WHY THE SOCIALIST ARGUMENT, "WHAT ABOUT THE POOR" DOES NOT REFUTE CAPITALISM
Just today, I've been in a discussion with a socialist, which I have had many times before. The socialist argued, "What about the poor?" as part of his attack on capitalism. Why in the world socialists keep making this childish argument is beyond me, but let us consider a number of points that completely shred this attack. It's essentially a claim that the poor will suffer under capitalism, so capitalism should be replaced by socialism.
The first thing to realize about this argument is that poverty requires no explanation. Poverty is what we have in the absence of anything else. It is the natural starting point we begin with. What does require explanation is the creation of wealth, not the existence of poverty.
Most of the time, socialists claim that the reason there are poor people is because the rich people are hoarding all the wealth. This is nonsense, which is easy enough to demonstrate. Go ahead and mathematically figure out what would happen if we took all of the wealth from the rich people and we distributed it equally to all of the poor. The poor would still be poor. The additional money they would receive would be fairly trivial. Therefore, mathematically, we know that the cause of poverty could not possibly be due to the rich hoarding money.
The facts are that when a capitalist makes money, it is because the capitalist is creating wealth. Because wealth is created, a capitalist is not taking wealth from anyone, much less from the poor. Taking money from the poor would not make one rich anyway, because the poor don't have much to give to anyone. When Bill Gates makes a million dollars, it is because he is creating millions in value. If he did not create something beneficial for people, then people would not buy his products. Bill Gates becoming rich may not make you richer, but he certainly does not make you any poorer either.
Under capitalism, wealth increases faster than under socialism. This means that more money can be spent on helping the poor under capitalism than socialism.
Under capitalism, no one will stop you from helping the poor. If the socialists believe that most people will not voluntarily help the poor, then how do they justify using the government to forcibly take money from people to spend on welfare programs? Wouldn't that be the very definition of being oppressed by a government that no longer works for the people? No such government could be legitimate. On the other hand, if the socialist claims that most people would voluntarily support the poor, which is why these laws exist, then why are these laws necessary? Since the majority will voluntarily support the poor who need help, there is no need for the government to force socialist programs on people.
The reality is that under capitalism, people are free to support various charities of their choosing. And if a charity is not doing a good job, then people can give to a competing charity. This competition helps to utilize resources more efficiently in assisting the poor. Under socialism, on the other hand, if the government is inefficient in assisting the poor, taxpayers still have to give their money to support these programs.
And socialism does not help the poor. Instead, socialism helps those with political power. In the USA, the elderly receive a great deal of money from social security to medicare. This money largely comes from younger people. Most of the younger people, starting out, have far less wealth than the elderly who receive the money. The elderly, however, make up a powerful voting block, so no politician is likely to point out how social security largely takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.
Socialism does not work. It is indefensible. And it is no coincidence that most Jew-haters love socialism. The same irrational thought process that causes a person to hate Jews, also causes a person to accept a totalitarian form of government.