That a welfare state does more harm than good

RebuttalFirst, pro claims a free market produces lower prices and therefore better welfare. There are four problems with this argument. First, unlike private companies, governments do not aim to profit out of welfare. As governments do not need to add a margin to the cost of their services, governments are able to supply the market at a lower price than a free market, because each firm in a free market still need to make a profit. Second, many welfare markets are natural monopolies. Social security, for instance, tends towards a monopoly because when run as a private scheme, low buy-in either makes it unprofitable (because the people who most need it - the middle and lower classes - are those who can least afford it) or a monopoly by decree. If a monopoly, there is no incentive to lower prices to snatch the market share, no threat of competition due to the effect of economies of scale, and welfare fails. Third, privatization has never worked in practice. I challenge my opponent to find me one example of where a government has privatized welfare, and the result has been better welfare. We tried it in New Zealand, by the way. More than 50% of our country lost (nominal) income over a 12-year-period [1], while prices rose 110.6%, or a 52.5% decline in purchasing power [2]. It may, of course, be just coincidence that our productivity and income fell, or that our prices and inequality rose, from the moment we sold our state assets to when we bought them back. That, however, is not what the economists tell us. Fourth, the only firms that can deliver welfare to a whole country are large firms. Large firms tend to get owned by the rich. Those most likely to need to buy in to social welfare are the poor. Social welfare will thus be a means of moving money from the pockets of the poor to the rich. Second, pro claims state welfare drives out businesses as it can offer lower prices, creating monopolies. Three responses. First, she fails to justify why a monopolised welfare market would be a bad thing. Secondly and more importantly, however, most companies in welfare markets are able to exist quite nicely alongside the cheaper government alternatives. Look at the water market. Tap water is much cheaper than bottled water, but people still buy bottled water en masse! This is because bottled water does not compete on price. It competes by differentiating itself - usually by calling itself "pure", "natural" and "spring. " Differentiation is also how private companies usually compete against governments. Healthcare is a good example. Private firms often emphasize their "caring service" and "world-class treatment" to create a high-quality brand image. Not all customers buy exclusively based on price. Third, this argument contradicts her earlier narrative that free markets are cheaper than governments. Arguments1. Duty of stateThe reason why the state is charged with defending human rights in their country is because nobody but the state is accountable (at least in theory) to all its members. 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. The difference between a state provider and any other provider is that the stakeholders in the other provider may not include everyone in the state. A welfare state, however, by definition covers everybody in the state. With a non-state actor providing welfare, there is no guarentee of equal treatment of all within the state. While it is true some states do abuse their power, this is a violation of the state's role, not the general rule. We accept, for instance, that it is the state's role to defend human rights and basic liberties. Why not welfare?2. Poor qualityIn order to steal market share, firms are going to try to price their services more and more competitively (unless there is a welfare state, meaning they cannot win a price war as I told you already). The best way to do this is to cut costs. These cost-cuts translate directly into less welfare available. That means increased employer power, decreased healthcare, decreased educational quality, reduced benefits and so on. These in turn have corresponding harms on society, including reduced life expectancy, literacy rates, increased turnover, and increased inequality - all of which lead to flow-on harms such as crime and unemployment. I'm really looking forward to reading my opponent's responses and wish her the best of luck with her case. Sources[1] - . http://www.commondreams.org...[2] - . http://www.rbnz.govt.nz...