The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Topic #13: Limiting EI ought to be a more important social goal than increasing EF.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 4431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than increasing economic freedom.

Laymans Terms
Economic Inequality (EI): Rich and Poor, aka, not having the same finacial staus
Economic Freedom (EF): Being able to send your money however you want, and inversly, varying pay whether high or low.
Social Goal: positive outcome provided by and revered by a society, (ex: murder should be illegal, friends are good), aka, people like it.

[I hope we will not have to argue over exact definitions, these are just simplified versions of much more complex ones that say, for all intents and purposes, the same thing for the better understanding of the reader]

Therefore, I'm arguing society (does NOT specifically mean American, so please don't bring Constitutional issues up, unless you also want to argue on the specific economic laws of all 93 other world nations as well) should basically want to eliminate the financial classes and ensure we all have money rather than too much or none at all, and limit how we spend it. My opponents stance will thus fall somewhere under the premise of whatever money people make however they do it is theirs to spend and its bad luck if you don't have a job to make tons of it, although I'm sure it will be reworded differently.

This all comes back to the age long goal of eliminating poverty. The last I checked, the largest salary in the world is Bill Gates at $966,667, and an estimated net worth of $42 Billion Dollars (Google it). Thousands if not millions of people in the world share the smallest. You don't have to go far to find one, you don't even need to leave the comfort of your middle class home. Just turn on a TV and wait for those 3-minute commercials that ask you to donate a dollar a month so you can feed a starving African child. Or if your more adventurous, go out and look for those smelly guys holding cardboard signs reading something like "Homeless Anything will help God Bless". While they die on the streets, Wal-Mart CEO Scott Lee dines on the finest whatever he wants, no doubt throwing away more than what he ate. This IS wrong. We as humans have probably the highest sense of communal commitment out of any species. Only we have the ability to send aid to our fellow human who has just gone through a natural disaster without ever knowing them. While other animals run away from fire, we send dozens to save 1 life. We have infinite capabilities over any other species on the planets, and the leading thing that stops that is paper. If this is the case then that means this paper has the power to control life. Every being is entitled to its own life ad survival. Therefore, every person is ENTITLED to money. If we have the means then every person deserves it, otherwise it is murder. We are intentionally depriving someone of life. Limiting the amount of money a person can/has to get would solve this. Limiting EI means stabilizing the poor side of the class spectrum by getting them the money they need to live, and if the plan is good enough, live comfortably. The rich have bounds of money and things that they don't need but others could desperately use. It comes down to the ‘fire question'. What one thing would you take if your home were burning? How much does any of that expensive stuff really mean to that rich man? Now, take all the funds from the things that mean next to nothing to him and apply them to places that actually could use it. A quarter of Gates net worth could easily solve a major crisis or two. Yet while millions starve, that money goes to his perfect room temperature (He has an elaborate computer network that has his and his families individual favorite temperatures stored in them, and every time they step into a room it adjusts itself to fit it). Rich people don't need that kind of money, the poor do though. Equalizing the economy could drastically solve many problems.

Now comes problem with individual EF. Along with the problems stated above, this proves to be more harmful than useful. Look at current problems we all face: the oil and food crisis, mass pollution, Health care, housing, and poverty. All of which can be attributed in some form to EF. We make too much food, sending it all to the wrong places, and end up throwing away a lot of it (I know, I work in food service). Pollution largely due to the huge amount of cars consumers buy every day, a considerable number using massive amounts of fuel to transport 1 person. Because of the wasteful fuel usage (along with this illegal war) we are spending 4 times the amount at the pump than 8 years ago because it's being depleted. There are too many houses and not enough apartments, at prices that are accessible only to a select few. We care more about getting money from medical patients then actually treating them. We are using too much money on things we don't need and neglecting the areas they are needed because there isn't a way to personally gain from it financially. This is a major problem. The ‘my money' concept is hindering more than helping the progression of mankind. We are no doubt limiting ourselves severely on the new innovation that are surly out there that could help change the world for the better, yet we wait to act on them until the money well that is their predecessor has been run dry. We call it freedom. Well, we are also free to stick our hands in a hot oven, but we don't. Why? Because its anti-progressive. Its damaging, painful, and will continue to hurt use even more so in the future than the original deed. This is exactly what we are doing now. We are like a child sticking our hands which are the economy and human progression in the oven that is consumerism. The only difference between this and the real life example is that we are just leaving our hands in the oven. For some reason, even though they are blistering with debt, and crying in agony, we are ignorantly refusing to take them out simply because of the fact that we have the right to leave them in. The only solution that can battle this child ignorance of a simple truth is to slap the hand away and close the door. Decreasing economic freedom will, or at least help, achieve this. If we don't have the means to hurt ourselves then we won't. Rather, we'll be forced to innovate and explore better and more progressive means of practically everything.

So in summary, limiting EI and decreasing EF will destroy the destructive class system, helping people who actually need it, and hinder those with larger pocket books from hurting themselves and others. Win-win in either case, and the only sacrifice is pride.

To littlelacroix, please accept this debate on 6/21/08, and post your rebuttal as late as you can on 6/24/08. I won't have access to a computer until 6/26/08 due to a very important non-vacational trip. I very much appreciate your cooperation.
littlelacroix

Con

littlelacroix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Darth_Grievous_42 forfeited this round.
littlelacroix

Con

littlelacroix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

This debate is over. Please vote based on the better argument, not on personal opinion. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
littlelacroix

Con

littlelacroix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
It's a shame that pro had such a good first post, but con forfeited every one thereafter. This could have been a good debate. What a waste.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
So challenge him to a debate then.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
It's an absurd argument on many levels. It doesn't matter that Bill Gates is personally worth $42billion. What matters is the company he founded has contributed to the economy more than any other. What drives people to make such innovations? Typically, personal wealth, which Gates then donates to charities of his choice.

To redistribute wealth is the DUMBEST idea man has ever envisioned. It completely destroys innovation.

"How is it fair that Bill Gates has all that money while others in this country have none?"

Simple. He took the initiative and had the drive and desire to build something. If you just take from him and give it to someone else without such drive and desire you eliminate drive and desire from the equation. EVERYONE will just sit back and wait for uncle Sam to "give me my fair share".

There is no "fair" in life. Nobody is owed anything by their Government other than protection from invasion and law and order.

As it is now innovators often take the money and run before the Government can take more from them. Or they move over seas where the taxation system is much more reasonable. Unless you want to run ALL industry out of America, how about we get back to what we actually started as...work hard, save, and innovate and you'll be rewarded. Instead of the handout, you owe me, society we've become.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I only forfeited because I was not able to access a computer in time. Its a shame to me as well, I'd been quite good at maintaining responces before.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Aww Grievous! Why'd you forfeit r2?

Well win for you anyway.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 8 years ago
Excessum
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Darth_Grievous_42littlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30