The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Right Wing Liberarianism is better than Left Wing

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: 2/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 70040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




In this debate I am going to argue how the policies of Right Wing Ideologies and parties are both morally and economically better and how they are more efficient and fairer. I would like to point out that Fascism and Nazism are not Right Wing. In fact Nazism is the Workers' National Socialist party placing it in the Left Wing and Fascism and Anarchism are two extremes of the centre not Right or Left.
My main points will be
1. How Liberty is better than Equality
2. How forms of Social Hierarchy are natural and arise from some people doing better than others and working harder.
3. How Right Wing supports Equal rights and opportunity
4. Why the Government's power should be limited
5. Why Socialism is both bad and inefficient.


I am going to argue to the contrary. I believe that policies that lean towards the common-good are far more moral than policies that maintain elitism. I will even argue that a society built around the common-good, with emphasis on community values and freedom of expression, will actually be far better economically than one built for the benefit of the elite.

Right-wing politics (or the politics of elitism) is far less economically efficient than a society built for the common-good. Elitism is defined by monetary profit, the measure of power is therefore in monetary form (or physical power, but this is not relevant here). In a elitist society, it is obviously desirable to be an elite, so the drive for monetary wealth and excessive profits is inevitable without adopting socialist values. This drive for profit leads to such things as planned obselecence and the rejection of certain brilliant technologies-such as the water car (1): technology with potential to make oil obsolete and end the fossil fuel crisis; bought up and retained from society by big buisness. Both these things cause excessive damage to the environment that is totally avoidable, indeed the excess is to maximise profit for the elites.These things (planned obselecence and technology rejection) would not exist in a society made for the common good, because they create more human work, create more environmental damage, make more waste, cost more rescources and increase consumer costs. A world made for the common good would share this workload and thus strive to reduce it, also the cost to the environment is a factor that concerns the 'common-good' society, unlike an elitist one. This is because the nature of a society modelled by the elite is only concerned with the preservation of that which the elite can enjoy, all other conservation is the result of non-profit, activist groups. The right-wing political ideology is not a responsible keeper of the environment, this is clear based on observations of our current capitalist nations, but also in theory: because elitist, right-wing political societies are either authoritarian, and this is irrelevant as I don't guess my opponent is arguing in favour of them, or capitalist. Capitalist societies, that lean to the right, are based around maximising profit and individualism. A society that rewards greed, and that is not guided by the common-good, but rather allowes itself to be dictated by the desires of individual men-for their materialistic gain-is doomed to failure and inevitable exhaustion. The power of mankind over the earth is far too great now for such recklessness, it may of been less damaging before the days of industrialisation, but now the power of mankind to destroy and exploit the earth is at a level whereby intelligent thinking is needed to ensure its responsible use, .


Right-wing ideology is worse for the planet.

The preservation of the environment is in the interests of the common-good. A society with the common-good in mind, protects the world for the good of mankind. If individuals have the means to make personal profit at the expense of a portion of the environment, they will, or somebody else will.

Another thing that demonstrates this to be worse is the water car example.

People work less hours.

A society that shares its workload acts to reduce it, in a capitalist world those in power are always trying to increase their profits, thus resulting in lower-wages and longer working hours for the powerless. Don't forget that because prison and Medicare are profitable organisations, they almost cancel out the reason why they exist in the first place, as they seek to ensure they remain in business. Medical companies notoriously conceal cures in favour of more profitable treatments-always at your expense. For if they cure you, your no use to them-the system itself is flawed. Same with prisons; its not because the criminal justice system is stupid why 2 thirds of criminals re-offend. Apart from ill health and criminality, this increases human work even more so.

People would be happier.

Capitalism requires people to be materialistic to ensure its continuation, it encourages and creates this mentality anyway wherever it goes by tempting our desires and twisting our human nature to fit consumerism. A mind filled with consumer goods and fit for consumerism is less happy than a mind interconnected with its community and guided by spiritual fulfilment. We have been conditioned to find this attitude unworthy of respect, so I implore you to think again with an open-mind. Our current culture is consumerism and its been encouraged by right-wing ideology. This orchestrated cultural mentality is created by the big businesses of capitalism and is designed to make us feel disconnected from one another and 'empty'. They then offer a solution to this feeling in the form of their product. This is not my observation, its the accepted marketing strategy observed by social thinkers in the field of sociological research. This is why I have no specific reference. My point is however, that this kind of mentality is an unpleasant one but necessary for consumerism and elitism. However this mentality would not be encouraged in a collectivist society as its wouldn't be needed to maintain consumerism, so the psychological health of people in a collectivist society would be bette than those in an elitist one.

