Food Security

Thanks, Romanii.FRAMEWORK1. I did justify human moral worth: "if humans were not of moral importance, it would not be morally important to consider our dues, and we might (morally-speaking) perhaps be due nothing at all." Con DROPS this; do not allow him to rebut it as I'd not have a chance to reply. Instead of addressing my actual argument, all Con does is generically accuse me of not giving any argument at all, which is not the case. To expound on my point: rocks, because they are not of moral importance, are not factored into considerations of justice. The resolution implies that humans have moral worth because they're factored in to issues of what "ought" to be; to say otherwise would be to kritik the resolution. Moreover, Con, insofar as he also talks about what people are due (self-ownership) must concede that people are of moral worth lest he say that people are, morally, due nothing. So (a), either Con concedes people have inherent worth (then we can debate the implications of that) or (b) the extension of my dropped argument here is enough to counter Con here.2. I didn't reason backwards; I established that humans had worth, explained why, and then linked to CapAp. Even if my argument was backwards, that doesn't make it wrong; Con should critique the logic itself, not the method. Even bad methods can occasionally produce correct results.3. HD is not vague. I clearly articulated that HD involved inherent human worth rooted in our unique abilities to suffer, make life plans, and think rationally. At least on that last plinth, Con agrees with me that this is part of why humans are morally significant. And, even if HD is a bit vague, as long as the judges think it's clear enough to impact too, it's fine. All philosophical concepts involve some grey areas, rejecting them on that basis alone would leave us without any notions of morality/justice.ARGUMENTSCon DROPS these. Extend them.TURNOverview: Applicability(a) Most of Con's data comes from the U.S. The U.S. is not representative of all (or even most) states. Con never even explains why it should be a case study. (b) The resolution asks what a hypothetical "just government" should do. Because we don't know what tools this just government has at its disposal, these economic impacts (which rely on specific data) are almost impossible to calculate accurately. What we would know with certainty, however, is that without food, people will starve and be less safe, and that violence will be more likely. (c) Most of Con's evidence refers to generic welfare. While CapAp requires some welfare, levels may differ from what Con discusses.Dependency1. FS =/= HandoutsAll of Con's dependency arguments hinge on FS programs being welfare handouts. If this isn't the case, it means that there are FS programs immune to his objections, so he is attacking only a limited portion of my entire available ground. Two non-handout examples are given below, and could be used in conjunction with other means of FS:a. Public Works: "First, because of the work requirement and low wages offered--often in food rather than cash--public works...avoid 'dependency on handouts'. Second, well-designed public works projects can create useful physical infrastructure while simultaneously transferring food...Third, agriculture-related public works activities...can improve farm yields, generating sustainable benefits for household food security." [1] This can also teach people useful employment skills, (e.g. agriculture)b. Cash grants to community farms or micro-gardens can allow local communities to, through their own work, sustain themselves nutritionally without breaking their bank on supplies, seeds, etc.When recipients own or participate in FS schemes, they have a greater stake in working hard. Only passive collection generates the kind of dependence Con fears.2. FS =/= Dependency"Studies by Parker and Skoufias (2000) in Mexico...Edmonds and Schady (2009) in Ecuador...and Ferreira et al. (2009)...in Cambodia, largely found no evidence of adult labour disincentive effects. Britto and Medeiros (2008) found that the two...programs in Brazil produce no negative effects on adult labour supply...Concerns that...transfers will cause recipients to 'choose leisure' are not supported by evidence from the...Child Support Grant in South Africa, where adults in recipient households are more likely to seek and find work...than poor households...Women gained financial and sexual autonomy from men, and low-paid workers were empowered to demand fair wages and decent working conditions." [1] Prefer my data: it's largely more recent, not limited to the U.S., and cited by respected global agencies.3. Numbersa. Con admits 55% of people did not get off welfare under the reforms. Con would deny these 55% food benefits, leading to malnutrition/death. These impacts outweigh getting