The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
The Contender
UlrikHvid
Con (against)

Right wing values are more just to the individual and more beneficial to society than the 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
UlrikHvid has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 98446
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

Round one - acceptance only
Round two - Opening arguements (no rebuttals)
Round three and four - Rebuttals
Round Five - Closing statements (no rebuttals)

I will be Pro arguing that The Right Wing is more just to the individual and beneficial to society than the left wing.

Con will be arguing vice versa.

BOP is shared

Rules :

- No cussing
- No forfeiting
- Unreliable sources result in an automatic victory to the opposing side
UlrikHvid

Con

I don't agree with this statement. Individual freedom is not something that human beings are born with. It is something that a human being can be lucky enough to possess, in some measure, at different stages of his/her life. Therefore, the ideal government is one which provides the best possible basis for individual freedom. This is not acquired by doing nothing, as neoliberalism would have it, but by doing quite a lot. One example is education - in a given liberal capitalist society it may be possible to choose whatever education you like, as long as you pay for it. If your parents are not wealthy enough to finance that education, you may still be "free" to take a loan. However, when you finish your education you are no longer free, because you are bound to paying back this loan within a relatively short period of time. Now you cannot necessarily choose the job that would make you the happiest, or the job that you are best at. You have to choose the job that will allow you to pay back the loan in the shortest possible time so that the interests won't be too enormous. In this way you are now bound by the free market, rather than by the state, and in this way the free market turns out to be potentially much more oppressive.
Another example is media. The right wing would say that media should not be regulated or subsidised by the state, that the media should be "free" from the meddling state. However, journalists working at state owned public service networks are in many ways more free, in the sense that they can take risks and spend time doing thorough research without the risk of losing to the competition. Winning the competition does not always mean doing the best job. In the case of media, it might mean bending the truth more effectively, or bringing the news first without having researched them properly.

These are just examples showing how the right wing ideal of individual freedom is actually best obtained through left wing methods of regulation and collective financing, especially of public areas like media and education.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

Firstly, right wing politics encourage lower income taxes which result in more spending which in tandem creates more demand, which is the driving force of the economy. Right wing politics like trickle-down economics and bush economics cut taxes especially income taxes which allows the average American to keep more of his hard-earned money which makes the average American better off financially. When the average middle-class American has more money in his pocket, more spending occurs which drives up the demand for products. Skyrocketing demand created by increased spending created through tax cuts is without doubt a beneficial thing for the economy, since the more demand there is products, the more business will have to start to satisfy that demand which creates much more jobs. For example, take communist China who had a unfruitful economy when adopting left - wing poltics. Now that cina gave up the communist system and had to get rid of the left wing politics, they started adopting elements of capitalism and replaced their left wing system with the more efficient right wing system where the averge chinese citizen go to keep more of his money rather than giving it to the government. as a result, The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China gross domestic product by 2005. From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. All in all, tax cuts are beneficial to grow the economy when used right. Raising taxes on the average american makes him more reluctant to spend the remaining of his money which creates less spending and less demand.

Secondly, right wing politics advocates for lower business taxes which acts as an incentive for people to start their own business which spurs jobs across the nation. Right now, approximately 60% of the american population is working in a small business. There is no doubt that small business is the spine of the american economy. Would higher taxes and taking more out of the entrepreneur's money be a greater incenticive to make him start his own business or would making him keep more of his hard-earned money be a greater incentive?? of coursethe latter. We should be encouraging entrepreneur's and incentivizing them to start their own business and reward them by allowing them to keep more of the money they me and not punish them by taking their hard-earned money to give to those who dont work. It is that simple the lower the business taxes, the more incentive entreprreneurs have to start their own business which leads to more business activity and more job.

Moreover, right wing politics create more revenue, although they implement lower taxes. Right wing politics is characterized by minimal government spending, lower taxes, etc. although this might sound absurd at the surface level but implenting lower taxes create more government revenue, it truly works. Since there is lower taxes, the rich are more likely to pay their taxes. The rich try to find the right balance between paying minimal taxes and trying not to break the law. Since higher taxes create more tension between the rich and the government, the rich are less likely to pay their taxes and more likely to use risky loopholes that could result in serious conseuences. HIgher taxes create the feeling among the rich that they are being "ripped off" and are being overtaxed therefore they are more likely to use risky tax evasion methods that could result n jail. Since the rich feel "ripped off", they use tax evasion methods which result in less income taxes and less corporate taxes revenue which cin tandem creates smaller governmnet revenue. On the other hand, when the taxes are low, the rich are more likely to actually pay their taxes since they are not having the "ripped off" feeling and they are feeling as if they are paying their fair share. Since the taxes are low, the rich are less likely to use tax evasion methods since it is just an unreasonable risk so they would rather just pay the money. an example of this phenomenon occured during the bush tax cuts, where George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich and the results were fascinating. During the bush tax cuts, the rich experienced tax cuts which resulted in skyrocketing government revenue. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history according to washington times.

In addition, right wing politics encourage lower government spending which decreases government spending corruption and creates a smaller welfare state. When the government spends cuts spending, the margin for government spending inefficiencies is much smaller. Since the government focuses the tax dollars on the important pograms like healthcare and education and cuts inefficient spending on less useful programs like military and welfare, the margin for inefficient spending just goes down. Right wing politics spends the money on important programs like healthcare and education while cutting spending on less useful programs like the military and welfare which creatres more efficient spending. I am not implying that the military is useless, I believe it is not as important as the key programs like education and healthcare. RIght wing parties then save the surplus for future rainy days to prevent austerity. On the other hand, Left wing parties enjoy excessive spending and government handouts. For example, Left wing parties enjoy excessive inefficient spending on welfare and the military which creates budget defeciets and saves no money for rainy days which leads to austerity. For example, a key difference in spending is welfare. The US spends almost a trillion dollar on the inefficent welfare system per year which is n line with the democratic (left wing) reign of obama. WHY would you spend a trillion dollars each year on an inefficeint system that does not work? That is the exact definition of inefficeint spending and that is what creates government budget defeciets. Should people who do no work all day and watch Dr. Phil get the same amount of money as you who is working all day everyday to provide for his family?? What is the incentive to work then if I can stay home and get the same amount of money through government handouts and the welfare system as someone who is working all day?? We should be saving that money for a rainy day to prevent austerity. Meanwhile, the right wing replaces the government handout system also know as the welfare sytem with a more effiecient system. Right wing politics view welfare as a small supplement to the lower worker's wage. By embracing free trade, capital formation, vigorous meritocratic education, low taxes, and a reliable judicial system, Lee raised the per capita income of his country from $500 a year to some $52,000 a year today. That"s 50 percent higher than that of Britain, the colonial power that ruled Singapore for 150 years. Its average annual growth rate has averaged 7 percent since the 1970s.

I will delve more about how right wing values are more just to the individual further into this debate.

Sources :

https://www.bloomberg.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

https://www.cato.org...

http://web.mit.edu...

http://www.forbes.com...

https://www.brookings.edu...

http://www.investopedia.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by djlad 1 year ago
djlad
I wouldn't say China's economic policy is necessarily right wing. It certainly isn't free market. The government has used protectionist monetary policy to keep labor cheap and manufacturing competitive.
Posted by BrendanD19 1 year ago
BrendanD19
Unreliable sources? Who determines what is reliable?
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.