In a previous post, I demonstrated the economic absurdity of the welfare state. I did this by proving that the transaction from the top to bottom created a landscape where more responsible individuals who invested their money in productive things had to yield some of that productivity to the wasteful and unfrugal welfare recipients. The overall productivity loss is aggravated by the wastefulness of the welfare distributors (aka the Government), and diverts money from the productive private sector to the counterproductive public one.
In another earlier post, I conclusively established that the welfare state is not an implication of the moral dictates of the Bible and Christianity, and that *Christian Socialists* don't know their theology very well.
But whenever I am successful in demolishing an interculocutor's argument, there is always a plea of desperation exhibited by the losing party. In this case, there still is another fallback position thrown by the petty libborg when they are desperate laying prone to bite my ankles. Unfortunately for them, just as my intellect outstrips theirs' by a few standard deviations, my ankles are immune to their critism. By their fallback position I mean their dissent from logical and economic reality to morality and justice - how the leftists arrive at such notions is beyond me, but then again, they aren't exactly known for their swell thinking abilities, the ivy leagues high I.Q's notwithstanding. Moreover, the idea that expropriation is in accordance to morality and justice reeks of a scary system of ethics.
They repeat their appeals of empathy for the poor and unfortunate. Implying that it is not so much the total economic output as it is the number of individuals under poverty, so while the welfare state may detract from the aggregate economy, it coushens the blow of poverty.
The moral motivation isn't all that unreasonable, but it argues on false premises. Because the reality is that welfare doesn't even help the poor. There are reasons why the welfare state is antithetical to the poverous. 1) receiving free money doesn't help one's morale by keeping them even more dependant 2) In a capitalist economy, where one gets rich by serving the consumers, one cannot seperate *aggregate* and *individual*, in a pure free-market economy, wealth is (almost) positive sum, and most importantly 3) the free market is already a system where wealth is distributed. Very like welfare with one distinct difference: the medium of distribution. In a socialist commonwealth, the State acts as the medium by instigating the process. In a free market system, production acts as the medium. In both cases, distribution occurs, in one case you have a house or a car leftover, with the hard worker doing paid off, in the other case you have wasted capital and human labor leftover, with the unproductive being paid off. This is why the more concentrated the welfare pill, the poorer that everyone, including the lower class, becomes.