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.
Oh, that poor straw man! You monster, he never stood a chance!
Ahem. Never did I say welfare prevents all starvation. I said they have a lower starvation rate. This is empirically so.
love how the socialists all assume that if there were no government, there would be no charity, or that charity wouldn't be "enough."
Um, because it wouldn't?
You act like this hasn't been tried. Please go compare poverty rates before and after various countries introduced welfare to combat it.
Though honestly, it's common sense. The simple fact of the matter is that free market capitalism (specifically the maddeningly egotistical brand espoused by the followers of Ayn Rand) does not encourage charity, at least on the scale required to affect meaningful change. After all, if I give up money for no gain to myself and my business competitor doesn't, that could be the difference between her business succeeding any mine going under. This encourages me not to be charitable even if I would like to (for reasons of being nice to my fellow man or whatever) or at most only slightly charitable. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma; the best overall outcome is if we both do what's individually less beneficial for both of us.
--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion