Debate:Beezzer vs ownbestenemy: Is Wealth Redistribution Necessary?

Good afternoon members of ATS.

This is a debate between Beezzer and ownbestenemy on the topic of wealth re-distribution.

ownbestenemy will be arguing the Pro side.

Beezzer will be arguing the Con side.

As a means of encouraging and well thought out debate, reliant on facts and well articulated arguments, the following guidelines will be in place:

Participant Rules

1. Each member will have one opening statement, 1 rebuttal, and one closing statement.

2. Pro side will open the debate.

3. Each post has a restriction of 7,500 characters.

4. Each post must be submitted within 48 hours of your opponent's previous post.

5. External Links are acceptable, but no quoting of any external links. Each submission must be 100% authored by each participant.

6. One image per post, & no more than three for the whole debate. Videos are not allowed.

7. Any delay in posting must be agreed upon by both members prior to the post deadline or the post is forfeit.

8. All T&CS apply.

Judging will be done by existing members of the Fighter status as well as a few staff members.

All judging will be done anonymously.

The debate will begin once the first opening statement has been made. If participants require more time than the 48hr time limit, please PM me directly.

As is customary, the pro side will go first.

Best of luck.

~Tenth

I would like to welcome my worthy peer, Beezzer, in this debate on the merits and benefits of wealth distribution. I intend to prove that such distribution is not only necessary, but that it is a natural order that is undertaken by any society as it advances and evolves.

The negative aura surrounding the term, "wealth redistribution", is illogical, as wealth is subjective and is redistributed constantly via natural human interaction; from goods to knowledge. We should aim to define what exactly is wealth then. One could argue that wealth is subjective and to each individual, such wealth could be monetary, material, or even abstract such as knowledge. Webster's Dictionary defines wealth as the following: "a large amount of money and possessions" -- and -- "all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value". As I alluded to though, wealth doesn't just compose of money and from the very definition, we can assume that "possessions" includes the more abstract we, as humans, hold to value or utility. The "redistribution" of wealth is as old as Man; from the first exchange of spoken words or written manuscripts, to the exchange of goods in the actions of trade, to the collective gathering for the betterment of many.

Furthermore, the act of taxation, is in fact, a redistribution of wealth from the citizen to the State. From there, the State, through various means of governance, dictates how such accumulated wealth is distributed among society.

I then ask my counter-part the following question: if a society has allowed or even delegated the means of redistribution of wealth in a lawful manner, is it not just? For instance, taxing people to fund basic services (that society has deemed to be "basic") is in fact, redistributing wealth to fulfill the desire and want of the society on a whole.

Wealth redistribution has occurred since Man has traded and formed governments. It is a natural path in which societies utilize to provide for the greater good of the society on a whole. It is necessary to the function of Government. It is necessary to the function of modern societies; as evident in both Western and Eastern civilizations. Wealth redistribution is a necessary function of government.

I would like to thank my worthy opponent ownbestenemy, tothetenthpower, and ATS for allowing this debate. And please forgive my tardiness. Apologies to all.

Wealth redistribution. The term brings many things to many people.

To some, such as my opponent, it is the just form of taxation and allotment of funds to further benefit society. He has stated that wealth redistribution has happened since man has formed government and society.

To others, it is the means of taking something that you have not earned. A mandated "theft" justified by the needs of a few within society.

As my opponent stated, wealth redistribution benefits all. That is where he is wrong.

Taxes benefit all. All taxes are wealth redistribution, but not all wealth redistribution is taxes.

A classical example of so-called wealth redistribution is the February Revolution where the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas and started the downfall of the House of Romanov.

Wealth redistribution, as we now are experiencing it, holds those same classic undertones of insinuations of greed, criminal activity, a social meme of punishing success. It is a justification of theft. There is no thought as to what happens after the wealth is redistributed. Because the goal is not to better society, but simply to benefit the few.

The current situation that we are seeing defines wealth redistribution as simply changing names on bank accounts.

This benefits no-one. Thus, cannot be considered the same as taxes which helps and enables a society.

This only harms society as it disrupts the very mechanisms that create opportunities for those of a middle class to survive and thrive and operate.

Wealth redistribution is an angry reaction to a disparity in wealth. But society can be blamed for the disparity as it creates an entitlement mind-set that enables more and more to feel justified in simply taking, instead of earning.

I offer this as a counter and humbly await your response.