Also in an elitist society, the vast majority of citizens are second class citizens. This surely would have an impact on their social well-being and self-esteem.

Democracy is more true in a representative world than in an elitist one, this is obvious, as the elites which to maintain their position and can only do so through administrative means which involves governance.

Capitalism is innately self-destructive.

This is true in two ways: firstly, companies initiative to reduce workforce costs will result in loss of jobs. 6000 words! I have to continue next
Debate Round No. 1


In a right wing society every individual has the freedom and opportunity to become a member of this 'elite' you talk about by working hard and earning what they deserve. In a left wing society the government forcefully takes the money of those doing well and gives it to those sitting on their arse all day. Sound fair to you? It's much better to teach someone how to fish so they can provide for themselves the rest of their lives than to give them free fish taken from someone else.
I am also a strong individualist. When I look at a crowd I see individuals not a group of meaningless ants separated by race and gender. I believe that the government would respect the rights do individuals rather than lumping them in groups to satisfy the needs of other humans.
Furthermore I disagree that Right Wing beliefs are bad for the environment. They just believe that the government should stop using the wrong types of energy and wasting our money. Wind power for example. I live in Scotland and there are thousands of these useless things that are incredibly expensive but produce hardly enough energy at all. At my home we have a private Hydroelectric Power station which works well and is better because it is private not in the irresponsible hands of the state.
Also I argue that Capitalism benefits the social good. Capitalism is something I call the unknown Ideal. Most people think that Capitalism is quite a selfish philosophy where everyone is out just to benefit themselves but actually think about the cycle of prosperity being created. The workers bing paid so they can buy food for their families and eventually get richer by working hard, the other factories benefiting. Think about the automobile industry in the early 20th century (I have a deep love of History as it shows us how the world best works). The Petroleum industry, the leather, steel, glass, you name it. They all prospered. Joseph Diedrich once said 'It's true that Free trade and Globalisation make the rich richer but they also make the poor richer.'
Also in a Right Wing capitalist society it doesn't matter where you come from, everyone has equal opportunity to get richer. The harder you work the bigger the reward. Sound fair to me. This is because of economic Freedom which left wing influenced governments take away. Capitalism is also the best and most efficient way for society. Socialism violates a person's freedom, violates human nature, violates the right to choose your child's education and violates private property. Socialism is also incredibly inefficient. I said earlier that I liked History. Well open a History book and you'll see the state Vietnam and the USSR got into ( USSR was actually Socialist not properly communist). Let's look at another quote, this is a from an economist called Walter Williams. 'Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why Socialism is evil.'
I would also like to point out that Right Wingers believe in equal rights and therefore equal opportunities. Left wingers do not and think that some people should have special rights because they belong to a particular ethnic minority. Positive discrimination (or Affirmative Action) is wrong because it is choosing someone to do something based on their race, gender or religion. That is prejudiced.
I would like to conclude by returning back to the benefits of Capitalism and pointing out that studies that have been carried out by the University of Leicester show Democratic Capitalist countries are the happiest in the world. With the likes of Britain, Canada, the U.S.A and New Zealand. Because thanks to the free market policies I'm these countries the inhabitants can
Get what they want and be what they want without the government interfering too much.
Right Wing generates a better Economy and a better and fairer Society.



Firstly I would like to say that I am not altogether opposed to a society that works off the definition of capitalism, though it would need responsible government that was poerful enough to conduct it properly. This is the misunderstanding I think between people of your philosophy and people of mine: if a monetary system really did take into account human worth, and was a true meritocracy, then I'm sure things could work. But the reality is very different, at least in the capitalism of today, and this is why we believe a movement to the 'left' is essential for for human satisfaction and any attempts to make things more beneficial for the rich (or right-wing ideology) is detrimental to human happiness.

