badgenome said:
According to Richard, I'm supposed to tell people what fields to train in before I go advocating any spending cuts. That sounds incredibly Giver like. |
If you do not believe in government intervening to give people fish, cannot show where anyone else would step in (with numbers on what the level of intervention would be), and cannot show where people can train, and what areas there are viable jobs, then you cannot show that the argument about teaching people to fish would hold, and government out would have everything ok. See, I can name numbers here. Without government intervention, there is a report that poverty rate would be double what it is now:
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/without-the-safety-net-more-than-a-quarter-of-americans-would-have-been-poor-last-year/
Now, unless you like numbers of people being worse off doubling, show that without government, that you would end up not only cause it to not increase to double, but be better than it is now. Can you do this? If you can't, then the only thing we have is, lack of government involvement means more people suffering.
