Funnily enough the countries with welfare have lower starvation rates than countries that don't! Gee, I wonder why. It's the height of foolishness to say that welfare doesn't reduce starvation. Giving some money to people who would otherwise have none kinda does that.
I guess it depends on how you define "welfare." I mean, are you alleging that there is no welfare in China, or that there is no starvation in China? In either case you would be wrong.
Maybe it's rational for people to all act this way, but..........people are stupid.
Wrong. Everyone acts rationally to advance their own standard of living according to their own standards. However, all exchange must be for mutual benefit. If someone insists they won't work for anything less than $10 an hour, and nobody on the labor market thinks they are worth $10 an hour, then they must either lower their price, or not work. Not working might mean living off the charity of others. If they cannot find said charity, they may starve.
I love how the socialists all assume that if there were no government, there would be no charity, or that charity wouldn't be "enough." The fact that we collectively allow welfare to happen suggests that most of us DO in fact care about the suffering of our fellow man and would not like to see them starve, if for no other reason than our own selfish purposes (bums on the street are an eyesore). Eliminating welfare will simply put that choice at the individual, rather than the collective level. Those who are truly outraged at poverty, for whatever reason, will be free to continue to provide welfare, if they so desire. Those who disagree will no longer have their money confiscated from them in order to do a much worse and more inefficient job at charity.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/