Search Results: does not deserve him

You hear libertarians use this talking point all the time; saying welfare is wrong because you're forcing people to supply it at gunpoint. Oh the humanity -_-

Any law is ultimately enforced "at gunpoint" and this gets at the problem with equating something that the government does to what an individual does. I mean if I need medical expenses, that wouldn't justify me taking the money from someone at gunpoint. But me doing so wouldn't justify the person I robbed abducting me and keeping me locked in his basement for whatever time he viewed as being a fit punishment for the crime. Yet when the federal government incarcerates people, we don't call that "kidnapping" just like when it taxes people we don't call it "theft". Also, that's ignoring that when people have financial security, they spend more fueling economic growth, growth that all of our incomes depend on.

[https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/tax-cuts-for-job-creators/ ]

Some will also argue that if someone didn't save up enough or take care of themselves, they deserve to die and ask if so many people agree with social security why does it have to be enforced in the first place? Well, lets apply that logic elsewhere; most people agree with speed limits but that doesn't mean that they need to be enforced. You may argue that the few people who think speed limits are a bad idea are putting others at risk while not paying welfare taxes doesn't put the well-off in danger but if you got rid of speed limits I'd wager that even the people who think that they're a good idea would exceed them on a regular basis. So the argument that we should get rid of welfare because those who don't save up deserve to die is as moronic as saying we should get rid of all speed limits and if people aren't willing to buy an armored vehicle, they deserve to die in an accident.

Really, learn something about game theory if you think that way.