a minority of people off welfare.b. Malnutrition also results in poorer academic performance (my C3). In fact, unlike dependency, malnutrition causes physical malformations in the brain (my C1). Hunger leaves folks 4x more likely to need counseling and 12x more likely to commit crimes. These, plus physical damage (unique to food insecurity) outweighs 14% less likely to graduate high school and a risk of future dependency (which relies on the family receiving handouts from FS, which isn't a given).c. Welfare reform programs had time limits imposed during Gingirch's tenure in the '90s (e.g. TANF). [2] Part of the reduction in recipients is explainable by this, rather than by the success of the programs.Employment1. Pipe DreamCon's whole argument is premised on big "ifs." He says tax cuts are "inevitable;" this is not the case. The money could easily be spent elsewhere. And, even if tax cuts are made, they won't necessarily be corporate. Politicians may rather give citizens (rather than corporate America) a tax cut or spend the money on defense or to pay down the deficit. There is no reason to believe doing what Con suggests will necessarily, or even likely, result in the outcomes he describes. "If the money is cut, if corporate tax cuts happen, if that creates jobs (there is at least some doubt that it will create jobs)..." The impacts are far-fetched.2. Tax Cuts Bada. We can look at the example of Kansas to see how massive tax cuts impact the economy: the government ran a huge budget shortfall, job a GDP growth is slowing, incomes are stagnating. and citizens are jumping ship. Using Con's logic, the opposite of all this should've occurred. [3, 4, 5]b. Employers and landowners get most of the benefits of corporate tax cuts (about 65%), leaving the actually needy far behind. [6]c. "U.S. public companies pay well-below the official 35% tax rate while 13.5 million American workers search unsuccessfully for jobs And start ups tell me that tax cuts don"t affect whether they"ll create new jobs." So, already low real tax rates are not having the impact Con says they will. Plus, U.S. companies have posted record profits, but aren't hiring: "companies are achieving that record profitability by squeezing workers. After all, 2010 productivity rose 3.9% while unit labor costs fell 1.5%," so rather than hire, they pay existing workers less. [7]3. FS Goodb. "There are highly cost-effective solutions to avert...malnutrition...Research shows that $1 invested in nutrition generates as much as $138 in better health and increased productivity." [8] There are significant economic benefits to FS.c. "In 2011, a team of economists from Brandeis University calculated the direct and indirect costs of hunger in the United States, taking into account its effects on health, education, and economic productivity. They estimated the total cost to the country that year to be $167.5 billion" [9] There is a big economic toll with a lack of food.d. Con DROPS in my case where I point out that "more unhealthy workers are less efficient." Having a healthy, well-fed workforce thus contributes to economic growth by creating productive workers.4. FS InexpensiveThe UN estimates that some poorer nations (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea and Senegal) could significantly improve their FS with just 0.15-0.30% of their GDP. [1]5. ConstantThere are always unemployed and hungry in free markets, so Con will always leave people to starve.Charity1. TurnCharity leads to dependence. Con is advocating that people rely on Charities for handouts, now, and charities seem even more willing to give sans work than governments. Turn Con's own points against dependence on him.2. ReligionPart of the reason why the U.S. and Israel give so much is religion. A substantial portion of U.S. giving is faith-based [10]. This money may be spent on Church officials, buildings, proselytizing, etc. and so little of it may actually end up in providing social goods, like FS. So, the numbers may not be due to welfare in those cases.3. MoneyPeople give to causes that garner their sympathy, which may not be the most important causes. The Make-A-Wish foundation pulls at my heartstrings, seeing little kids happy. But, it doesn't feed the hungry or fight poverty. Just because charity increases doesn't mean it's useful charity or that the money goes where it's needed. 4. InfrastructureCharities don't have the organization, scope, and manpower government does. Governments have better infrastructure to target and reach needy populations.5. StudyIf Con's study is right, and charity's have less overhead, that still says nothing about how well the charities use the money, and or what causes. Don't let Con introduce new data here; I won't have a chance to reply.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - R1, Source 1110 - http://tinyurl.com...