Welfare State/Regulations

[JamieP]

I am one of a very few people in my large group of friends who generally take the side of objectivism in political debates. Debating can be a daunting task because I'm pretty out numbered (and calling me even 'novice' at debate would be flattering). I understand the arguments I am trying to make, but I am not the best at articulating them.

Frequent topics are:

1) I suggest that the welfare state (social security/welfare/unemployment/medicaid/medicare/etc etc) is causing so many obligations that we will eventually go bankrupt as a country and say that these programs shouldn't exist. The general response I get is that "without these programs, people would be homeless on the street robbing people etc. These programs are a net benefit to society and are necessary to keep order...otherwise there would be chaos" or something to that effect. I would love a solid rebuttal for this.

2) I have one friend who suggests that Capitalism exploits the many for the benefit of the few. Also he suggests that most big corporations gain so much of an advantage from govt lobbying that the only way to "even the playing field" (so to speak) is to tax the rich at a higher rate. When I suggest that the solution is to fix the rules (of what govt is allowed to do) rather than change how you tax people (which will unfairly affect those who have been "playing by the rules" aka not using govt for force), I am told that there isn't a way to set up rules such that this is possible because there are so many rules and regulations necessary in the system just to protect rights of those involved. I know this 2nd one is a little more long winded, but any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated.

[brianleepainter]

Welcome to the forums,

The general response I get is that "without these programs, people would be homeless on the street robbing people etc.

So, instead we are being robbed from and forced to be our brother's keeper to the people who protest that they have a "right" to a home,

a "right" to a job,etc.

"Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.

The Ayn Rand Letter “A Preview,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 22, 2"

Edited May 13, 2010 by brianleepainter

[2046]

I am one of a very few people in my large group of friends who generally take the side of objectivism in political debates. Debating can be a daunting task because I'm pretty out numbered (and calling me even 'novice' at debate would be flattering). I understand the arguments I am trying to make, but I am not the best at articulating them.

Frequent topics are:

1) I suggest that the welfare state (social security/welfare/unemployment/medicaid/medicare/etc etc) is causing so many obligations that we will eventually go bankrupt as a country and say that these programs shouldn't exist. The general response I get is that "without these programs, people would be homeless on the street robbing people etc. These programs are a net benefit to society and are necessary to keep order...otherwise there would be chaos" or something to that effect. I would love a solid rebuttal for this.

So according to this argument, we are forced to give people something that is ours (our wealth) in exchange for something else that is also already ours (the right not to be robbed by a homeless person.) In other words, it is bad to be robbed, so we have to rob people in order to keep other people from robbing from us. But why can't we just be left alone?

2) I have one friend who suggests that Capitalism exploits the many for the benefit of the few. Also he suggests that most big corporations gain so much of an advantage from govt lobbying that the only way to "even the playing field" (so to speak) is to tax the rich at a higher rate. When I suggest that the solution is to fix the rules (of what govt is allowed to do) rather than change how you tax people (which will unfairly affect those who have been "playing by the rules" aka not using govt for force), I am told that there isn't a way to set up rules such that this is possible because there are so many rules and regulations necessary in the system just to protect rights of those involved. I know this 2nd one is a little more long winded, but any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated.

Challenge his premise that people are exploited by capitalists. How are they exploited? If I voluntarily trade this thing of mine for that thing of yours, it logically follows that I valued that thing greater than I did this thing, otherwise I would not have done it. So who got exploited? In Objectivism, there is only one party that does the exploiting: those who use force to live at the expense of others. Maybe he's a strict adherent to Marxist exploitation theory, but it seems from your second example that he's just saying business lobbies government for special privileges to leech parasitically off others. Under capitalism, there is a separation of economy and state partially exactly for this reason. So no businesses can use the government as an instrument of plunder or in any way turn the guns of aggression against us. It is a free economy, that is, free of cronyism, bailoutism, corporate welfare, handouts, subsidies, favors, privileges, pull-peddling, etc. If a billionaire or a pauper need help, they have to figure out some way to get it without picking the pockets of others.

Edited May 13, 2010 by 2046

[L-C]

So according to this argument, we are forced to give people something that is ours (our wealth) in exchange for something else that is also already ours

I've heard Leftists describe setting the rent (as a landlord/property owner) higher than some people can afford as "force", whereas taxation is not.

Many would dispute the bolded words in your quote. They're delusional.

[VcatoV]

I am one of a very few people in my large group of friends who generally take the side of objectivism in political debates. Debating can be a daunting task because I'm pretty out numbered (and calling me even 'novice' at debate would be flattering). I understand the arguments I am trying to make, but I am not the best at articulating them.

