The Idiocy of The Welfare State

It is immoral to steal; it is also immoral to steal if 51% of the population (or more commonly 20-40%) tells you it's ok to steal. The goals of the welfare state appear to rooted in the ideals of Robin Hood : to steal from the rich and to give to the poor. Perhaps if the system wasn't so obviously a perversion of this basic principle I would support it; probably not but it's poissible.

If the goal of government is not to protect the life and liberty of our citizens and to protect our privacy but instead to provide "good governance" and to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor while EVEN THEN the welfare state is stupid. Real stupid.

The argument behind government provided health care and education is either one of two things : either the argument is that socialism works, and that a better education can be provided by the government than the free market... this repudiating the truism that Centra Economic Planning does not work. If this were the case (and I assure it is not) why should we stop with just a little bit of socialism? Why not go all the way? Perhaps the government should give out bread, in order to prevent starvation? Perhaps we should ban people getting fired or quitting so no one is out of work? The same questions apply to Health Care.

Now then you can say, well ok socialism might not work very well... BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE? I would like to explain to you that socialism has never and will never 'take care' of the poor people. What about nations like Kenya? They certainly have lots of government... it's not helping out. The Soviet Union had more government than anyone but that didn't help the people in the gulags. Poverty has been BEATEN in Canada so even if there were no transfer payments, even if we didn't steal from the rich (WHICH IS WRONG) to give to the poor, this would not be a problem. Canadians are both rich and charitable enough to ensure that everyone had access to an education... and if we stopped stealing 50% of people's income in order to be "charitable" (funny, government officials are always being charitable with YOUR MONEY) there would be a lot more money going to charity.

BUT EVEN STILL

even if we NEEDED to steal from the rich and give to the poor, the welfare state is the STUPIDEST way of doing so. A negative income tax could take care of the issue of the very poor while still allowing competetive market forces to keep the cost of education and health care down and the quality up.

So the next time you're enjoying your "free" health care or your kid is enjoying a fine "free" secular education where he is indoctrinated into the values of modern secular socialism and taught that the free market just doesn't work... the next time you see a bunch of homeless people downtown, ask yourself "why don't we have the government controlling our food distribution? why don't we have the government making cars? why do we have the government involved in the means of production anywhere?"

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production; in our society government owns around 50% of the means of production. What do I mean? What happens when you control the means of production? You are entitled to the proceeds... is that not tax?

Say no to socialism.
Say yes to capitalism.
Say no to the welfare state.
Say no to corporate welfare.
Say yes to insane tax cuts at any opportunity.

Vote Libertarian