to understand and help provide a clear framework of argumentation. Also, I won't be posting sources as there are too many. If Con would like to see a specific source, please just say so in your rebuttal! :)

With that, let the debate begin.

Li Ka-Shing was born in Guangdong Province in China in 1928. Li was fifteen at the time of his father"s death, forcing him to drop out of high school to support his family by working long hours at a plastics trading company. Through hard work, Li was able to move to Hong Kong and found Cheung Kong Industries there, a company that today is estimated by Bloomberg to be worth $31.9 billion. Li"s life is a perfect example of how hard work and the freedom to pursue prosperity can lead to great success. Because I believe that economic freedom most effectively allows people to pursue prosperity I stand firmly resolved that in the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity.

In today"s debate round, my value, the reason I am arguing for freedom, will be because it achieves prosperity. Prosperity is defined as "The condition of being successful or thriving; especially economic well-being." This is the most important value because prosperity, or the accumulation of wealth for all citizens, is the end goal of the entire economic system. My criterion, or best way of achieving, prosperity is the free market. The free market is defined as "An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Government intervention into the economy in the name of equity just limits prosperity, while the free market as part of economic freedom allows it to grow.
Now, let"s define the key terms in this debate round to help unpack the issues.

Economics- Thomas Sowell, acclaimed economist, defines economics as "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses".

Now let"s define the two sides of this resolution: freedom and equity.

Economic Freedom- The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics defines economic freedom as "personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete in markets, and protection of person and property". The Encyclopedia goes on to say that "institutions and policies are consistent with economic freedom when they allow voluntary exchange and protect individuals and their property".

Economic Equity- Economic Equity is defined by the Business Dictionary as "the situation in an economy in which the apportionment of resources or goods among the people is considered fair".

Since every individual enters into the economy to achieve their own individual prosperity through self-interest, we need to look at both sides of this resolution, freedom and equity, to determine which side best achieves prosperity, the end goal.

Contention 1: More Economic Freedom Leads to More Prosperity. More Economic Freedom Leads to More Prosperity.
The theory of capitalism according to Adam Smith is that each member of society is trying to prosper and thus engages in competition and self-interest, making society as a whole more prosperous. Economic freedom removes restraints to this competition, increasing prosperity.The Business Dictionary provides some objective standards for achieving prosperity, "relatively low unemployment and high total income", as well as "high purchasing power." Examining the key factor of unemployment numbers in the United States and Europe shows us how more freedom leads to more prosperity. Europe is economically free, but it also has a highly regulated economy, which leads to a socialistic feel. According to the Heritage Foundation, the United States has more economic freedom than Europe. So in comparing free countries, what relationship can we find? Well, it turns out that over the past 15 years, the unemployment rate of countries in the EU is double that of the unemployment rate of the US, consistently through economic boom and bust. Countries that are more economically free are more prosperous.

Contention 2: Economic Freedom Decreases Poverty. Economic Freedom Decreases Poverty.
Poverty reduction, a crucial element to achieving prosperity, is not accomplished by government intervention into the actions of individual citizens as part of equity, but only through the free market, as Milton Friedman stated, "So far as poverty is concerned, there has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market." Over the past 30 years or so, as the world has engaged in a shift towards economic freedom, poverty rates have gone much lower, as Edward Lazear says in his article for the Wall Street Journal, "In 1981, half of the developing world earned less than $1.25 daily. By 2011, the portion had dropped to 17%." Furthermore, in his article on Economic Freedom in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Robert A. Lawson shows how the bottom 10% of people, the poorest earn up to 8 times as much in the most economically free countries than in the rest. Economic freedom not only reduces poverty overall, but the poor of economically free nations are much better off than the poor in nations that are not free.

Contention 3: Government Enforcing Equity Does Not Lead to Prosperity. Government Enforcing Equity does not Lead to Prosperity.
Just to be clear, the only way equity can be administered is through the government. A government is the only organization powerful enough to administer fairness across an economy. However, because the people in government are imperfect, central planning, which is required for equity, always leads to limited or nonexistent success for an economy. Countries which have and continue to have a lack of economic freedom and have government administration of equity all have limited prosperity, which is the end goal of economics. Since equity has to be enforced by the government, and government enforcement of equity doesn"t go well, equity doesn"t lead to prosperity and ought not to be valued higher.

