Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U.

Revolution v. EvolutionCon argues that radical, even revolutionary, change is sometimes the only avenue left to people. Sure, but that's not the subject of our present debate. Our resolution is “Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U. S. ” The topic is not whether revolutionary change has ever been better in history, or whether revolutionary change might be better at sometime in the future in the U. S. Right now the U. S. has a functioning system of representative government. What we are debating is whether people who want change, most of us, should engage in the system and try to steer it in the correct direction, or whether we should stand outside and demand nothing less than the total package we have in mind. Or perhaps we can muster a strong enough majority for a radical change to force it though. Our debate is about whether the right approach is to immediately implement our vision or to pt it in place incrementally, testing each step of the change. Evolutionary change works best. People plan their lives according to the laws in place, so it's unfair to suddenly upset the assumptions of continuity that people have made. If the sudden change is made nonetheless, there is no time for society to adapt by constructing a working alternative, and as a consequence a change that would have worked given time may fail. A change may bring unanticipated side effects that can be treated if the implementation is made step-by-step, so a basically sound approach may be rejected before it can be amended. If Con addressed my theoretical framework, I missed it. He effectively conceded my arguments, but claimed virtues of a radical approach. His identity argument claims that " "When a radical great change happens many people will race to see what it is and how it will work in the system. " I point out that there is no reason to suppose the radical change is good. The rise of a dictator or radical theocracy is sure to garner interest, but not for any good reason. A train wreck gets more attention than a wreck gracefully averted. Con did not rebut my argument, but implied that sometimes radical change is good. For the reasons I cited, it usually is not. Con argues that radical change is necessary, because it is now the last chance. Con argues that demographics will make “white people” a minority by 2050. Race is irrelevant. The problem is restoring and preserving freedom under a democratic Constitutional system of government, not the the racial makeup of the country. The best chance of turning the country to a fiscally sound and freedom-loving republic is by moving it incrementally through reforms. China and India, not long on white people are moving towards freedom and enterprise, while American is moving away from it towards a nanny state. Africa is moving dramatically toward free enterprise, as America retreats. . http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com... I agree that America needs to reverse course, but it is more likely to happen through a step-by-step process than by fomenting radical change. One incremental change that would help is to change immigration policy to favor skilled, enterprising people. Con's second argument is that radical change is preferred. If they did and there were any agreement on what change s preferred, it would have happened democratically. Con's source says Gen Xers are facing radical changes. He interprets that as supposing they also want radical solutions. A person may discover that he has a serious health problem, a radical change in his situation, but not then immediately seek an unorthodox cure. Some do, just as some favor radical political solutions. Most, however, would prefer an entirely conventional cure. I told Con I did a web search and could not find any data supporting anarchists being more than 0.1% of the population. Con provided no data supporting his claim, but instead linked a web search equivalent to the one I told him I had done. It's Con's job to support his case, and he apparently cannot cite any real numbers. AbortionCon has incorrectly interpreted the abortion opinion statistics. The sources of the statistics I presented were clearly reputable Quinnipiac and Gallup polls. The numbers agree with the data Con presented, but is spin is wrong. 60% of the population wants the abortion rights given by Roe v. Wade to be sustained. (My opponent made the funny mistake of calling it Boggs v. Wade. Wade Boggs is a Hall of fame baseball player. ) At the same time a slight majority said they are "pro-life. " That's because people are personally pro-life, but want others to maintain abortion rights. I gave a list of issues related to abortion that need to resolved independent of Roe v. Wade. Con gave no argument as to why those issues ought to be resolved with a radical solution. I claim it cannot be neatly resolved in any satisfactory way in the near future, so we ought to let the states evolve individual solutions and see what works best in the long run. WelfareI explained that what I called the "orphans in the streets problem" is that a sudden withdrawal of government welfare would produce bad consequences because private charity would not have the time to develop alternative social institutions. The result would likely be that government would be called back to provide aid, and little progress would be made towards a good alternative. Con did not attempt to explain why a radical solution would be better. He pointed to the debt problem, but that only provides the motivation for finding an alternate to the present system. Con said I didn't explain how an alternative solution would work. I assumed that everyone understood how private charity operates, but I'll elaborate. Studies show that 70% of government welfare money goes to the bureaucracies administering the programs and only 30% to the intended recipients. In private charities the administration costs are reduces to about 33% . http://mises.org...Beyond that, private charities have greater incentives to get people off assistance permanently, because they have t show donors they are successful. A private charity that does not live up to expectations will lose contributions to a competing charity. Government has no such concerns. the problem is how to shift the delivery out of government to the private charities. I argue that the shift must be done step-by-step to build a record of success. Libertarians ought to work to support the transition rather than being aloof critics. Social SecurityCon argues that Social Security faces future failure, and that he knows people worried about that. True enough, but that does not propose a solution, not even a radical one. Ending Social Security immediately solves the debt problem, but it poses an insurmountable challenge to those expecting to receive payments. Social Security is amenable to an evolutionary approach as I suggested because it's future course is so predictable. We know the demographics and can predict accurately how many people will reach retirement age in each future year. The DebateI believe my opponent did not come to grips with the central issue of the debate. We start assuming that people want to change the system. No one thinks the present system is perfect. Our debate is about whether to use the democratic process to try to move the system in the right direction, subject to whatever one thinks the right direction is, or to stand aloof from the system demanding radical change. Emotional satisfaction from being radical and aloof does not justify the approach. --------------------Con's spelling and grammar errors interfered with reading the debate. His sources identified problems, like debt, but did not support claims of radical change being best. Sources for claims of preference were non-existent (number of anarchists) or wrong (opposition to abortion).