Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens

Is a government's role to be moral at all? Is it even the job of the government to be moral? No, a goverment exists solely to protect its people, doing so using 3 things:1. ) its police force: to protect its citizens from criminals2. ) its Army: to protect from foreign invaders 3. ) its court systems: to protect property and other violationsHistory has taught us that it is not the role of the government to act as a moral power, kn fact government usually fails when it tries to accomplish anything of the sort. The fact is that governments are not capable of being moral. Though a government may take an action which has the qualities of being moral it is simply impossible for a government itself to be moral at all. For instance all though SIRI, the voice on our iPhones may talk and even respond as though 'she' is concious, it is simply impossible for it to be so. The job of morality rests in the hands of the people in a society not in the government to force the people into being or acting moral, as the resolution entails. Folks, we must not confuse Fundemental rights with social rights. It is only the social rights which the government must uphold. And so I must declare that it is not the job or the right of the government to uphold morality and quite frankly it is impossible, allowing the government this power violates its 1 function which is simply to protect its people and thus this resolution undermine the entire premise of government, a concept which the founders would also agree. Resolution is the Foundation for TotalitarianismLet's move beyond the fact that governments truely can't and shouldnt hold moral power and look to just 1 result of this resolution. If all governments required that all people must have adiquate food then we must examine the inescapable reality of nations lacking enough food for everyone. What happens when resouces become scarce? Well the government must then require that the farmers switch their Cash Crops to something that can feed more people more economically. In essence it takes power of land away from the farmers. This undermines their social rights to property and the pursuit of happiness as well as their individual rights. Now, what happens when the government has the power to seize your property and to inhibit your ultimate freedoms? We arrive an the communist state in places like Soviet Russia, China, North Korea and even fascist systems like the ones found in the Nazi regime. The truth is that we cannot sacrifice social rights for fundemental rights because in that case we arive in a government where no one has power because they are under the rule of a 'moral' government who has the power to seize your rights at any time. Instead governments should offer a system that makes getting food an Option when one works for it, one that gives them the Means to acheive their fundemental rights such as the ones found predominately in the western world. not only does this reward those who work the hardest but it preserves both fundemental and social rights most effectively. Thank you for your time and I look forward to the rebuttals. I pass the gauntlet back to the pro team. -The JVN