Libertarian Economics are Inherently Immoral

Thanks Brian, I look forward to a fun and rigorous challenge. Note that Pro has not explicitly attacked the moral underpinnings of libertarians. Rather, he has made an emotional appeal to the unwed teenage mothers, implying that he has in mind some positive account of rights. This being the case, the onus is on him to show why we should accept such a doctrine. For my part, I'll be defending negative rights. Additionally, I intend to show that far from accomplishing the goal my opponent has in mind -- alleviating poverty -- state administered welfare programs do far more harm than good. 1. Welfare can never be morally justified a) Personal ownership, private property, and negative rights Whether or not one has any rights, and if so which ones, can only be decided by argumentative appeal. Moreover, in order to participate in ethical discourse, the right to exclusive ownership and control over one's person must be presupposed. To negate this would result in a performative contradiction, which occurs when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the non-contingent presuppositions that make the speech act possible.[1] For this reason, no one can ever coherently affirm slavery: at best you might convince me to perform uncompensated labor for you, but insofar as I agreed to be your slave, I wouldn't really be a slave at all. Our actions don't occur in a vacuum. One's actions are an extension of his person, and the right to property ownership must be extended accordingly. In order to take part in discourse -- or to perform any action at all -- we must also assume the right to allocate scarce resources for personal use. If, for example, I farm an unowned lot of land, no one has the right to stop me. Anything that interferes with my peaceful act of farming is a violation of my right to self-ownership. b) Indefensibility of positive rights Some, such as John Locke and David Conway, have offered that the homesteading principle is generally valid -- and indeed, it must be, at least in regard to some resources -- but that there are limits to what can be rightfully owned. However, the idea of such a proviso is logically incoherent -- if the proponent of such a theory is to be consistent, he would only be able to justify for himself the ownership of limited resources. If he were to interfere with another's peaceful homesteading activity, he would thereby illegitimately and inconsistently extend his own ownership claim beyond what is permissible under his own rule! In order to justify such an action, it would be necessary to appeal to some theory of collective ownership incompatible with the homestead principle and thus incompatible with ethical discourse. Just for the sake of argument, let's examine what the idea of positive rights entails. In an influential thought experiment, Judith Thomson asks you to imagine that you wake up one morning to find yourself connected by a series of tubes to a violinist. A famous concert violinist. The Society of Music Lovers has gone through all of the medical records and determined that you and you alone can save him from what would otherwise be a fatal illness. You'll have to remain hooked up to him for a period of several months in order for him to recover. Does the violinist really have an enforceable claim? Should it be punishable by law if you refuse to comply? How can the violinist have a right to my person when he has neither homesteaded it nor produced it? Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that "need" can neither be objectively quantified nor measured.[2] People have died from love sickness, should they be entitled to a lover-conscript? How long should a needy person be entitled to receive welfare? Forever? What if my support causes me to become needy, or increases my future needs? Moreover, even if need could be established, it would be in general terms, yet could only be satisfied by definite, particular resources. To which particular resources would the needy be entitled? Mine? Yours? John Doe's? Why? 2. Poverty is a largely a creation of the state Governments create poverty and artificial scarcity through idea patents, restrictive licensing requirements, protective tariffs, industrial subsidies, military contracts, corporate bailouts, inflation of the monetary base, minimum wage laws, rent controls, and other harmful policies. Pro himself notes that if the libertarians were in power, he would no longer have to "subsidise country landowners' comfortable lifestyles through government and EU farming subsidies and neither would I have old people sitting at home supping tea and sucking cakes at my expense." Abolish these practices and society will start to look a lot more egalitarian. 3. Welfare policies create a vicious cycle The number of welfare recipients has what in economics is referred to as a positive supply function.[3] As the incentives to go on welfare increase, so does the number of people who apply for and receive it. When disincentives to go on welfare increase, the number of recipients decreases. This theory is born out by empirical data as well. From 1973 to 1987, only 18.3% of poor people who received welfare benefits escaped poverty. By contrast, 45% of poor people who never received benefits escaped poverty.[4] Additionally, children in families that receive welfare are seven times more likely to be on welfare as adults.[5] George Bernard Shaw once wrote "any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" and this is exactly what we see in today's political process. As the incentives to go on welfare increase and correspondingly the number of welfare recipients increases, so too does the political power that sustains and aggravates the cycle. Once a dependent class has been created, politicians can count on their support in perpetuity to retain power. 4. Private charities are superior to government programs Pro worries that in a libertarian society, the well off might be hesitant to donate to the poor. I don't find this objection particularly weighty, after all, he is relying on the same people who won't voluntarily give to the poor to elect politicians who will forcibly redistribute their wealth. Moreover, as Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron points out, there is good evidence that government aid crowds out private giving.[6] In 2008, Americans donated over $300 billion to charity.[7] Private charities, like the Mormon church, tend to focus on helping aid recipients find work, avoiding the pitfalls of dependency that government programs create.[h] Additionally, because private charities are smaller and more localized, they are better able to individualize programs and to deliver aid to the people who genuinely need it rather than those who are merely gaming the system. Finally, private charities are far more efficient than federal aid. Roughly 70% of all "welfare" dollars actually go to government bureaucrats.[i] The resolution is negated. References: 1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006. pg. 372 2. Ibid, pp. 415-416 3. Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New Liberty." The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2002. pg. 145 4. http://www.cato.org... 5. http://www.cato.org... 6. http://www.cato.org... 7. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu... h. Rothbard, pp. 149-152 i. http://www.cato.org...