I negate the resolution resolved: Just Governments ought to require that employers pay a

living wage.
I would like to define the following terms for this debate:
Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right or fair (Oxford)
Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness (Oxford)
Require: Specify as compulsory (Oxford)
Employers: One who gives work to (someone) and pays them for it (Oxford- Based off
Def. of Employ)
Living Wage: That allows a family to meet its basic needs, and provides it with some
ability to deal with emergencies, without resorting to welfare or other public assistance
(Business Dictionary)
Observations: The negative would like to make a few observations about the round.
The word ought indicates that the living wage should pass, meaning that alternatives
are not possible. The meaning of that idea is that the affirmative has the burden of proof
on whether the living wage is a good idea, and that it should hold true for all just
governments. Secondly, any affirmative plan must look at all the people impacted by the
living wage such as the unable to work and those with so little capital that they can't
have upwards mobility.
Value: The negative values economic freedom in just governing entities. Economic
freedom is essential to growth, innovation, and produces the fruits of labor. If companies
have to invest more in human capital even if market equilibrium is lower, than freedom
has been violated and justice has not occurred. Adam Smith, the father of modern
economics, ushered in the idea of free economics with his lassiez-faire ideas that the
market should be left free.
Criterion: The only way to make sure that the market to be free and have economic
freedom is through the subsidization of low wage workers and those unable to work
through income redistribution. Lassiez-faire does not contradict with income
redistribution as the market is still allowed to act and grow, while protecting workers.
C1: A free economy is the best way to help humanity
SPA: Standard of living and poverty are best solved by the free market
All of the top 10 countries with the highest GDP per capita in U.S. dollars (CIA world
factbook) were also in the top 2 categories in the economic freedom index. GDP per

capita is used to measure the standard of living in countries and places with higher GDP
per capita typically have highest standard of living with some examples being
Singapore, the U.S., and Luxembourg. The concept of a high standard of living is one
that all just governments strive to create for their citizens and the governments with high
economic freedom ratings are ones that achieve that the best. The lowest ranked
countries for economic freedom are ones that are known to have human rights violates
or minimal upwards mobility, high inflation, or high poverty such as Iran, Zimbabwe, and
North Korea. The CIA factbooks percentage of population below the poverty line further
proves the idea that a free economy is one that benefits the citizens. Countries such as
Monaco, Luxembourg, and Singapore all have poverty so low that the CIA uses not
applicable due to the welfare that a highly productive capitalist society can bring.

Contention 2: Universal basic solves issues that capitalism creates

Marxism finds that pure capitalism eventually leads to accumulation of wealth at the top
and merely serves as a stepping stone to socialism after a revolution of the people
when capital is not seeing their hands but is merely being recirculated at the top.
Universal income allows for the benefits of capitalism such as self-motivation to do well,
freedoms, and private ownership, while being able to provide for society. Universal
income allows for education as basic needs can be met for survival. If one asks who will
generate the capital that will be distributed, the answer is automation. Most manual farm
labor in first world countries is done by machines and that could be expanded to places
such as Africa. With the death of many blue collar jobs to robots, the robots could
generate the capital, and they dont need pay or medical benefits. They are at the point
of self-sustenance and can exist to serve humanity, not just the handful of people where
capital is concentrated for the purpose of growing their capital. If a universal income of
$1,000 a year was passed in Africa, then almost all Africans would receive basic
medical care and would be able to receive an education.
Contention 3: A government cannot be just if it does not provide for all citizens
Universal basic income solves for one thing that a living wage does not. A large amount
of the very poor are self-sustaining farmers, in countries such as Vietnam or Somalia
with nearly 60% of the populace farming. How is that employer supposed to pay a living
wage when the capital they were born with is so minimal and they have no way to invest
in education. Social contract theory, proposed by Thomas Hobbes, shows how people
leave the state of nature, a state where there are no laws and men are completely free,
in order to allow a ruling force to bring order. By agreeing to this social contract where

rights are given up to a government, the governments first obligation is to provide for
the people. To maintain quality of life, a government must directly provide for its people,
disabled, persecuted by many, or simply just poor.