| I have a right to use force in self-defense. Therefore I have the right to hire a bodyguard to use force in my defense. (In fact it is the same right - delegated.) Therefore we have the right to elect a sheriff to use force in our defense. ...But I do NOT have the right to beat and rob people. Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a bodyguard to beat and rob people. Therefore, neither does our sheriff have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had. Therefore the question isn't whether society should provide social welfare for the needy. Rather, the question is whether we have a moral right to use VIOLENCE to FORCE people to provide social welfare for the needy. (We don't.) The reason you see poverty in various nations is because they do not have economic freedom and secure property rights. The nations with the worst poverty are the ones with the worst protections of rights. The nations with the lowest poverty are the nations with the best protections of rights. And note: those are also the nations who donate the most money to charity. Government can never fix poverty by using violence to forcefully redistribute wealth. All that will do is cause worse poverty. The best a government can do is strongly protect rights and economic freedoms -- then you will have a rich nation, which will not have poverty problems in the first place, and which will easily be able to cover the rest through private charity. Unfortunately we do not see any governments today that respect rights and freedoms in this way, although some are better than others. But proposed solutions based on "social welfare" will only make those problems worse, not better. |