<p>
[quote]
99% of why there is inequality is not because of peoples mistakes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many reasons for inequality, but keep a few things in mind:</p>
<p>Countries like Japan, with much greater transfer of wealth programs than the US, tend to have high GINI coefficients (e.g. bowed Lorenz curve and wealth disparity)</p>
<p>Wealth disparities are increasing worldwide, and nobody can agree fully on the causes. However, we can say for certain that non-interventionist policies aren't DEFINITELY the cause.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one is entitled to YOUR paycheck to cover up for their mistakes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmm...not sure I agree 100%, either. Define "mistakes." I mean, there are definitely good reasons for transfer of wealth programs in industries without a comparative advantage (security, farming, etc.), even if they are bloated and poorly run.</p>
<p>I'd see that as a "mistake" but still worthwhile to give money to.</p>
<p>"No one is entitled to YOUR paycheck to cover up for their mistakes."</p>
<p>"99% of why there is inequality is not because of peoples mistakes."</p>
<p>Then why is there inequality? Social welfare is supererogatory. Why should I be forced to care for someone. Everyone (in absence of mitigating circumstances such as mental illness, etc...) has the opportunity to, at the very least, be self-sufficient without gov't aid.</p>
<p>Welfare is welfare is welfare, if you ask me. Corporate welfare encourages pork spending and bloated programs.</p>
<p>I'm all for welfare reform, but I agree with the late Friedman that instead of indirect programs, people would see more utility out of direct transfers. e.g. $1 = $1. Not, $1 = food stamp.</p>
<p>But some transfer of wealth programs are very good. Like financial aid for students.</p>
<p>Yes, but corporate welfare can help help society while social welfare is doing the opposite. Financial Aid may be good, but I still see it as supererogatory.</p>
<p>"I find the emphasis on 'true libertarianism' to be kind of a narrow interpretation. Obviously no Libertarian party can hope to implement a pure libertarian economy - our current system is simply too entrenched. What Libertarianism offers, I think, is the realization that neither major 'party' offers the stranglehold on the truth they claim to. Libertarianism and Libertarians should stress the social freedom aspect much more than the economic facets.</p>
<p>I see Libertarianism as an amazing alternative toward pointless social legislation. I see it as a way toward focusing our government on governing what matters, not what doesn't. (Nothing you do with your body, short of making it explode nearby other people, should be the government's business). Likewise, the government can't be responsible for helping everyone. We can't legislate poverty out of existence or provide the social programs that ensures that everyone gets to live the life they dream of."</p>
<p>Maaaybe. Some social welfare can actually provide a net benefit. Like healthcare for those who can't afford it. Society-at-large gets a big boost from having healthy people, even poor people ('cause they do some jobs that we need...and do them better when they're not sick.)</p>
<p>I tend to believe that we should err on the side of not transferring wealth, but I can't help but wonder which programs might actually provide a net gain.</p>
<p>That's actually one of the few things I disagree with friedman about. First off, I don't like being forced to give up part of my income. Second, (if I'm already being forced to) I'd at least like the assurance that they are (hopefully, I've heard rumors that you can buy cigs with food stamps) at least spending it on something necessary.</p>
<p>Yea (in regards to firewalker), it's a common misconception that all libertarians are anarchocapitalists. When in actuality most are minarchists, most (well at least me and most libertarians I know) see minimal gov't involvement as a necessary evil</p>
<p>Many people who get food stamps and then sell them at a discount for money because they get more utility out of the money. Who buys food stamps? Usually people with more money who do so to get more utility out of the food stamps.</p>
<p>People aren't necessarily stupid. And most don't sell the stamps just to buy crack. They sell them because stamps don't pay for oil changes. However, in the long-run, maximum utility is achieved for both the state transferring wealth and those recieving it if they just give direct cash. Why? Because it won't get traded away (like food stamps, that is), it gives the maximum utility possible for a wealth transfer program, and it ensures that rich people don't take advantage of the program.</p>
<p>nice debate.
so, its all in agreement Libertarianism would destroy the foundation of America.
p.s drew, sorry for calling you lame; I assure you, you are not.</p>
<p>A great deal of attention is paid to income inequality, though often by those who have little economic understanding. It's not necessarily on its own an indicator of anything bad--for example, imagine a society where the income gap is huge, but also one in which not a single person lives in poverty.</p>
<p>People aren't equal. We see that every day. Most of us probably attend a school or academic institution of some kind. We see, through our own eyes, that some people just can not/will not do the work to rise to the top. My latin class is stratified between the people who excel, the majority that hovers in the middle, and those people who **** it up or drop out. I don't expect success in life - whether it be socially or financially or romantically - to be any different. </p>
<p>You do what's required to succeed, or you don't. Individual cases vary - some people get the short end of the stick before they've even had a chance. I don't oppose programs that legitimately help those individuals, although we have to understand that some people are always going to be poor.</p>