Social Welfare Is Immoral

I appreciate Con taking the time to frame the debate. I have no objections and thereby fully agree to stated terms of the debate. DEFINITIONS "Welfare" or "Social Welfare" is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens without current means to support basic needs. [1] "Public" specifies tax revenue as being the principle source of funding of an institution. "Charity" is the provision of social support including, but not being restricted to, social welfare through private funding. INTRODUCTION I will not argue against the value of welfare as such, as it is unquestionable that any society of considerable size will always have people in need of help to increase their personal welfare, be it because of unfortunate circumstances due to no fault of their own or because of bad life decisions. Welfare is there to help these individuals to get to a point in their lives from which they are able to sustain themselves without subsidy. I have good reason to believe welfare is a necessary cause in a society that ought to be as free, prosperous and peaceful as possible. That being said, it is crucial to examine the moral dimension that is inherent in the sourcing of funds that uphold an institution created for providing social support. In this debate, I will argue that public social welfare is immoral because it is per definitionem funded through taxation, which I will show violates the basic moral principle of Thou Shalt Not Steal. My moral reasoning will be based on Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behaviour - A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" [2] and I will expand on it as much as necessary. ARGUMENTS Any moral issue is either moral or immoral. "Amorality" is reserved only for issues that have no bearing on moral principles, such as "Being on time" or opening a door for someone (see [2]). Any moral end that is achieved through the systematic violation of moral principles cannot be considered moral, and is thereby immoral. Moral ends cannot justify immoral means, because without this principle morality ceases to exist and the principle falls apart. To illustrate, if stealing cash is moral for as long as one is buying food with it (or whatever moral action), then stealing and being stolen from both become good. As a result people will no longer resist being stolen from, and theft ceases to exist. The same is true for rape, murder and fraud, comprising all of the actions that can be argued are universally immoral (for further reference, see [2]). Theft is the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. [3] Theft is immoral because it violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which states that the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property is illegitimate. [4] Therefore, public social welfare is immoral if it is indeed funded through theft. Taxation is a means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities. [5] To impose is to establish or bring about something as if by force. [6] Force is violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing. [7] Therefore, taxation violates the NAP and describes - just like theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, with the difference of it being institutionalized and protected by government law. It follows that public social welfare is indeed funded through theft and is thereby immoral. [1] Definition of Welfare: https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Universally Preferable Behaviour by Stefan Molyneux: http://www.fdrurl.com... [3] Definition of Theft: https://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] Definition of Non-Aggression Principle: https://wiki.mises.org... [5] Definition of Taxation: http://www.businessdictionary.com... [6] Definition of Impose: https://www.merriam-webster.com... [7] Definition of Force: https://www.merriam-webster.com...