You say: "It's much better to teach someone how to fish so they can provide for themselves the rest of their lives than to give them free fish taken from someone else."

Yes, but I'm suggesting we find the most efficient way to fish- then delegate what little work is needed to those wanting eat fish (not exactly like this). Capitalism results in one man owning all the fish, then setting the economy to make people have to work far more than is needed to use the fish-resulting in fish being thrown away by the wealthy, and the poor people starving. Do you know where all your capitalist goods come from? Let me tell you that it's slave like conditions and extreme poverty that drives the machine that fuels the consumer addicted, capitalist culture. You might not know about the darker side of capitalism, which is more like the entirety than just a side: look at these statistics; according to Wikipedia, 99.9% of the world have 19% of the wealth, and the top 0.001 have 30%. Is a corporate C.E.O, (human being) who knowingly makes policy that kills people (such as poisoning water for oil, poisoning the rivers of third world countries) more valuable to society than a man (human being) who spends his time educating people for free who need it? Moreover, is he millions and millions of times more worthy? Because capitalism would say he is, I ask you: Is that fair?

You say your a strong individualist, what does that even mean? Of course individuality is key to happiness, but how does giving people the right to make it so we have to work 5 days a week until we are 67 do this? I mean, I know a few people get jobs they like, but these are in the minority according to statistics. Also, we live in the richest country on earth, look at the 99% of other people capitalism effects. How does capitalism encourage their individuality? Seriously, I mean apart from the previous feudal system, which I think is what you mean when you say individualty has increased. Think about most people's lives in the UK or America: do they express their individualty through their work? Do they wake up everyday, itching to get to work? Do they hold strong community values and persue spiritual growth and learning? No, the consumer market requires you to be addicted to their food, addicted to their drugs, bereft of community values an thus a feeling of loneliness that they fill with consumer goods. We are not necessarily the happiest nation in the world, even though we are the richest, and many countries have dictators and poverty. Because studies done on tribal people find that they are in fact happier.

The study of Psychology (im a student) widely accepts that's social bonding is not only the most important thing to a human, but is in fact essential-without we actually die as babies-even when fed and kept warm. So tell that to indivualism. Also, don't you think now that we have 'grow up' as a society we need to be more responsible? Your philosophy isn't too bad in ancient days and monkey tribes, but now with our capacity for destruction and sheer size, don't you think we need to think collectively? I don't mean be like ants! Like we are now, but collectively decipher the best way for us all to live. Preserving the environment, making life easy and good and preserving what should be preserved. If some people refuse to work, they will be social recluses as a result, now that's a worse deterrant than being on social welfare nowadays is it not? For how could you have friends in your community, whose work-load is made bigger by your laziness? Work would only by a few hours a week. People would dislike you, so only few people would do it. And as Ghandi said-just because there are a few dirty drops, doesn't have to make to whole ocean dirty.

You mention your power supply. Mate you have to think bigger than your living room when discussing the world affairs of 7 billion people on a finite planet with huge issues facing it. Technology can be improved in the renewable energy market if it had money, our government tax renewable energy companies more than other companies also which doesn't make it easy for them. This is a result of capitalism also, as the monopoly the oil companies have on the market gives them such power to quell competition. I notice you didn't mention the water car, why so? This is quite important when talking about the environment. It is never good for the environment to allow powerful organizations to exploit it freely for profit, I don't understand you logic here. Organizations could only do this responsibly with government regulations, which would be contrary to right-wing philosophy.

We have not evolved to want consumer goods, we have evolved to want freedom, comfort, mastery and strong social bonds.

Capitalism, and your philosophy can only work if: 1. Public worth (wage) is determined fairly, meaning nobody is to rich. 2. Government take authority, have complete authority, and are not at all linked with elitism. They have the public good in mind as their sole agenda, and can make or break corporations, or change them individually as they please. This system reflects socialism more than a right-wing society.

