Thursday, April 22, 2010
Government paternalism is the cause for society's lack of self improvement
Good morning my name is Maria Lorena Barrazueta Bucaram and I’m on the negative side so I strongly disagree with the resolution GOVERNMENT PATERNALISM IS THE CAUSE FOR SOCIETY’S LACK OF SELF IMPROVEMENT
My 4 arguments to support this are Government supports education. Government paternalism improve living standards. Welfare policies fight poverty. And government paternalism promotes common good
My first argument, Government supports education: Investments in schooling are often regarded as essential for economic development, implying that such investments have high rates of return in developing countries. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. Schooling, Skills, and the Returns to Government Investment in Education posted on eric.ed.com on October 30, 2008 write by Ian Leckie; states that Finland, Italy, France, Japan, United States, Canada, etc. like great examples of countries that support and subside public education with great academic standard. Without government’s help people couldn’t improve either in education or in their social status. For example, someone poor study in public schools that are finance by the presidency therefore government do not pull back someone from improving their-self. According to dictionary.babylon.com public education is education mandated for or offered to the children of the general public by the government, whether national, regional, or local, provided by an institution of civil government, and paid for, in whole or in part, by taxes. Also according to PISA (Program for International Students Assessment) evaluations taken in 30 countries from the OCDE and 13 other countries Finland is one of the greatest worldwide educational system, written in May/10/05 by Tino Fernandez Finland is one of the countries that had radically take away illiteracy, and most of the education is public there’s only 1% of private education in the whole country. Education is one of the main factors that make people to improve so without education people wouldn’t improve therefore government paternalism do not interfere and is NOT the cause for society’s lack of self improvement”
My second argument Government paternalism improve living standards
When a government invests not only helps the economy of the country but it also creates a considerable amount of jobs, and by doing this people living standards will improve, because they have an income, therefore greater education and a greater income to cover any necessity like health and food. According to the note posted by William M. Bukerley states that according to the IMB Chief: $10 billion in broadband networks to provide high speed internet access to areas that lack it, would create 489,000 new jobs in a year. Investing $10 billion in computerizing health care records and other health related it would create 212,000 jobs. IBM also calculated that $10 billion in equipment that allows electric utilizes to monitor their transmission infrastructure more closely would create 239,000 jobs.
My opponent might say that the paternalism governments make to their citizens like clients because most of them live with the hands open to receive, and they do. But they live with the hands open to receive from the government: job, education, self improvement and a better way of life. What person in the world does not! So it is clear that the paternalism of the governments over jobs helps their self improvement and economic stability.
My third argument Welfare policies fight poverty:
Over the past thirty years there has been a gradual shift towards the adoption of “new right ideologies” in post-industrial advanced capitalist welfare state policies. Although the concept of the welfare state emerged out as recognition of capitalism’s structural inability to provide for the lower classes of society, this notion has been vast lyre-defined to now include language focusing about recipient´s social obligation to prove themselves worthy beneficiaries. Welfare state policies are seen as ways to fight poverty.
Countries like Australia and United states are using state welfare because it is politically popular and has contributed to the development of the contractually-based "warfare" ideologies. These countries are considered liberal welfare states, characterized by their market-conforming and residual policies; which means that these policies create welfare programs designed to help the poor, while expecting members of the middle class to work hard and self-provide. According to the article: "Welfare reforms in Australia and United States" written by Kate Green, postgraduate of the University of Sydney states: "Welfare position in Australia functions as a government reward offered in return for citizen´s participation in the paid labor force". The idea is that a regulated wage serves as a socio-economic guarantee, and thereby prevents citizens from seeking charitable supports in order to maintain income security.
After the Harvested Judgment Act, which is seen as paving the way for an ongoing system of fair wage guarantee for laborers, and the Invalid and Old-Age Pension Act were established in 1907 and 1908; they provided means-tested assistance to the poor, employed men and women, and was a direct grant the most poor members of the working class. Although Australia was hardly hit by the effects of the first and second world wars; Australia welfare policy vastly expanded in the governments between 1941 to 1945, introducing welfare help programs to unemployed and sick people; maternity allowance, funeral benefits and a health benefit scheme. Another key point in 1945 was the full employment in Australia
The thrust of recent federal welfare reform has been to rely on fiscal incentives and penalties to encourage welfare recipients to work and state governments to see that they do. My opponent might say that there are several disadvantages of the welfare policies like the easy way of life of the poor by giving bonus but as a corollary, welfare eligibility is once again being used as leverage on the behavior of poor people and drinking and drug use have been salient targets of this effort—whose complete effects remain to be seen. Given the resources, many state and local General Assistance programs seem inclined to help.
My 4th argument is Government Paternalism promotes common good:
According to the article Paternalism at the tipping point: When is government is justified? Written by D. Brad Wright posted on August 25, 2009, on healthpolicyanalysis.com. In public health, the power of government to regulate individual behaviors must be carefully balanced against the ultimate goal of promoting the common good, namely the health and wellbeing of the population so governed.
My opponent might say that the government affects society´s liberty but conversely, a government that refrains entirely from intervening, in the name of protecting the liberty of the individual, neglects the common good, and may actually permit harm to befall the population. Negotiating this balance remains a critical aspect of public health policy.
Should government be permitted to pass laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts, the fluoridation of water, and the vaccination of school-aged children? Should government be permitted to pass laws that tax unhealthy foods to combat obesity, offer a tax credit to individuals who can document an annual screening for sexually transmitted diseases, or require private employers to provide a minimum level of insurance coverage to their employees? All of these laws would potentially serve the common good and improve the public’s health. The first set of laws, however, are more easily identified as providing great benefit to society while infringing little upon individual rights. My opponent might say that the paternalism laws does not promote the liberty of the human being and have great costs to individual and moral liberty but by contrast the second set of laws would likely provide great benefit to society.
The Government has always support the necessities of their country and protects it from internal harm and external shocks; and cover the public services including education so you tell me now; how can that ever be the cause for society’s lack of self improvement.
What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."- James Madison