That a welfare state does more harm than good

DefenseArgument 1 Each company may still need to make a profit, but there is also the necessity of remaining competitive. If a doctor, for example, charges far more than what his services are worth, he will not have very many patients. Instead, the patients will go to the doctors who are only making a modest profit off of each patient. The other doctor will either have to lower his prices or go out of business. "If a monopoly, there is no incentive to lower prices to snatch the market share." In order to maintain the monopoly, prices must be maintained at a competitive level. If prices are deemed too high by too many of the customers, they will obtain social security from someone else and there will no longer be a monopoly. "I challenge my opponent to find me one example of where a government has privatized welfare, and the result has been better welfare." This is not relevant to the scope of the debate. We are debating the effects of a welfare state, not how privatization works in practice. "...our productivity and income fell, or that our prices and inequality rose..." There are many factors contributing to the state of the economy, not all of the blame can be placed on the privatization of welfare. "That, however, is not what the economists tell us." This is an appeal to an unidentified authority. You stated that the economists say that the privatization of welfare is the cause of the problems, but you do not provide any reason for me to believe your claim. " the only firms that can deliver welfare to a whole country are large firms." This is true, but I fail to see why a single firm would need to provide welfare for the whole country. What is wrong with small firms providing welfare to a specific area? " "Social welfare will thus be a means of moving money from the pockets of the poor to the rich." The money will move from the poor to the rich, but the rich will be providing a service in return. This isn't theft, it's a business transaction. If the poor have multiple choices of welfare providers (such as in a free market), then they can choose one that they are happy transacting with. Argument 2 As the people are dependent on the government for welfare, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to enact change if necessary. The government may be doing all sorts of unreasonable and ridiculous things, but there's not much you can do about it if you depend on the government for your welfare. If you look at my point below, you will see that you have misinterpreted my argument. I did not say that there can't be competition, I said that, if forced to purchase welfare from one source, people would not necessarily be able to purchase welfare elsewhere. This is where your analogy fails. People aren't forced to pay for water unless they actually use it. People are forced to pay for welfare, it is included in the taxes. If people want different water, they don't have to pay for he tap water. If people want different welfare, they have to pay for both. How so? My argument was that people can't always afford to both pay taxes that are used to provide welfare and purchase welfare from private companies. I didn't say that government-provided welfare was cheaper, I said that it was cheaper to only pay for one source of welfare. Rebuttal Argument 1 "It is generally accepted by most of society that there should be some sort of minimum safety net provided by somebody for everybody - my opponent does not contest this point." No, but I do contest that this makes it right, or that this somebody should be the state. It doesn't matter how many people think something, they can still be wrong. Even if they are correct, why the state, rather than charites? "With a non-state actor providing welfare, there is no guarentee of equal treatment of all within the state." As you stated, not all states do guarantee equal treatment. What is there to prevent them from treating perople unequally? "We accept, for instance, that it is the state's role to defend human rights and basic liberties." Why? Defense of liberites and rights can occur without a state. "Why not welfare?" It contradicts the freedom to spend your money on what you consider important. If the resonsibility of the state is to protect liberties as you stated, then it would be a contradiction for them to decide how your money is spent. Argument 2 You stated earlier that rice is not the sole reason people make a choice when deciding what to purchase. There is also the issue of quality. Parents still send their children to private schools, even though they are more expensive than public schools. They provide a better quality of education. In a free market, businesses would have to provide a good service at a fair price.