Today, we"ve seen how economic freedom leads to prosperity, which is the end goal of economics. Better yet, it leads to prosperity for all, including the poor. If we look at the evidence, we see how economic freedom contributes to economic growth across the board, and because freedom achieves prosperity and equity does not, I strongly urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Finalfan

Con

Round 2: Establish position. I want to add a different perspective to this debate. I do not want to ignore your ideas and will establish counter arguments in round 3. Please let me know if my position is valid. It will be from my own perception not the perception of our economic history.

I would like to state that... on paper your position looks great, but I think you are trapped in the old way of thinking that has clearly gone stagnant. Now there are far more people and far less jobs. Innovation is incremental to maximize profits. The system has been exploited dry... thus a bad economy!

I have had a job for 19 years. Not once in my life have I depended on a government program to support me. This is not personal for me in the aspect that I want my government check to keep coming in and your trying to starve my 5 trailer park offspring! It is personal because I have empathy! My humanity and compassion does not allow me to put my head in the sand.

I am willing to discuss the nature of our economy as well as the system that would be in all of our best interest. Lets be honest. If its not good for everyone than its not good for anyone. Spock knew it. We all know it. History, Literature and even pop culture is saturated with the desperate struggle for an end to the obsession with possession and wealth! Even Jesus himself spent most of his time warning us about the dangers of greed.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven- J.C.

1.Who benefits the most from "Economic Freedom"?
a. criminals flourish while hard working people get bare minimums
b. Small business vs death by Corporation
c. Anyone who profits from human suffering
d. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer

2. Income inequality not a concern?
a: 1% owns 25% of nations available income
b. Excessive surplus entitled to "elites"
c. There are more vacant homes than homeless people in America
d. Farmers are paid to NOT grow food.. meanwhile starving children everywh...

3. Empathy and Compassion
a.Empathy is what makes us more than just intelligent monsters.
b. What would happen if you take away welfare? Medicaid? Social Security?
c. Survival of the fittest seems like a terrible framework for society!
d. Seriously! Starving children actually exist.. who cares if you achieve your hopes and dreams!

4. Healthcare/ Foster Care
a.The U.S. ranks 44th in health care efficiency and 26th in child well-being
b. During harsh economic times The wealthy are not affected. Healthcare, Foster care, Education all take a hit!

I'm running out of time I will have to elaborate next round. My apologies. My life got all kinds of complicated recently but I will try too keep up with this debate. The main concept I'm trying to get across is that motivation is great and who doesn't love to prosper. I was just hoping to find a better way to do it than dog eat dog! Anyways Next round I will address your points
which will help elaborate my position!
Debate Round No. 2
ctoscano99

Pro

ctoscano99 forfeited this round.
Finalfan

Con

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ctoscano99

Pro

ctoscano99 forfeited this round.
Finalfan

Con

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ctoscano99

Pro

ctoscano99 forfeited this round.
Finalfan

Con

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kaynes 2 years ago
Kaynes
What ? Did you read my debate with Abby or really had the same debate in mind ? Looking forward to read this
Posted by ctoscano99 2 years ago
ctoscano99
You got it! Go ahead. It's going to be awesome.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
I will if you let me use my first round for acceptance :)
Posted by ctoscano99 2 years ago
ctoscano99
Finalfan, if you would like to debate me, I would appreciate it.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
I always feel sick to my stomach when I think of a small percentage of people living in flagrant excess while a large percentage have little to nothing. The system is designed this way and it is all our faults! When the chips are down and the economy starts to fail. The wealthy cement their privilege by cutting costs. Not in their bonus or corporate jet. We allow this. While the 1% flourish under all conditions the 99% suffer and thank them for it! What an agreement!
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
*Awaits 16kadams or Responsiblyirresponsible,*
No votes have been placed for this debate.