This House Believes that a Welfare System is a force for good

Before I begin, I'd like to point out my opponent has already conceded the terms of the motion. By saying some people in any group "should ... have government assistance in the form of Welfare", he's conceding that welfare states are good. People disagree with the motion, so this is not an excessive burden. However, my opponent clearly supports the resolution.I'm going to ignore the arguments ideology-driven and not fact or pragmatism that capitalism reduces poverty. Factually, there is no case. First, Capitalism is compatible with welfare. Second, capitalism is not something that can be parachuted into a country alongsie democracy an be expected to work magic. The IMF states explicitly "only a minority of African countries are poised to exploit globalization"[1], and Globalisation "result[ed] in the Niger Delta conflict that is threatening to disintegrate the country." and "undermines government"[2] Clearly, Capitalism does not promote freedom or help by necessity, but only in certain circumstances, that is when coupled with regulation (whether governmental or cultural) and a welfare state.The economics of WelfareTo counter my opponent's first point, it is comical, simply because it centers around the supposed fact that welfare for example increases poverty. To use my opponent's source: Country Absolute poverty rate Relative poverty rate Pre-welfare Post-welfare Pre-welfare Post-welfare Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8 Norway 9.2 1.7 12.4 4.0 Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5 Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1 Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8 Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1 Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1 Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9 France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1 Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1 Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2 United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2 United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1 Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1 Clearly, a welfare state is a fantastic force for reducing poverty, and thus for good. The rest is ideology-driven nonsense: yes, welfare costs money. Houses costs money. When one sells the house in the future though it is worth more. Similarly, when we have a welfare state, we invest in the people, promote everyone's freedom of choice, or positive freedom, we get people who are freer and people who are richer. Finally, the point about the efficiency of the Welfare state against charities is also interesting if sourced, but is unfortunately not. Moreover, the 70-80% figure is uncited and most probably false. After searching, the only sources are hubpages (blogs). Without evidence, this can be dismissed.Moreover, my opponent fails to convincingly go against the welfare-to-work corporatist welfare system. The logic is very clear, even if he missed it: a welfare system that keeps people working, keeps people on their feet and keeps people looking for jobs is going to help businesses and workers. Welfare means that people don't have to worry about their spending and can spend time looking for jobs. The fact that people can get out from the welfare state means trained specialists can wait for a better job to be more useful in the economy rather than go for a terrible job for little to no pay, as the state will keep you up enough to get that good job. Without a welfare system, people who get a job will have to spend masses of time accumulating debt while individually looking for jobs, getting rejected, and all the while starving on barely any money. The state can help people out, because, as my opponent rightly says, the state is us and is not evil, we can help each other through this institution. Economies of Scale means that the state can do so more efficiently than any one individual. Economies of Scale also means that training and retraining through state institution is most effective, safest, and ultimately best. Humanitarian SolutionMy opponent claims that welfare is stealing. There are many many problems with this. Firstly, if my opponent truly rejects being stolen from, or if anyone truly does think the state steals their money, then can leave. My opponent seems to forget that there's hundreds of planes out of the country every day! The tacit consent is clear when one stays in the country. By all means, grumble, moan, and tut about it - I am British, tutting is what we do best, and I'd hate to not be able to do it - but it clearly not illegitimate. Moreover, one can easily run for government to stop taxation. Finally, this position is irreconcilable with the original statement that we should support the disabled and similar. If "taxation is theft", yet we tax to "help those who cannot help themselves", then we have a blatant contradiction. Moreover, the charity index survey by CAF is comical at best. No data on the amount, no data on the time worked, no data even on how likely the truth value is (the system of collecting data is asking people whether they volunteer - it is just as likely Americans lie the most in the world!), the data is ego-rubbing and ultimately arbitrary. If every Pakistani gave a penny to charity and spent an hour cleaning a Mosque, then Pakistan would by far be the most charitable. If we look at ODA/GNI, or total aid given to other nations relative to GDP, America is 19th[4], behind many smaller countries with welfare states being norm."Freedom!" - BraveheartConscious of lack of space, I'll make this point simple. What my opponent promotes is a freedom to starve. Negative freedom alone is simply not ethical nor economically sensible. Positive freedom is necessary, as a full amount of negative freedom leads to anarchy. Analysts agree the cause of the economic crisis was Hayekian bubbles of too little regulation[5]. The lack of regulation and low interest meant there was excessive spending by businesses, too many large loans, and all in all a bubble to inevitably burst. The excess of negative freedom led to the economic crisis. The imbalance causes tangible terrors, which need to be nipped in the bud.With that in mind, I pass over to my opponent.1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com... 3 - http://tinyurl.com... 4 - http://tinyurl.com... 5 - http://tinyurl.com...