Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral

Welfare can never be morally justified a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights My opponent is correct when he observes we do not live in a vacuum: we actually live in a society based on the mutual co-operation of the members of that society. Under the framework of government, citizens are given certain rights, for example property rights, but with those rights come responsibilities: citizens must obey the laws of the land and also contribute their fair share towards the cost of maintaining a healthy and cohesive society, and that is achieved through taxation. Nevertheless, these rights and responsibilities are not absolute: with the exception of communist regimes; it is not generally the aim of governments to implement tax and spend programmes that ensure that all citizens enjoy the same standard of living. Neither are property rights absolute: you couldn’t, for example: invite the North Koreans to build a nuclear missile base in your back garden; convert your swimming pool into a sewerage treatment plant; destroy the habitat of rare flora or fauna on your land or hunt endangered species of wild animals there; erect a 200 foot wind turbine that may interfere with air traffic – at least not without prior permission. In conclusion, as a member of society we do not have the freedom to opt out of laws or taxes, only to lobby our political representatives to amend legislation to suit our own personal wishes. b) Indefensibility of positive rights I refer the voters to my previous argument and reassert that individual members of society are bound by the rules and conventions of that society. It would be very unlikely that any government would introduce a law that obliged citizens to become human life support machines for talented musicians, but should a government be democratically elected on that platform, then the citizens would be obliged to conform (should the inevitable challenge to the law in a high court on the basis of a violation of human rights be unsuccessful, or, of course, in which case you may consider emigrating). 2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state Let’s say you own a nuclear reprocessing plant and you pay your workers at least the minimum wage and provide them with a safe working environment. Then a Libertarian government takes control and abolishes the minimum wage and does away with all ‘costly and burdensome’ health and safety regulations. Now, you might be fair employer, but your competitor, Ruthless Ronnie’s Nuclear Reprocessing Inc. , decides to undercut your rates by paying his workforce less than you and by doing away with expensive safety equipment such as Geiger counters, radiation suits and decontamination chambers. Of course, Ruthless Ronnie’s workers would be free to find alternative employment, if there were anything available, but if not they would be forced to accept Ronnie’s new terms - there would be no unemployment benefit paid under a Libertarian regime and, also, you as the owner of a rival nuclear reprocessing plant would be obliged to impose similar conditions of employment on your own workers in order to compete. So, overall, you can see that, although the owners of the reprocessing plants would get richer, the workers would get poorer. This is how poverty traps are really created and the offspring of Ruthless Ronnie’s badly-paid, over- exploited workers will not receive anywhere near the same standard of healthcare or education that would be available to Ruthless Ronnie’s children, or if the Libertarians gained power, any healthcare or education at all – and would, therefore, not be in a position to improve their life chances as adults, and so the process would continue down through the generations until a semi-permanent underclass were created. You can see how this has happened in reality in India where the caste system developed as the result of unregulated free-market economics and the lack of a welfare state – just the sort of thing the Libertarians espouse. The caste system in India, which is not based on ethnicity or religion (although it is closely associated with Hinduism), prevents social mobility and entrenches class divisions so that those in the higher castes are almost guaranteed to be prosperous whereas those in the lowest caste, the Bhangi, will never be employed in any occupation other than toilet-cleaning, sweeping or scavenging. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Naturally, in any society, there will be winners and losers. , but the laissez-faire economy and lack of welfare provision in India amplifies that, so that while the majority of the population live in various degrees of poverty, billionaires such as steel-magnate Lakshmi Mittal, who spent $78 million on his daughter’s wedding in 2004, and who is worth S28.7 billion, live in the lap of luxury with no obligation, other than a moral one, to help alleviate the mass poverty that exists in the society that natured him and enabled him to make his vast fortune. . http://www.luxemag.org... Of course, Mittal may have worked hard and deserve much success, but it is important to remember that his success would never have been possible if he had been born into one of the lower castes (or if his father hadn’t bought him a massive steelworks as a birthday present). . http://www.forbes.com... In any civilised nation, the state has a responsibility to reduce poverty by giving young people from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to make the best of their lives – and to do better than their parents – and this is nigh-on impossible without state-funded health and education programmes. 3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle Nobody in their right mind would attempt to defend a dependency culture, where people live on benefits as a matter of choice rather than necessity. Nevertheless, just because there are (and always will be) failings in the system that enables indolent and unscrupulous individuals to milk the welfare system rather than go out to work, doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish it altogether. Take the analogy of petrol-driven cars for example. They are never going to be 100% mechanically efficient but with fuel becoming ever scarcer and pollution from exhaust emissions doing increasing damage to the environment, it has been necessary for politicians to address the problem. They could have abolished cars and forced everybody to walk or cycle everywhere until alternative means of propulsion were developed, but they didn’t. Instead, they encouraged manufacturers with research grants and punitive legislation for polluting car makers to develop more efficient cars. The same principle applies to welfare, incentivise work and punish dependency - improve the system, don’t abolish it. 4. Private charities are superior to government programs Private giving is dependent on the performance of the economy and the prosperity of the individuals living within that society. In good times, there will be less demand from people in need and more people will be able afford to give generously at the same time. In times of recession, on the other hand, there are huge increases in demand for assistance but people have less money to donate. By giving through the tax system, these waves and troughs can be smoothed out to provide a consistent source of support for those genuinely in need. The reality is that if a Libertarian economic system were introduced, those in need of support would go without while those in a position to prosper will benefit at their expense and that’s why Libertarian economics are inherently immoral. Thank you.