Humans have a tendency to be selfish and greedy, right-wing philosophy rewards this.
Debate Round No. 2


In my view in Britain I live in a fair and just Right Wing and Capitalist country. Because the main argument against Capitalism is that it can't be a meritocracy because of inheritance. But I belief individuals have the right to pass on their wealth to who they wish when they die because that supports Social Freedom and Human rights. It's their money so they can do what they wish with it. But left wing ideas dismiss this. In a right wing society their are two ways if getting money. Getting it out of merit which is often the best and most fair way or inheriting it. And if you inherited it, the people you inherited it from must have got it out of merit. Left wing beliefs add a third option. That is taking money from people doing well or who inherited from someone who did well and giving to some lazy person who cannot be bothered to work so starts pleading for benefits.
Welfare is allowing the government to steal from one person to give from another. Probably because that person who is being stolen from is doing well and working hard. Everything the government gives you was taken from somebody else.
If your argument for increased tax (and especially on people who work hard) is that who will built the roads and schools? ,et me tell you this. Before 1913 every American citizen had the right to keep everything that they earned however there were still schools, roads, military and lots more. Because I believe in equal rights I believe that everyone should pay the same percentage of tax. In other words, flat tax.
In defence of Capitalism I would like to tell you a quote by Ludwig Von Mises (because as you see I like quotes) and the quote is 'Capitalism gave the world what it needed. A higher standard of living for a steadily increasing amount of people.
About your environmental rant. Oil is efficient and gives people money in their pockets and guess what what there's plenty of it, new sources of black gold are being found all the time. It's going to be a while until it runs out and until then it should be used. At the present moment in time your water car isn't really needed because it's too expensive to manufacture and sell but when it becomes needed I am sure that it will used.
Also the reason that so many people are poor is because they haven't been working hard enough. Globalisation which brings money and employment into countries in poverty, and free trade can put an end to that. Yes I think that their should be a minimum wage but too much government intervention and regulation destroys economic growth which isn't just bad for these 'elitists' but for the poor people who rely on these economies for employment. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is incredibly efficient and if you open a history book you shall realise that. The reason why so many people are poor is because they have not worked as hard enough as the richer people but as right wing ideology supports opportunity they can become rich.
There doesn't need to be this darker side of capitalism. Being paid money l do a job isn't slavery but being forced to give money to the state so they can distribute it where they like is. It's not one man owning the fish everyone can own the fish if everyone works hard. What you put in you get out. That's the way it should be according to right wing philosophy but not according to left wing. If tobacco taxation is supposed to discourage people to smoke than what are taxes for making money supposed to do.
Collectivism is the belief that if you steal someone else's money using force to do what you think is right and then giving it to an organisation whilst having the moral high ground.
You mention tribes being happy but don't they have forms of social hierarchy that left wing belief so strongly attacks?
Right Wing provides increased incentives to work hard so things get done but left wing will just give them money taken from someone else actually working.
Right wingers support Economic Freedom but are harsh to Criminals.
Left wingers are harsh on Economy but are all touchy feely towards criminals.
Honestly which one is going to do more damage? And then which one will actually help society and people by providing jobs.
Let me tell you this Government is not the solution to the problem because actually it is the problem. Governments increase national debt, steal your money and act like they are protecting you. The huge debt is caused by government agencies and programs and also by aid to foreign countries. What we need is trade not aid and a right wing country will give us that.
Socialism is not an alternative to Capitalism because it is less immoral surprisingly and is less efficient. Capitalism works well and as a result increases national wealth.
Humans do have a tendency to want more and do better and right-wing philosophy supports that.


Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
Ok thanks
Posted by simonstuffles 3 years ago
In future, if you want votes, post it in the unvoted debates thread in the forums.
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
That's all right.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 3 years ago
Apologies for the forfeit, my son had to go for surgery. He is well now :)
Posted by A341 3 years ago
I'll send a challenge, you can choose to post first or not.
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
Do you want to start or shall I?
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
Why not?
Posted by A341 3 years ago
Do you want to debate if anarchism is left wing?
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
Left wingers want to increase government intervention and have a bigger government that can steal from people doing well and give it to those not doing well. Anarchism is no government. I respect Anarchism and it is a great ideal just I am not too sure it would work. It is anything but left wing though.
Posted by Heraclitus 3 years ago
Anarchism is so not left wing
No votes have been placed for this debate.