Without “Social Programs” like Social Security, HUD, FNMA, Welfare programs, etc., there is non-action. Enacting policies is action. Conversely, we do not “harm” people by NOT enacting these policies, we simply elect not to provide for them at the expense of others. Alot is often said about externalities, and aggregate good, as though we’re all some sort of moral Kantians. But there’s a simple problem with the logic that dictates: If one is forced to spend X amount subsidizing or providing for another, then he will reap benefits, and the benefactor will reap benefits, the sum of which benefits exceeds the aggregate benefit if the provider was let to spend his money as he deems proper.

Suppose that forced spending (via taxation) really makes people better off, in aggregate. I’ll assume for the moment that this is always the case; that on average, society (its individuals) are/is better off after being taxed to support interest programs. But on average does not mean “without exception.” Even Mr. 400, Ted Williams had the occasional strike-out. Doubtless, there are people who do not benefit from the forced spending programs, and there are most definitely people who are worse off under such policies. for these people, the only thing to blame for their comparatively poorer position is the policy that disadvantaged them in favor of others. Sure, everyone would be better off if they could gain their sustenance through the toil of others, but see how far that line of reasoning takes you – how many people can steal from how many others before the whole system comes crashing down?

But one will argue to the contrary – look how many people are now better off because a few must suffer? Isn’t there good in that? Can’t they take solace in the fact that their misfortune brings happiness to others? Ask yourself how many degrees of separation you’re willing to tolerate human suffering in the name of altruism? Just because you don’t see the misfortune doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Don’t pretend that you can measure, or that there is some balancing act, as if the fact that some people benefit can somehow act as a counterweight to those who suffer. This is the logic of madmen, of sociopaths. You are using as justification for harming one man – the perceived benefits to another. All criminals think this way. This logic mandates: If the murder of an innocent can save 100 people from cancer, it is imperative that we murder.

Look: I’d love to help all the poor and suffering and homeless and jobless and huddled masses ’round the world. I’m simply not willing to inflict suffering upon others to achieve that end.