The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,559 times Debate No: 19311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I argue that the Welfare State should be abolished.

There are different definitions of the Welfare State.

However, I am just going to be broad about it and define the welfare state as anything the state does beyond the Night Watchman State. The Night Watchman State is defined as:

"A night watchman state, or a minimal state,[1] has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[2][3][4] Advocacy of a night watchman state is known as minarchism."

Now, just to be clear, I am not an explicit minarchist. I am a full out market anarchist. However, I did not start this debate to debate law, military, etc... I wanted to debate the welfare state.

So, in this debate, I am just arguing about functions outside of the Night Watchman functions.

A few other things:

1.) Political feasibility is of course important, but not part of this debate... Political feasiblity is to be assumed and not debated

2.) First Round is NOT for Acceptance Only, Con should go ahead and offer arguments for Welfare State in Round 1

3.) This is NOT a Semantics debate

4.) Feel free to ask any questions or suggest any changes


I will be presenting arguments i favor of the "welfare states" as defined by my opponent.
My first and only argument in favor of the "welfare state" is that it increases societies standard of living and its economy.
I will now present examples and evidence of the welfare states benefits for society.
1) Health care:
The Veterans health associated (a totally government controlled health care system for veterans cost 40% less than non-government health systems and provides health outcomes that are 30% higher.

2) Energy standards:
Government energy standards save consumers and the economy billions of dollar.
^Light bulb energy standards will save 4 billion dollars each year,
^TV energy standards in California which will make TV's 49% more energy efficient set to save the state 1 billion dollars each year.
^DOE energy standards which will make washers/dryers 35% more energy efficient will save 35 billion dollars over 20 years.

3) Environment.
Governmental environmental regulations save lives, improve the health and the economy by reducing pollution.
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years
--^EPA regulations limiting emissions from engines used for recreational non-road purposes saves a net of 3 billion dollars each year. Through lowered health care costs and higher mpg efficiency.
^EPA regulations reducing mercury emissions from power plants will save 10 billion a year; due to lower health care costs.
Debate Round No. 1


First, let me point out, that this is NOTa sources debate. So, whoever has the most or best sources does not get 2 points automatically.

Okay, so let me make my points.

Argument Against Welfare State

First, I am going to make a quick case against the welfare state in general, before we get into specific programs.

Okay, the problem with the welfare state is that every element of it could be provided in a more efficient and "better fashion" in a nonviolent way in a free market. I say nonviolent, because the welfare state is necessarily violent.

Everything in a welfare state MUST be enforced by the point of gun, or it would not be a welfare state.

More importantly, in a free market, anything society demands will be provided. If people want a welfare system, then they can, and have, existed without a state [1]. This is because individuals who wanted a welfare system simply contributed to a welfare system, on a non violent exchange.

The same goes for environmental regulations, food regulations, etc. If people want to be "greener", they can choose to purchase greener items. I can already here my opponent talking about transparency. The beauty of the marketplace is that, in response to the demands for greener, businesses devoted to finding out how green company is willl pop up.

Transparency is an inherent part of a free market. There are examples of exceptions, but the state is far worse about transparency.

The key difference between the welfare state and the free market is that the welfare state exists because the people inside the state forced people, by gun, to pay for these programs. In a free market, things exist because people want them.

Responding to my Opponent's arguments

1.) Health Care

Health Care is best provided on a free market. The VA is not as great as my opponent thinks [2]. It is facing financial problems and decaying quality. Furthermore, the US system is hardly a free market, as severe government distortions have caused prices to skyrocket.

Laser Eye surgery has been provided on a free market, one of the few areas that has, and prices have fallen while quality has risen [3].

2.) Energy standards do not save consumers. They simply add to costs by creating more regulatory costs for energy companies.

Energy Standards DO not make things more efficient than they would have been in a free market. Free markets already move towards efficiency, as producers try to sell better things at lower costs to consumers. This is called competition.

3.) This is based on the idea that government helps the environment. In fact, private property is the best thing for the environment, as individuals keep their own property well.

Environmental regulations hurt the economy by forcing companies overseas and increasing regulatory costs.





First off this debate is about whether or not the government should involve itself in areas not related to defense, the courts, or police.
My argument is that government should involve itself because government involvement can increase standards of living and the economy. In my first post I posted 7 government policies that involve the environment, health and energy that improves standards of living for everyone and helps the economy. My opponent dismissed those because they are "sources" I ask you not to dismiss them just because they are blue and direct you to another webpage.

My opponent has made a bunch of claims which are all unsupported by evidence and which are all dis-proven by my previous post. I will go through each of his claims.

1) "Okay, the problem with the welfare state is that every element of it could be provided in a more efficient and better fashion" in a nonviolent way in a free market.
Notice how my opponent provides no evidence to back his claim up.
Also if you would please go back to my first post you will find 7 different pieces of evidence that show government involvement makes the economy more efficient.

2) "
Please go back to my original post where you will find that I posted about government regulations that lower toxic emissions of Mercury and arsenic. Without those regulations tens of thousands of people just like yourself would die from those poisons every year, and thousands more would be stuck in hospital beds because of those poisons. Is that something you want? Do you want people to die and get sick? Also the economic costs of the hospitalizations and deaths are higher than the costs to update the power plants in order to stop this pollution.

3) Health care.
My opponent has a source, however his source has no statistics about the VA it has no comparisons between the VA and private health care. All his source is, is a repeat of his own rhetoric. He basically thinks that someone else saying the exact same thing he does is evidence.
I ask you to please go back to my original post and the sources I linked to. My sources have statistics on the VA and comparisons between it and private health care. The results are that the VA costs 40% less yet provides better quality health care.

4) My opponent is now lying. The studies I sourced added in the increased cost of producing more efficient appliances. Even with those extra costs they still concluded that overall consumers would save money by reducing their use of energy.

5) My opponent makes another false claim. free markets already move towards efficiency, as producers try to sell better things at lower costs to consumers. This is called competition.
The fact that government mandated energy efficiency standards can save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars is proof that the market doesn't work fast enough. So I ask: Do you want to live in a world where you are poorer because you have to wait longer for "free-market" energy efficient appliances?
Debate Round No. 2


jimtimmy forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3


jimtimmy forfeited this round.


Pro forfeited
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
willoweed it starcraft same style but on a debate not a forum :O TOTAL PROOF
Posted by jimtimmy 6 years ago
It wasn't a votebomb. But, even if it was, Willoweed was here for like a week and he was just an extremely smug liberal who votebombed about 4 of my debates. In fact, he was known as an avid votebomber. So, I wouldnt worry too much about this.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
This is a votebomb. Willoweed deserved to win this.
Posted by Lordknukle 6 years ago
After i voted against you, you vote bombed my debate.

Very mature willoweed.

In case anybody wants to counter, here it is:
Posted by jimtimmy 6 years ago
I'm not gonna make the next round, I have to get packed and make a flight in 2 hours... I'm not gonna have internet acess for the next few days eithr... So, sorry..
Posted by Willoweed 6 years ago
Ugh I hate html tags.....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Since CON did not make any claims in Round 3 or 4, they are considered moot. Now judging on the other three rounds, the clear winner is Jimtimmy. Con simply posted sources with barely an explanation.