Guaranteed Minimum Income

I. CounterplanCon cites the 1996 Welfare work requirements as an example of what we should do. First, turn this argument. Daily Kos[1] explains that after the work requirement was implemented in 1996 the administrative costs of welfare skyrocketed from around 14% to nearly 30% by the early 2000's. Throughout this entire process, the average benefits stagnated. Follow Cons plan and all you do is put more money into the pockets of bureaucrats. In addition, Cons argument that the welfare system is failing due to Obama removing the work requirements is false. Factcheck[2] tells us that arguments that Obama "gutted" the work requirement are greatly exaggerated. According to Factcheck, the only real effect of the work requirement was to bog administrations down with paperwork: "The new work-participation rules did have one impact on states: They were time-consuming to comply with and counterproductive to helping people find jobs, as documented by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office in a 2010 report." Obama allowed states to bypass this wasted time if they met certain stringent requirements to gain a waiver. Thus Con gains nothing here because his proposal is already happening and probably isn't good policy anyway. Only 29.4% of people receiving assistance actually met the work requirement in 2009 according to Factcheck so the current system doesn't work anyway. Obama added flexibility to the welfare system. This is exactly the type of reform Con wants, but according to him it is exactly this reform that's causing our system to not produce results.Con isn't offering any real solutions except for a work requirement that already exists. It's easy to say that he would "reform" the system if he's not going to be specific. It's not fair for me to have to argue against some amorphous plan of "scrapping/merging unnecessary programs." Part of Cons plan to slim down the welfare system is to throw even more paperwork in it's path by crafting regulations to prevent improper payments, but these improper payments happen precisely because the system is disparate and bogged down in paperwork.Con says "...if the government is capable of transforming the status quo's byzantine bureaucratic monstrosity into something as simple as the GMI, then it is also capable of steadily reforming the system..." Here's the difference: My policy destroys red tape. Cons plan piles it on. That about sums up the differences between our advocacies. ==My case==Note first that other than his counterplan, Con has no case of his own. If I take out his counterplan, the only way he can win is to have enough offense coming off of his rebuttals to my arguments to outweigh.I. Policy a) AccountabilityFirst, turn this argument. In his article about Appalachia, Kevin Williamson explains how many of the dependent actually spend their food stamp handouts on cases of soda to be bought by drug manufacturers, who give them 50 cents on the dollar[3]. People prefer cash. It's true that much of the money would be used irresponsibly, but it's used irresponsibly in the status quo as well, except in the status quo the poor often don't even get their full share. At least under my system the irresponsible would hopefully have enough money left over to care for their families. Obviously it's very irking to think that money taken from the pockets of the hardworking will be used by the irresponsible, which is why Cons argument registers so well on an emotional level. The problem is, it's just a trade off we have to make if we want to help the deserving needy, and we should prefer a system that gives everyone more money than one that gives everyone except worthless bureaucrats less. The irresponsible are going to be irresponsible either way. Moreover as irking as this argument is, the idea that 25% of the costs of the welfare system are administrative should inspire equal wrath. Irresponsibility is bad at any level.The current system does nothing for accountability, either. Con says that we should only support welfare programs if we are assured that all of the money actually helps the poor, in which case we should reject his entire case because we know that overhead costs are jaw dropping and the status quo isn't forcing responsibility. Less than a third of people actually met the so called "work requirement".b) DependencyDependency or death is inevitable. As technology marches forward, jobs are lost. Historian Yuval Harari tells us[4]: "...in the 21st century, there is a good chance that most humans will lose, they are losing, their military and economic value...the biggest question of 21st century economics is what will be the need in the economy for most people in the year 2050...this is where we have to take seriously, the possibility that even though computers will still be far behind humans in many different things, as far as the tasks that the system needs from us are concerned, most of the time computers will be able to do better than us."Times are changing. Even if Harari is wrong and most humans will still be economically useful, it's going to take a long time before the economy adjusts to accommodate everyone. As policymakers we should establish the principle of GMI now, before it's too late. As humans, we are losing are economic value--let's not lose our moral value as well.Con cites CATO as if it's surprising that people who literally refuse to take handouts when they are in poverty are less likely to end up depending on the government their entire lives. c) Cost/QuebecI do not concede that GMI will cost more than the current system. It's far cheaper because we can almost afford it without even *touching* Social Security, the biggest component of the federal budget which can easily be worked into a GMI. There really is not much to say here except that Con concedes that much of the cost of the status quo comes from a complicated system that he claims he can fix without giving many solutions. I gave a detailed explanation of my system and the math used to reach my cost estimates. Con can't even give you his "savings". Moreover, Con argues that we should engage in a publicity campaign to get more people more benefits, which will eat into any savings he manages to procure. Ignore the Quebec evidence--Quebec didn't try a GMI as my opponent claims, rather they *proposed* it and the paper is analyzing the viability of a proposed GMI that didn't accompany any changes in the existing welfare structure. It's classic apples to oranges. II. PrincipleLibertarianismCon doesn't get to argue that we should keep the welfare system while also arguing that "the only plausible role of the government is to accept tax money in order to protect the rights of the tax-payers from being violated." If extreme libertarian ethics are true, we should prefer them and just abolish the welfare system totally. But hardcore libertarian ethics aren't true--or at least, you can't run a society with them. Let's examine libertarian societies of the past. It will surprise many to learn that there was a nearly 1000 year period in Western history where government was limited and decentralized. Where much of sovereignty was derived from a a personal rather than territorial tie. Where property owners could essentially do whatever they wanted and where ties were typically "private, personal and contractual"[5]. It was called Feudalism and was the dominant political and economic system in medieval times.We can see the effects of technology on these people living in a libertarian society. Lynn Nelson[6] explains how increases in farming productivity drove millions of peasants out of work and forced them into destitution. How did medieval society react? The state, at the request of the church, commanded a 10% tithe of all production to help the poor. Parts of feudal Europe were probably the most libertarian societies in history, and even they realized that you can't just leave people to die for reasons both ethical and practical. It's immoral to let the pauper starve so the aristocrat can buy a new robe, just as it's impractical to tell the starving masses to "eat cake", or else they'll rise up and chop off your head. The best way to protect private property from the destitute is to treat them with kindness and respect by guaranteeing them the means to survive. The parallels to our current situation are on point. Con says I don't establish an "ethical framework", but all I'm doing is following basic intuitions that it's probably not a good idea to let people starve to death just because the economy has left them behind. Even if you think my opponent is right about libertarianism, let's follow the example of the most libertarian society in history and protect private property by having a fair and efficient welfare system.b) AutomizationI've already hit on this under dependency, so cross apply.Con says that new technology doesn't axe jobs, but his source *literally* ends by saying: "What happens after that should be clear to everyone: more unemployment, lower wages for the remaining employees, worse worker morale, but even higher profits to holders of capital. And so on. Because in a world in which technology makes the unqualified worker utterly irrelevant, this is what is known as 'progress.'" Remember, 47% of jobs are about to become obsolete. Businesses may keep some token workers for good PR, but not enough. Contra Con, this process is already happening and has been for some time. This nation is littered with hundreds of former mill towns as proof.Con makes the very libertarian argument that the state should stop companies from adopting new technology, but this is the worst of both worlds as it decreases productivity. Let the companies be more productive and redistribute some of the profits. Sources:1. http://goo.gl...2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...4. http://goo.gl...5. Robert Nisbet. Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary. Pp 125-1316. http://goo.gl...