Welcome! And remember this. Learning all the necessary knowledge for a debate is a daunting and indeed never-ending task. But victory does not come solely through "out-proving" your point, but through the passion of your convictions, and the crystal-clear, simplicity of your logic.

1) I suggest that the welfare state (social security/welfare/unemployment/medicaid/medicare/etc etc) is causing so many obligations that we will eventually go bankrupt as a country and say that these programs shouldn't exist. The general response I get is that "without these programs, people would be homeless on the street robbing people etc. These programs are a net benefit to society and are necessary to keep order...otherwise there would be chaos" or something to that effect. I would love a solid rebuttal for this.

First, commit this quote by Danton to memory: "Audacity, audacity, always audacity!" My first thought for your friends was, how silly! If there will be disorder upon the disentigration of the Welfare state, then was there disorder of a greater magnitude before hand? Prove it. Tell them to prove it. Tell them to also prove that the rate of disorder has decreased under the welfare state. They will come up with other examples, start speaking out of their a**, etc. But keep pushing them, because the essence is that this is not a historical fact, and thus no matter how many times they try to justify it, they will fail.

Keep that conversation short. Because then all you have to say is that it was also deemed as a net benefit of society, in order to promote order and increase unity, to slaughter 6 million Jews. Their logic is the same, their intentions different. But how long do you think that it will take, once given the power/mechanism, to slide to the bad end? History is on your side once again.

Many times, in a debate, you do not have to know more than your opponent, you just merely need to be more coherent about your principles. The more true you are to your principles, and the more you apply them with boldness and audacity, you will win. Leftist accept as default historical falsehoods. Thus almost everything they say is fantasy. Don't get trapped in their world.

2) I have one friend who suggests that Capitalism exploits the many for the benefit of the few. Also he suggests that most big corporations gain so much of an advantage from govt lobbying that the only way to "even the playing field" (so to speak) is to tax the rich at a higher rate. When I suggest that the solution is to fix the rules (of what govt is allowed to do) rather than change how you tax people (which will unfairly affect those who have been "playing by the rules" aka not using govt for force), I am told that there isn't a way to set up rules such that this is possible because there are so many rules and regulations necessary in the system just to protect rights of those involved. I know this 2nd one is a little more long winded, but any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated.

First off, don't let them pull you through their OWN problems and call it "Capitalism". The United States and most of the Western world has only been Capitalistic to the extent that it recognizes individual rights. Thus, not very much, and decreasingly so over the past 100 years. To call the 2008 crash, for example, a result of "greed" or "exploitative capitalism" is to ignore the government actions (such as the Fair Housing Act) that brought the event about. Many, many, many times leftist will blame many of the problems that they caused on Capitalism. See through this-do not automatically accept what your friends are saying as true.

Secondly, the very nature of a Capitalist system does not allow for exploitation, which shows an ignorance on their part of what Capitalism is. A perfect opportunity for you to educate them.

[FeatherFall]

Welcome! And remember this. Learning all the necessary knowledge for a debate is a daunting and indeed never-ending task.

I second this. While I have not read all of the responses, so if I repeat anything just chalk it up as extra support for that idea, too.

There isn't going to be any silver bullet for any argument. A few suggestions though: The type of social unrest that your friends claim is created by the welfare state becoming the status quo. Look at Greece. They allowed to live unproductively for decades before the safety net was swiped from under them; of course they are mad. But they're acting like animals, and we shouldn't design a government to pander to people who are criminals. That's extortion and it's morally wrong.

Also, I highly highly highly recommend The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein. Study the historic, economic and philosophic arguments he presents. You will become more persuasive over years, not by reading this post. This book is a good place to start.

[Dmitriy_Belyanin]

I second this. While I have not read all of the responses, so if I repeat anything just chalk it up as extra support for that idea, too.

There isn't going to be any silver bullet for any argument. A few suggestions though: The type of social unrest that your friends claim is created by the welfare state becoming the status quo. Look at Greece. They allowed to live unproductively for decades before the safety net was swiped from under them; of course they are mad. But they're acting like animals, and we shouldn't design a government to pander to people who are criminals. That's extortion and it's morally wrong.

Also, I highly highly highly recommend The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein. Study the historic, economic and philosophic arguments he presents. You will become more persuasive over years, not by reading this post. This book is a good place to start.

I think all of Europe and North America is degrading into statism. This will have such enormous consequences for Europe in the long run that Taiwan and Singapore, which have freer economies, may replace them as the main economic powers.

The problem of eliminating lobbying can be clearly boiled down to decreasing the power of the government. Unfortunately, this is impossible under the majority rule system, on which most Western countries are based. Only if individuals press the government to give up its power will lobbying cease.