Yea, but in a free market, most Americans would not go to any corporation that blatanly had a policy of not hiring blacks because they feel that place is racist, prejudice and what have you. So no corporation that wants to make money would ever do that. And if one did, so be it. It is their discretion. It is their business.

As for the OP and topic at hand, I'm against wealth redistribution. I'm all for voluntarily helping the weaker citizens of society, but I'm not for forcing someone else to help the weaker citizens of society.

Not so.

And likewise, politicians claim they are fighting a War on Poverty, steal trillions of dollars from some people, give it to others, and we still have poverty. And every year they keep spending more and taxing more, and never seem to be able to fix the problem they claim they can fix...

I submit to you that if government did solve the problem, there would be no need for politicians in government.

I agree. So why force people to do things, at gunpoint at necessary, if you can't verify the results? And why can't we apply the scientific method, and experimentation, to all government policies? Isn't that the only rational way to discover scientific truth?

Depends on how you define "sacrifice" and "reward."

Can you scientifically prove that? Sounds like it's just an opinion...

Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxation and ran the government solely from trade tariffs. We still had police and military, and the country functioned just fine. I say the only way to prove this is to do an experiment, and let's just see what can or cannot be done without taxation. We can start small, with towns, then, if it's successful, we move to a city, a state, a larger state, then a region, and finally, the whole country. It can take place over several years for a smooth transition.

It's spelled "cynical" - and politicians do crave power and prestige. I find it hard to believe anyone would argue that. Again, if politicians/government solve problems, then what need is there for politicians/government? They don't want to put themselves out of work. They have an incentive to expand their authority, and claiming that they're helping the poor is a great vehicle for that, as it plays on people's sympathy.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

As to the territory issue, why doesn't the State just leave? Wwho is entitled to occupy the space?" Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but libertarians reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do.


I agree that there is a great deal of waste, fraud and abuse. So why shouldn't we be able to withhold our money until they PROVE they can be responsible with it?

Semantics. While I think corporate welfare is wrong, and should be stopped, stealing from ANYONE via taxation and then giving that money to ANYONE else is theft.

We had a detailed discussion about this earlier.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Tariffs are a form of taxes, the increased cost of a product for the producer increases the price for the consumer, the tax is just hidden. I was just saying that in one form or another money needs to be taken from citizens for a country to function. That is why it does not make sense to say that taking money from private citizens is morally wrong, in the general concept, because all governments have had a form of taxes. If you can give me an example of a country with no taxes of any kind, than I would like to see it, because that would be amazing.

im a crappy speller, i know

Why were you saying that politicians always try to get more power. I wasn't denying that at all. I was saying that the concept of welfare exists because many people would agree that it is needed to help the poor.

For example:
Are you saying that you think FDR didn't care about the poor but he just passed the new deal to get political points? He obviously tried to get re-ellected but his aim was to do what he felt was right and he knew that he would get rewarded for it.

Just because their is a political reward to helping the poor it does not make sense to assume that the only reason welfare exists is to get that single reward when others may exist.