Series 1 Episode 6 : *RETAKE* The government should give out benefits (Welfare-state type debate)

A case from efficiency- The following is an example of how less involvement of the government will mean more people will start to work. 'In the late 1990s, the United States established a reasonable record in reducing child poverty. Successful anti-poverty policies were partially implemented in the welfare reform legislation of 1996, which replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). '- () What the Welfare State does is lower incentive . In the example that I mentioned the reform required that some Welfare mums either had to prepare for work or get jobs , this was set as a condition of receiving aid , so the effect that the reform had was that the employment for single mums increased and as this happened of course child poverty also declined quite considerably, so as Stefan Molyneux said in the quarter century before this welfare reform there was no net change in the poverty rate of children in single mother homes but after the reform poverty rates dropped significantly from 53.1% 1995 to under 40% in 2001. This shows how the Welfare State lowers unemployment and destroys the inicitive of the lower classes to work. End of my argument from efficiency. A case from morality- Since my opponent is claiming that the government should give out benefits she has to prove that theft is morally right in this scenario, I consider theft very highly immoral ,theft is also very unfair, Socialists may claim that the fact that the rich have so much money is unfair but it is not , according to the English Oxford Dictionary 'fair' is defined as 'Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:' The government does not discriminate against the poor in fact in many countries it is the opposite and the government discriminates the rich by taxing them higher rates, in fact by giving the poor benefits they are treating others unfairly as the poor can wish to apply for benefits without contributing anything to society. The Rich do not own anything to the poor , It is not unfair that the rich have so much money because either they or their parents have worked and stimulated the economy to get where they are now but back to theft , theft is wrong as the person that is having his money stolen probably worked hard and therefore he or she deserves whatever is stolen from that person, I do not own you money if you are disabled or not working , I if I was working then the money I make should belong to me . I would have not caused you to loose your job and I would not have caused you to be disabled for example therefore it is not morally right that I should have to pay for your expenses through the taxes. End of my argument from morality. -Analysis ' If someone can afford to pay for stuff, they should. If they are poor however, they should be able to get help. ' The government has not banned private charities , no one would try to stop the poor from getting help from charities , this debate is about if the government should use coersion as a method to get funds that they will later give out as benefits rather then spend it on essential structures in society such as the court system. In fact Private Charities are more efficient then Government Programs. I quote '1. What does “enough” mean? One thing it doesn’t mean is that the amount of private aid must be equal to the amount presently spent on state welfare. As Matt noted in his post, state welfare programs are an inefficient, byzantine mess. Private charities will be far more efficient than state welfare, and thus will not have to match the quantity of state welfare. The reasons for this comparative efficiency are no doubt familiar to readers of this blog. Private charities have more freedom than state welfare programs to treat those receiving aid as individuals and to target their aid to specific groups with very specific problems. They are superior in their ability to change policies if need be, since they have to jump through fewer hoops or go through fewer intermediaries than a political system does in order to try a new approach. Private charities are superior to state welfare systems in evaluating and obtaining information about whether its goals are being met. It is easier to determine how a policy is working when it is for a small, specific group rather than for a larger, heterogeneous group. Furthermore, private charities are more closely monitored than state welfare programs; voluntary donors have a stronger incentive to evaluate the charities they fund than rationally ignorant voters have to monitor the programs they are taxed to support. Not only are private charities more efficient than state welfare, but in a libertarian society it is less likely charity will be needed, since that society will lack barriers to the poor’s advancement that exist in our crony capitalist or interventionist economic system–occupational licensure, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, oppressive levels of taxation, etc. But if private charities need not match the quantity of state funds for the former to be ‘enough’ or falsify the claim of ‘insufficiency,’ what should enough mean? Since to be a BHL means, roughly, that a central justification for libertarianism is that it is good for or serves the interests of the poor and vulnerable, then private charities would fail to be enough if they didn’t do that. Of course that’s vague, but at the very least we would know private charities were insufficient if the amount provided were so stingy that would enormous suffering would occur—widespread malnutrition, large numbers of people without shelter, etc. ' -(. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...) . Here is another source showinng how private charities are more efficient then government programs - 'Michael Tanner Director Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institute testified to Congress that 70 cents (or 70%) of every government entitlement dollar goes not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats (1). It is astonishing when we compare this figure to private charities. Information is critical to a free market society. There are several watchdog organizations that monitor the spending of private charities. One method that private charities are rated is the percentage of their budget that is spent on adminstration. According to Charity Navigator (2), one such watchdog for private charities, food banks & pantries only have 1.6% of their budgets used for adminstration, community foundations have 7.6% of their budgets used for administrations, and private museums had the largest percent of their budgets going to adminstration, which was 18%. On average private charities spend about 10% of their budgets on administration. ' I have showed evidence for how Private Charities are more efficient then government programs , now let's continue to analyse my opponent's arguments- 'My medications cost a few thousand dollars a month, and I cannot afford them without help. I am more than willing to work and plan on finding a job as soon as I can, but until then, I feel that I should be able to get them because I will die without them. ' As I have mentioned before nobody is stopping the poor from seeking help I am simply advocating for the government to stop using coersion as a means to forcefully take from the hard working tax payer to give to the poor . Charity is a good option but what my opponent is doing is appealing to emotion instead of showing a suistanable well thought-out argument for the Welfare State/Government giving benefits to the poor. Additionally I would like to say that this is off topic , as this is not a debate about healthcare but about benefits specifically. 'Passion is Good, Emotion is BadPassion is a driving force in almost everything we do, but when emotion is tossed into that mix things can go downhill fast. When you are debating on Debate. org try to keep emotion out of your arguments. Debate. org is a place for fun and relaxation; not drama and stress. However tempting it may be, always refrain from using personal or general insults. It is not only rude, but against the terms of service as well. '-(. http://www.debate.org...). Conclusion - It is immoral to take from the taxpayer and give to the poor, charity is more efficient then government programs , The Welfare State lowers incentive of the poor to work and increases unemployment , If we eliminated the opportunity to get 'free stuff' from the government these people would actually need to start working to survive and government spending would decrease which I see as a good thing. I hope that I haven't offended Pro and I look forward to her next argument.