Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral

Pro still has not provided any justification for his view of positive rights other than a few remarks about democracy and the impracticality of absolute property rights. Most of his objections I already covered in the first round under 1B. I'll briefly address the issues with zoning, though I think this falls outside the scope of the debate. 1. Welfare can never be morally justified a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights Pro claims we are bound to adhere to societal mores, however, this argument clearly does not hold water. If Brian lives in a society that chooses a human sacrifice by lottery each month, would he be morally compelled to acquiesce? I think not. This argument really hurts Pro's case more than it helps. What if I live in a libertarian society? Wouldn't I be required to observe negative rights then? If Pro wishes to be consistent, he'll have to admit that libertarian economics are not inherently immoral. The examples Pro gives of "exceptions" to the homesteading rule are not really exceptions at all: if building a windmill makes it impossible to land airplanes at the local airport, I would be interfering with the land owners' ability to use his property for the purpose that he homesteaded it. I can't built a nuclear missile base in my backyard for the same reason I can't approach random strangers and force them to play Russian roulette, even if nobody ends up getting killed: both activities are essentially threats of aggression that are unnecessary to achieve any legitimate end or purpose. I can't convert my swimming pool into a sewage facility because the negative externalities would interfere with my neighbors' property rights. On the whole, think Pro's moral case demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of ethical theory. Ethics is a logical discipline: rights are not contrived out of thin air based on gut feeling, rather, truth can only be arrived at deductively from incontestable axioms. b) Indefensibility of positive rights There were two parts to this argument and Pro has only addressed the latter. The rest has gone unrefuted. I think Pro has largely missed the thrust of Thomson's violinist analogy. Whether or not "the people" democratically vote to implement such a policy is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it would be ethical. If 51% of Americans voted to round up all the redheads and kill them, would this be morally permissible? Moreover, Pro hasn't shown why democracy should even be accepted as a value criterion. Finally, as I pointed out in 1A, a democratic majority could hypothetically implement libertarian economic policies, thus undermining Pro's entire case. 2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state Pro's "Ruthless Ronnie Power Company" example is a huge oversimplification of the way labor markets work. If it's true that employers would have their employees working 18 hour shifts for 50 cents a week, why is it that the vast majority of Americans make well over the minimum wage? What exactly is a "just" wage and how is it determined? If minimum wage laws really help the lower class, why not just raise it to $500 dollars an hour? Then we'd all be rich, right? Wrong. In a free market, compensation is a function of the worker's marginal productivity, competition among workers, and competition among employers. Minimum wage laws, by contrast are arbitrary. If the mandated minimum wage is higher than the worker's marginal productivity, businesses simply won't hire them. It becomes more profitable to downsize or automate certain tasks. In a competitive labor market, an employer who underpays his workers will merely harm his own business. If a worker's marginal productivity is $500 a week and Ruthless Ronnie only pays him $200 a week, he's created an opportunity for his competitors, who can profitably employ the same worker for $300 a week or more. Even if some entrepreneurs do "exploit" some of their workers, this won't necessarily benefit them. Market competition would merely force them to pass their cost savings on to consumers in the form of lower prices, helping other wage earners. Pro's assertions about India are simply factually incorrect. India was a socialist country from 1947 until the early 90's, during which time quality of life was poor and social and economic mobility were virtually nonexistent.[1] Since the massive reforms that took place in 1991, conditions have drastically improved. The economy shifted away from central planning and toward private ownership. Import licenses were eliminated and import duties reduced. Trade was liberalized in service and technology industries.[2] Poverty rates have dropped. India now has a thriving middle class.[3] In 2004 and 2005 alone, exports and imports grew by 19% and 30% respectively.[4] Foreign investment grew from a paltry $132 million in 1991 to $23.6 billion in 2005.[5] 3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle Pro offers a common and rather vacuous argument put forth by statists. Basically it goes like this: Lisa the Libertarian: Government programs are highly inefficient and tend to foster poverty rather than alleviate it. Steve the Statist: Yeah, but why not just fix bad stuff? That way we only have good government! This rejoinder ignores both the theoretical underpinnings of the libertarian argument and empirical reality. I have argued on an a priori basis that government welfare tends to inefficient because it enjoys unconditional and essentially limitless funding, creates a positive supply function, and allows politicians to benefit from the establishment of a dependent class. This is born out by statistical evidence as well. In 1934, US federal welfare expenditures totaled $13.7 billion. In 1976, totals stood at $234 billion, despite the fact that the previous four decades, particularly following the WWII boom, were years of unparalleled economic growth. Unemployment steadily fell and the middle class grew, yet welfare spending increased by 5164%. Even adjusted for inflation and population growth, that's over 40% per year![6] Today, despite the reforms that took place in the 90's, we spend nearly a trillion dollars annually.[7] 4. Private charities are superior to government programs In a libertarian society, there would be far less poverty, for the reasons explicated in contentions 2 and 3. Additionally, my argument that government spending crowds out private charity has gone unrefuted. Charitable giving appears to be stable despite the recession, falling by only 2% from 2007 to 2008.[8] Moreover, contrary to Con's assertion, a tax based system would do nothing to solve this (nonexistent) problem: a weaker economy means less tax revenue. Even if Pro is right and state run charity could provide superior relief during economic downturns, this is not necessarily a good thing. Markets tend to go through business cycles (largely the creation of central banking, but I digress) where productivity temporarily declines and unemployment rises. If the displaced workers are already receiving welfare benefits, they have less of an incentive to find a job and be productive after the recovery; the number of welfare recipients would tend to "stick." References: 1. Ahuja, Sandeep, et al. "Economic Reform in India: Task Force Report." Diss. University of Chicago, 2006, p. 3. 2. Ibid, p. 14. 3. Ibid, p. 3. 4. Ibid, p. 9. 5. http://www.adbi.org... 6. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pp. 143-144 7. http://www.heritage.org... 8. http://hamptonroads.com...