Libertarianism is better than Utilitarianism

My opponent brings up the classic "murdering doctor" critique of utilitarianism. However, utilitarianism in fact instructs the doctor NOT TO murder his healthy patient to save 4 others because utilitarianism looks at the effect on society, not just on the 5 patients. The murdering doctor should not kill one patient to save 4 under utilitarianism because if society knew that doctors are willing to do such a thing, they would cease visiting doctors. The harms caused by all members of society refusing to visit doctors would outweigh the benefit of saving 4 lives. Thus, killing one person to save many can only be done under utilitarianism if society will be able to view the killing as an exception, rather than the rule. The harms of making murder "the norm" would clearly outweigh the benefits of saving a few lives in one case. Mitigating circumstances, or "exceptions," could include "he would die anyway," "he asked me to," and "the exceptional magnitude made it necessary. " My opponent's only other argument in favor of libertarianism is that redistribution of wealth is bad. However, utilitarianism would allow us to argue against the redistribution of wealth. First, I need to clear up a misconception about utilitarianism that my opponent seems to have. Utilitarianism judges actions on two axes, not one. Not only does utilitarianism look at how many people a policy will affect, but it also judges the degree of good or bad a policy does. For this reason, utilitarianism sees giving $100 to one person as morally equivalent to giving $1 to 100 people, since the $100 does 100 times "more good" than the $1. This proves that utilitarianism does not care about wealth distribution. On the second axis ("degree of good"), tax cuts can be justified. Christina and David Romer, of UC Berkeley, calculate the "spending multiplier" of tax cuts at 3, meaning for every $1 given back to people in tax cuts, this dollar generates $3 in economic activity in the surrounding community because when people have more money, they buy more goods. As they buy more goods, businesses can afford to hire more workers; these new workers in turn buy more goods, and the cycle continues ad infinitum. Tax cuts could be said to do more good for more people than welfare programs, for example, because they create jobs. Utilitarianism could even be used to argue for the complete elimination of taxes. Since all of the policies my opponent wants could be accomplished under utilitarianism, any advantage to a utilitarian moral system justifies a Con vote. Sidenote: my opponent brings up Mark Zuckerburg, but his fortune violates libertarian ethics since he stole Facebook from his Harvard classmate Divya Narenda, thus violating his property rights. [1] Terrible example! The NBA (Lebron) is also a terrible example: their anti-competitive practices, such as "restraints on player mobility, like the amateur player drafts, salary caps, and reserve clauses, and territorial restrictions on franchise location and broadcast rights" all impinge on people's right to property. But these are all justified for the "greater good" of the sport, i. e. utilitarianism. [2] Extend all 3 of my unanswered examples of why utilitarianism is a superior system. It allows you to kill a villager (who would die anyway) to save a whole village. It allows you to violate property rights to save the world. And it overcomes collective action problems (for example, where each storeowner can gain $125 (25 stores x $5) in sales if they all clean their storefronts, but each individual refuses to act on his own and pay $10). Each storeowner is better off under utilitarianism (city ordinance) than libertarianism. I thank my opponent for a great debate and urge a Con vote. [1] . http://video.foxbusiness.com...-/ [2] . http://law.marquette.edu...