The U.S. federal government should increase social services for persons in poverty.

1. Harms Note that, while I concede the existence of these "harms", that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with my opponent's plan for dealing with them. We simply agree that they exist. 2. Inherency a. Regardless of whether or not the taxes can be used to a materially beneficial purpose is irrelevant. I am opposing taxes based on the lack of moral merit. Simply because one is born into the United States does not mean that the US Government has a higher claim to the life, liberty, or property of individual citizens than the citizens themselves. To claim that taxes are a moral means of funding government programs is to claim that stealing from some people for the sake of other people (i.e. violating the rights of some for the benefit of others) is ethically justifiable. All men have an equal claim to rights, and one man's need imposes no obligations on other man apart from a negative obligation not to be a hindrance to the man in need; note that the needy man has NO right to steal from me (whether he does it himself, or through the government) as a means of fulfilling that need. Helping the poor may seem like a noble cause at face value, but forcing individuals to "ante up" under threat of imprisonment isn't the proper means of fulfilling that intention. b. While he argues that people may benefit from these services at a later date, it's no more justified to sacrifice or steal from others than it is for others to sacrifice or steal from you. Simply because some people may find the probability of receiving free aid at the expense of the rights of others appealing does not mean that the plan is ethically legitimate. If one is troubled by the possibility of going hungry, one should invest his money, save it in a bank, buy private insurance, or look to a private charity - not rely on the governmental theft as a means of parasitic existence. c. Though he claims that his solvency argument proves that food stamps are a proper way of dealing with the harms we agreed upon, he doesn't actually back up this claim. His point on solvency argues that it's effective, efficient, and that it should be expanded. In terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, it may be a proper solution; however, recall that a given end doesn't justify the entire range of means available to that end. Sentencing every defendant to death may reduce crime (a desirable end), but that doesn't mean that a blanket death sentence is morally permissible. In the same spirit, efficacy and economic efficiency are admirable goals, but not when they are achieved at the cost of the rights of any man or group of men. The protection of rights and the prevention of the initiation of force supersede any secondary goals such as those. 3. The Planks a. I'll cover his three responses. A. He could always argue against the privatization of social services. The affirmative's inability to cope with/absorb the concept of privatization isn't the fault of the negative. At best, he's playing on a technicality. B. Two words: profit motive. Look at things like insurance, electricity, cable/satellite, gas, and all private services rendered. Because companies seek to maximize profit, they must compete with other companies offering the same service, meaning that they will have to offer the highest quality at the lowest price to outshine their competitors. The free market thus optimizes production of goods and the distribution of quality services at fair prices. [http://www.investorglossary.com...] In the case of nonprofit organizations, private investors are often more dedicated/motivated to their cause by virtue of their participation being voluntary. At the point that you subject social services to the nightmarish bureaucracy [http://www.semp.us...] and obligatory donations for which government is so infamous, it's clear that - as with mainstream goods and services, privatization is far better, and doesn't violate rights. It's a win-win. C. His argument here is essentially "if those programs really worked, they would already exist." My response is this: [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Welcome to Fallacyville, Pro. Population - You. :) b. The numbers are not what I am concerned with; it is the principle upon which the numbers are based. At the point that he is asking to increase taxes, he is condoning legalized theft (which is what taxes are, since you're threatened with imprisonment if you don't give up your property), and is essentially adding insult to injury. Whether slightly or entirely, rights violations are NOT okay. c. I know that. I just wanted to ensure that you wouldn't use it in a subversive manner. d. Hmm. So it is. Glad we've cleared that up, though it was only a minor objection. Thanks. 4. Back to Solvency a. People don't give up rights because of where they live. Just because one lives in the United States does not mean that he gives up his rights to life, liberty, and property - these are his natural rights as man, and no government can take that away, regardless of how many people are backing that use of force. Men can elect leaders for themselves - not force others to accept their policies. Additionally, paying government is one thing - the government's forcible theft of a man's property (under threat of imprisonment) is an entirely different ballgame. A. Whether or not the tax is "insignificant" is irrelevant. No government has the right to steal, regardless of how many people benefit from that rights violation, and of how many people are backing the government's actions. No man, group of men, or political leader has a higher claim to an individual's property than that individual. B. If you want to argue that you can bypass the Constitution, that's fine. I wasn't aware that you could use your powers to institute a law which contradicts the highest law in the land, and violates the rights of some people because "other people need it". Good luck with that. b. He wants you to look at the previous point; I urge you to do the same here. c. A person has no positive duties to the government, nor to any other men. He isn't required to sacrifice himself for another man, group of men, or elected official. A man's only duty is to preserve himself, and to respect the attempts of others to preserve themselves. If Pro wants to argue that a man is morally bound to submit his life, liberty, and property to the whims of the government (or other ruling faction), I again say: good luck. A. Refer to the point on Inherency concerning privatization, since I'm running somewhat low on characters. 5. Advantages a. He says that the New Deal never increased food stamps. I beg to differ. [http://www.jstor.org...] Also, all that the article gives us is Nancy Pelosi's statement that food stamps will stimulate the economy. That's not really what I would consider to be "solid proof". 6. Conclusion A (Yes, I'm actually covering this) Proof has two parts. Evidence, and logic/analysis. I'll agree that he has provided a fair deal of evidence (or, at least, a lot of claims with a tag on the end; however, his analysis is lacking (though he claims - without warrant - that he based his assumptions on "easy" logic). Furthermore, proving solvency doesn't prove that his priorities aren't wrong. It just proves that he can use awful means to achieve a seemingly desirable end. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness aren't higher priorities than protecting rights. Concerning conditionality, he's affirming that social services IN GENERAL ought to be increased - not that one particular program works, and should be expanded. If he wants to jump on me for conditional arguments, he should probably check his own case structure first. I look forward to seeing Pro for our final round. I've never debated this topic, so it's been quite an experience. And, for the final time: Good luck.