Social Welfare Is Immoral

Pro is playing very loose with the definitions. Pro tries to say that any social welfare not provide by “tax,” is “private.” To quote Pro: “‘Social Welfare’ no longer actually provided through taxation, becomes privately funded social welfare: Charity.” That’s false, and absurd. This analysis is a combination of two fallacies, and both will cost Pro the debate. This is a ‘fallacy of single cause,’ which assumes there is one cause for an outcome when in fact there can be more than one. Pro assumes that the only way the state can provide welfare benefits is to force others to surrender money to the state. This is false. In R1 Con provided examples where the state can collect funds without coercion, and Con buttresses those examples in this round. Welfare can be funded without taxing incomes, and state provided welfare not funded by taxing incomes doesn’t constitute private charity. Citizens don’t vote on how charities spend money, but citizens do vote on how government spends money. https://en.wikipedia.org... The other fallacy Pro relies on here is structural, “affirming the consequent.” When we test Pro’s logic with a syllogism the conclusion is obviously false. Pro argues; Premise 1) Private welfare (charity) is not funded by taxes. Premise 2) Some state provided welfare is not funded by taxes. Conclusion: Therefore, some state provided welfare is private charity. Compare the syllogism to the reasoning offered at the beginning of Pro’s R3 “‘Social Welfare’ no longer actually provided through taxation, becomes privately funded social welfare: Charity.” Once again, false and absurd. This costs pro the whole game. The government can fund welfare without taxing incomes, and operating this way doesn’t magically turn the government into a private charity. https://en.wikipedia.org... The worst definition abuse by Pro is his general concept of “Tax.” At several junctures in R3 Pro shifts on his definition of taxes, even to the point of contradicting his claim that taxation is theft when responding to some Con examples. Pro claims that taxation is theft on the part of government, and therefore any “public” welfare program is funded by theft. Pro then tries to spread this notion any government spending, even when the source of said funds are not taxes and when it’s obvious the source of said funds is not anything that can be reasonably called, “theft” Pro makes this mistake in addressing several Con examples of welfare not funded by tax, and therefore not theft, even according to the pro analysis. Remember, Pro claims that taxes are immoral; that taxes are taken from folks by force. Pro calls several Con examples of state funding taxes (and therefore theft) that do not involve coercion or force. Look at how Pro addresses the example of Tariffs and fees in his R3. Pro calls a Tariff or government fee a tax. But these funds are not obtained by force or duress. There is no compulsion whatsoever to pay tariffs or fees: that means it doesn’t satisfy Pro’s own concept of theft. These are costs assessed when a buyer freely chooses to purchase the product or service on offer by the government. Examples of a fee include getting a passport, license or permit. The choice to pay for the passport or permit are entirely up to the buyer. Nobody forced anything, much less surrender of money under duress. Likewise a tariff is a charge that is elective. It’s up to a merchant to decide to bring their product into a foreign market, knowing that a tariff will be assessed on import. This is a cost of doing business, and no compulsion or duress is involved. Just like with the fee for a passport, a merchant can decide for themselves if the value of selling their product in a foreign market is worth the cost of the tariff. In the case of tariffs and fees, these examples do not satisfy Pro’s functioning definition of theft; no force is involved when assessing and collecting these fees. Nevertheless, Pro erroneously conflates these examples with his shifting concept of “taxes.” This inconsistency on Pro’s part is another reason they lose the debate. Pro has two choices to make this consistent: 1) Pro must concede that tariffs and fees are not taken by force, and therefore not all taxes are theft or, 2) Pro must concede that tariffs and fees are not taxes. Regardless of the choice Pro makes, the example of tariffs and fees provides a revenue stream for publicly (government) funded welfare programs that involves no coercion or force on the part of the government and therefore isn’t theft. This means we still have an example of public welfare that is not immoral according to Pro’s own analysis. This means Pro loses the debate, since Pro agreed that to win the debate the truth claim made by the resolution has to be true in all cases, which it is not. The same analysis can be applied to the example of a state employee funded retirement pension. Many of these program are not provided for by