Debating welfare:

When debating against various forms of welfare, with liberals, I have found a few common themes in their arguments for these programs. Here's the short list:

1. "Welfare payments keep the poor from rioting for food and other resources."

2. "The taxes that go to pay for welfare are 'payment' for living in society."

3. "It is 'immoral' for someone to buy when that money could go to save a sick child"


When all these arguments fail to convince me that stealing from some people to pay for resources for other people is a good idea, most will fall back on #4:


4. "you are a mean and nasty person, if you don't want to help the 'needy'." (this is the "I'm losing the argument, so I will attack your character" argument.)



To the first point, I would ask: If welfare is extortion money, wouldn't it be better to let them riot, and then treat the rioters as the criminals they are? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have them all in jail eating bread and water, than supporting food stamps where they buy steak for their dog (extreme, but i've seen it done)?

To the second, I would comment that society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the person who pays in to these programs, see from the people who receive these benefits. There are generally two answers to this question. One involves the "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone in need (i can get that from giving to charity, where I know the money is going for what i want it to go for). The second involves the first "riot" argument.

To the third point, I would ask: Is it the responsibility of government to force a person to act "morally"? To enforce morality? Whose morality should be enforced? Some would say that homosexuality is immoral. Most of us would agree that slavery is immoral. If majority opinion should shift so that this were not the case, should these issues be made mandatory, or prohibited , based solely on majority opinion? Or should the government only step in when one party actually harms another?

To the fourth point, I would say that there are other, more efficient, ways to help the "needy". Ways that ensure that the truly needy get help, and not just people who "game" the system for free resources. People have the right to be as stingy, or as generous as they want, with their own money. Generally, people will help someone in need, but will resist any attempt to take their money by force, for whatever reason. Forced charity is not charity, it is theft. Stealing from me to help someone else does not make me a good person.


What do you think? I'm sure i missed some "standard" arguments, these are just the most common ones i run into.