The Debate Continues!

From Political Hotwire The Following is a debate between Davocrat & Burning Giraffe:

Originally Posted by Davocrat:

But you seem to infer that the only reason I support government in its efforts to promote the general welfare is out of guilt or altruism or some philosophical mandate.

Let's take one broad example. If there is a safety net that successfully helps people get a leg up when they fall on hard times, I see that as improving everyone's lives by preventing crime and reducing general squalor.

Indeed, but at the price of our economic liberty. I'm sorry, but its not worth it. Not to me anyway. I don't believe that government aid works anyway, so why not allow and encourage business by making America the freest economy on earth, and let the businessmen, inventors, producers, manufacturers, industrialists, and entrepreneurs provide for the general economic welfare of the people? You provide jobs for people right? Well, I trust you more than I trust the government. I want you providing people with a hand up, not a hand out. I want you to pay people for their help in making you a profit, so that your business will provide services which I can buy.

I'll trade you the money I make from my labor for your goods and services, which will make you rich, and allow you to hire more people to provide more goods and services from which I may benefit. Its a win win situation. Once the government starts regulating your industry, if it hasn't already, and taxing you to hell, if it hasn't all ready, then you'll be able to hire less people, won't be able to provide me goods and services at the cheapest possible price, and won't be able to contribute nearly as much to society. Well, I think that's wrong and am not willing to sacrifice that for an inefficient and inefficaciously run welfare system.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
That's an investment that I can't personally afford to make, but with a tax base of X-hundred million adult citizens, we can do a lot for--what I consider--a very convenient contribution. To me that makes logical sense.

And even IF philanthropists could afford to remedy the country's problems, there are seldom situations where there are no strings attached...faith-based, politically linked, etc. If the government is doing its job, it should provide secular, objective and fair administration of social services.

We don't need philanthropists, we need businesses. We don't need charity, we need more economic activity. And you aren't going to get more economic activity by punishing the people who produce the products and offer the services upon which that economy depends.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
If we completely take social services away and rely entirely on individual goodwill, we will eventually become a feudal state.

What? Good will? Who said anything about good will? Let's keep this on economic terms shall we? More economic freedom will lead to more wealth, which will create more jobs, and allow more people to earn their living. Even if 2 to 5% of the nation is unemployed, there will be more than enough wealth generated to allow private charity to help deal with those who have been perpetually burdened by poverty. Not out of good will, but out of self-interest. Let the businesses clean up the cities in order to create a more prosperous business environment.

Originally Posted by Davocrat:
A lot of what you base your favor of libertarian ideals on is absolute faith in free enterprise. But the very principles of free-market capitalism avoid philanthropy. It is not incentivized in the least (and since you'd abolish the tax system as we know it, contributions wouldn't even be deductible).

I don't understand why "moderation" and compromise are antithetical to libertarian principles (based on some of the nastier proponents of it on this board). Why can't elements of democracy be included?

Because "moderation" and compromise have proven to be a very real slippery slope (as opposed to the merely hypothetical kinds). Furthermore, the principles upon which these welfare systems are based are dependent upon need. And when you disturb and regulate and tax the free market all to hell, there is going to be a greater need amongst the poor, which liberals try to solve with more regulation and taxes and government services, and everything essentially spirals out of control. It isn't working. Government is incapable of creating wealth. Period. It should stay out of the way and let the people who actually know how to create wealth, to create jobs, to produce products and offer services to do so without having to bend over backwards for politicians who use the "needs" of the poor as a means to acquire power for themselves.