taxing incomes and redistributing the collected funds to pensioners. Instead they are funded by investing a portion of wages into a pension fund that is reinvested or diversified to maximize what the fund earns. It is employee funded, and within the trust of the government for whom these folks work. By collectively investing employees gain added security and/or diversity of the overall fund, and increased options for how the money can be invested. In the 1970’s and 80’s mortgage backed bonds were the investment de jour for these kinds of pensions. Regardless of what financial product the fund is invested in, it is not funded by taxing incomes and redistributing the funds to pensioners. Additionally if the employee doesn’t like the package, they can opt out. They don’t have to invest, but would be ineligible for the benefit. This shows that there are publicly managed and distributed welfare programs that don’t rely on coercion or force to obtain funding. Everyone participating in this pension example decides to on their own. Pro must concede that some pension programs are distributed by the state without being funded by taxes, meaning the resolution is again not true in all cases, and Pro loses the debate. Pro must also concede that nothing in this pension example constitutes theft, so there is nothing within it for Pro to morally question (no force: nor moral problem per Pro) Regarding the abstract example where a state funds welfare via a defaulted loan, there was nothing within the example suggesting the loan was to the state from citizens. The example speaks to when one nation borrows from a large bank with access to funds in such large amounts. In any case, it doesn’t involve taxes or coercion, which is all that is needed for this example to also cost Pro the debate. Additionally, a nation can settle debts through leaning on or liquidation of assets rather than taxing citizens. They could sell a military base, or lease out a small fleet of cargo vessels or even surrender earnings from other assets until the debt is paid. None of these examples for repayment of debt involve coercion or taxing incomes. Since the example excludes taxes and excludes coercion, it also costs Pro the debate. Likewise, reparations could be paid for the same way a defaulted debt could, relying on national or military assets and revenue streams rather than income taxes. A nation could sell oil reserves or an airbase in order to pay reparations. Pro’s tag line about, “outright evil,” is just superfluous dribble. It is an appeal to emotion rather than a valid reason to reject the example. It’s the same when Pro later calls all government immoral. The continued complaint that taxes are theft isn’t really relevant to the debate anymore, because the Con examples show both that this claim is not always true (if tariffs and fees are taxes) and that the state could fund welfare without taxing incomes (Pro’s propositional fallacies) That said some of Pro’s tirade demands a response. Particular, Pro’s decision to double down on the distasteful comparison of taxes to rape. Pro said: “Con argues, because people conform to government laws there is no violence. That is like saying a woman not resisting being raped at gunpoint is not being aggressed against.” When Pro made this comparison last time, I reminded him that while many legal precedents uphold the authority of the state to assess tax, there is no legal upholding of rape. The fact that Pro needs to be advised of this is a creature all its own. Pro also compares the onerous nature of payroll taxes to slaves selecting from a pool of masters, but never getting freedom. This is an absurd comparison too. However onerous, taxes are far less burdensome than slavery. Ask any former slave. Pro moves on to property rights, and offers an axiom that doesn’t uphold the notion that taxes violate those rights. The Self-Ownership axiom offered by Pro just asserts ones right to their own life and body. It doesn’t speak to wealth or possessions, which means the axiom doesn’t address taxes. It looks like Pro meant to to suggest laws don’t grant property rights, believing such rights are inherent to people. But he never gives us a reason to believe this notion, and it doesn’t comport with reality anyways. The fact is that property rights are real to the extent they are ensured by the law. Without the law and enforcement, property rights would be up for violent dispute. This makes the rejection of government by Pro absolutely absurd. Pro rejects, in all forms, the only proven avenue for defense of private property. Pro links a philosophy video addressing “Property ethics,” but didn’t introduce any component of the video into the debate. For the content to be considered, Pro needs to tell us what it is, and why it relevant. Pro just links the video without offering analysis. One can’t argue that dictionaries exist to make a definition argument. One must actually offer the definition.