Debate Round Two: “Rising Inequality in America … Should Government Respond? If so, how?”







There is no doubt that increased inequality of incomes is a reality in modern American society. To many economic conservatives and adherents to free market ideas like Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing, this inequality is an inevitable result of broad societal changes, many of which are beyond the scope of government redress.

To left-liberals like Nick Estes, formerly of New Mexico Voices for Children, inequality is a serious problem undermining the very foundation of democracy and demanding an immediate and meaningful response from policymakers.

Who’s right? You be the judge. Gessing and Estes will face off in a debate over inequality in America. Attendance is free.

  • When:  The debate will be held from 6:30 to 8:00PM on Wednesday, June 12, 2013.
  • Where:  Room 2401 at the University of New Mexico Law School. The Law School is located at: 1117 Stanford NE, Albuquerque, NM  87131.
  • Who:  Paul Gessing, president of New Mexico’s free market think tank and Nick Estes, formerly of the progressive think tank and advocacy organization Voices for Children. The panel will be moderated by Dennis Domrzalski a reporter with Albuquerque Business First. Questions will be taken from the audience.

Come by for an interesting discussion and see if we all can’t learn something.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Replies to “Debate Round Two: “Rising Inequality in America … Should Government Respond? If so, how?””

  1. Rising inequality of income is a sign of a healthy economy and it is good thing. The rich get richer and the poor do better too. That is the way a free economy works. Would you rather have an income of $35,000 a year in an economy where the average is $70,000 or have an income of $50,000 in an economy where the average is $300,000? Only envy justifies choosing the latter. And envy is a dangerous thing.

    One bad alternative is the Soviet system where the party officials were wealthy and even had their own stores and everyone else was dirt poor and surviving on backyard gardens.

    Our mixed economy of government intervention and welfare payments makes things worse, especially in the long run. The fact some of the poor are better off temporarily is not a justification. The children of a bank robber eat better too but that is not a justification for bank robbery.

    The root problem is that the public fails to accept the morality of capitalism. Learning and accepting a proper ethics is the way to solve that problem. I recommend Ayn Rand’s fiction and non-fiction for answers to these questions. For more see

  2. This argument can only be won on a moral basis. Is is right to let people keep what they earn or is it right to forcefully take from some to give to others? That is the question that must be decided.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.