Minarchist State (Pro) v. Welfare State (Con)

To begin, I agree with the following statement made by Pro: "Governmental legitimacy has to be paramount since for both the affirmative and negative advocacy, the actor is the government, therefore the crux of the debate should be centered around if its actions are considered fair and just towards the governed." This debate should be evaluated on whether the minarchist state or the welfare state is more fair and just towards the governed. In order for a government to be fair and just, it must represent the will of the people. A government that goes against the will of the people would be unjust according to Pro's definitions. The existence of at least some form of a welfare state is consistent with what the people want throughout the developed world. Every developed, democratic country has some form of welfare state, which shows that the people generally do not want minarchism. A specific example is that in the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is widely accepted as the beginning of the American welfare state (http://content.time.com...). FDR was elected repeatedly by landslides, so the people did want at least a minimal welfare state, not minarchism. (http://www.britannica.com...) Pro says "What my framework necessarily states is that we must first have a legitimate government, and to achieve a legitimate government we must respect the automonous will and humanity of the citizenry." It was the will of the citizenry to establish a welfare state to feed those who are less fortunate than themselves. The definition of freedom as "independence from being constrained by another's choice" is unfortunately impractical. We are all constrained by the choices of our parents. Say that John and Jim both have parents who made different choices. John's father invested in Microsoft stock and made a fortune, but James's father lost all of his savings at a casino and fell deep into debt. John's father can afford to send him to college, but James cannot go to college because his parents cannot afford it, and he must work at low-paying jobs just so his family can eat and pay rent, so he can't save his own money for college. In this case, James is constrained by the choices of another, and John is not because John has the freedom to go to college. The idea of government not taking things from those who have it and giving it to those who need it would be far more theoretically justifiable in a world where people started out their lives equal - but that is not our world, and it probably never will be. Kant states that we must never use human beings as a means to an end - but this should not be interpreted as a moral absolute. The idea of taking Kant's teachings as a moral absolute is disproved by his own statement that it would be immoral to lie to a murderer, even if it saved someone's life (http://home.wlu.edu...). And also many of the people who are wealthy today gained that wealth by using others as a means to an end. When you must delegate employees to certain tasks and have them be instruments as part of a company's plan, you are inevitably using them as a means to an end, so this part of the Categorical Imperative is not practical on a universal level. I agree with Pro that political paternalism is bad - however proving that political paternalism is bad does not prove the welfare state is bad, because paternalism is not intrinsic to the welfare state. Paternalists "presume to know what is good for us, better than we know ourselves." Forcing someone to help others does not fit the definition of paternalism. Welfare states are naturally beneficial to some and harmful to others, but they do not have to force anyone to be helped. If somebody doesn't want food stamps (in the USA), then they don't have to apply for food stamps, and they won't get any. This is not paternalism. While paternalism can occur in a welfare state, it is by no means inevitable or intrinsic to the welfare state, and I only have to defend the theoretical justification of the welfare state, so paternalism being bad does not prove minarchism is better than the welfare state. Therefore, Ebeling's critique of paternalism does not link to the abstract idea of a welfare state. Pro says that the welfare state is bad because the government uses force to take people's money for taxes. Why is it bad? Because of the harm caused by this force: jail time or even death. However, this system prevents more harm than it causes. According to Rational Choice Theory (http://www.businessdictionary.com...), people will naturally choose the option that produces the highest benefit for their own self-interest. Since it is better to lose money than to be killed or sent to jail, the impacts of death and imprisonment that Pro suggests would not happen unless it actually is better for someone to be imprisoned than taxed, in which case we should respect their choice according to Pro's view of freedom. Welfare prevents people from dying of starvation, which is a slow and painful death and is far worse than being parted with some of your money. It is far worse for the poor to lose access to food, health, and safety than for the rich and middle class to lose some access to luxuries. Some of these people cannot make money for themselves due to illness or disability, and relying entirely on private charity takes a very serious risk with human life. The lack of a welfare system creates a world that is not fair or just for the poor. Pro claims that the welfare keeps getting bigger and bigger. But Reagan reduced its size during his administration, and other Republicans may do the same in the future (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...). The argument that the welfare state leads to totalitarianism is a slippery slope fallacy. In reality totalitarianism is more likely to be caused by sudden and abrupt changes such as the Russian Revolution or Hitler's rise to power. Pro has not provided any historical examples of the welfare state leading to totalitarianism. Also totalitarianism is non-unique to the welfare state - oppressive governments have been common throughout history, before the welfare state became more common in modern times. On the quote from John Stuart Mill, I definitely agree that society should not command something that is wrong, but the rich giving money to the poor so they can have food, education, healthcare, and shelter is not a wrong command, but rather the mandating of an act that most would agree is moral. Social tyranny is not dependent on the welfare state since it is entirely determined by society, not the government. The government cannot legislate society's values, and society will impose certain values on people whether or not there is a welfare state. The idea of the welfare state can be justified from either a utilitarian or deontological perspective. A utilitarian perspective says that the benefits given to the poor who are prevented from starving outweigh the harm done to the rich who can afford to pay taxes. John Rawls, a deontological philosopher who was inspired by Kant, believed that justice is fairness and that society should be constructed in such a way as to be most beneficial to those at the bottom. He favored the welfare state to laissez faire capitalism, though he actually followed democratic socialism, which goes even further than the welfare state. Rawls saw redistribution as necessary to ensure fairness, as it is unfair when too much goes to the people at the top.