This House Believes that a Welfare System is a force for good

Further, I would urge my opponent to stick strictly to the resolution when debating this; arguing for a welfare system, or for conservatism, or against abortion, for example, would be meaningless sidetracking. Also, to make it clear, I am not arguing in favour of the current welfare system. I think the British one I am a part of it flawed and would prefer a German model. However, the debate is about having a welfare system at all. The welfare system, when in place, is a very strong system and essential to a modern society. A welfare system is a system where the state grants aid to those who require it, such as the sick, elderly, discriminated against, and others. I am going to argue that a welfare system protecting such a group of people is great for three major reasons: firstly, it is vastly more equitable and humanitarian than a lack of aid and protection; second it aids everyone - a welfare system is in the self interest of the vast majority; whilst thirdly it promotes a larger amount of freedom in society. Each point on its own shows the welfare system to be a great benefit to us all. The welfare state is a great humanitarian aid in society. Society itself is a vastly important part to people's lives, and is incredibly powerful simply as a form of authority, due to its nature. The state is the arbiter of the system around us, working to our will to improve the world as we see it. The welfare system was introduced after the discovery of poverty in the late 19th century in the UK, Germany, and all other modern nations because we can see that the welfare system creates vast amounts of aid to the poverty-stricken. Poverty cripples nations: it's growth was a massive shock to the UK government, causing massive dangers in the Boer Wars simply on the recruiting front as swathes of people were turned away because they were just too weak and weedy to survive there[1], leading to a promotion of the welfare state for National Efficiency - a stronger more productive workforce, and larger manpower. The welfare system protects us, as well as improves the health of the working class, as well as improves our armies and defence. Further, the welfare system helps everyone get better access to basic goods and improves sales. "poverty stems not just from a lack of resources, but from lack of entitlement: famines happen, not because there is not enough food, but because poor people are not allowed to eat the food that is there. "[2] Finally, the welfare system is simply a moral good. The promotion of the health, money, and similar to those arbitrarily disenfranchised is a necessarily good thing - welfare fights injustice. My second argument is that "a rising tide lifts all ships"; by aiding the poor, welfare helps indirectly those who do not take out from the system. Look back at the Manchesterite school of Capitalism. They argued against the current administration of setting prices artificially high, arguing for a free market to set the prices[3]. Their motivation though is what is key: the reduction of the price of labour meant they have to pay out less to produce their goods (as workers that starve to death in 4 days aren't very good workers! ) and thus the price of their goods had to go up as well. A welfare system, like a job seeker's allowance or job training means that businesses have to spend less to train their workers, and thus can make their goods cheaper. Moreover, it is cheaper (and better) for the government as we can as a nation influence the education given to make sure it is effective, useful, and the economies of scale mean it can be cheaper. This type of corporatist welfare, or welfare dependent on work, is an example of welfare helping out even businesses who have to pay taxation, by reducing their cost of their goods. There is a mutual self interest in a welfare state between proletariat and bourgeois citizens. Thirdly, a welfare state promotes freedom in society. What is freedom, first of all? As I am sure some of the moreideologues will recognise this is antithetical to their definition of freedom. Freedom, at least in the negative sense, is not what a welfare state promotes. Negative freedom, meaning a freedom from, or a freedom against the restrictions of the state of telling you what you're not allowed to do, is a conventional but too small a definition of freedom. To Quote Jules Monboit: "In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public by SavingsSlider" href=". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression ">healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor. "[4]We need positive freedom as well. To paraphraseGreen for the distinction: "negative liberty is my freedom to do as I like; positive liberty is my freedom to do as I like in pursuit of my doing what I like"[5]. Negative freedom allows for a state which does nothing to help its people, a state where massive inequality occurs and a state in which the government ignores the will of its people. For a true infinite negative freedom, we'd have anarchy - worse than that in fact, as we'd have a lack of any stigmatisation to our actions. We'd have no reason to help others, as there is no intervention of others to try to get us to do differently. We'd have Stirnerist chaos. The positive freedom is needed to allow for self-mastery, for the development of ourselves. We need a welfare system to give the poor positive freedom, not just the "freedom to starve". 1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...;5 - . http://tinyurl.com...