Political Parties and Problem Solving

I would like to broadly paint an illustration that outlines some political differences as I see them. I welcome your comments to further the discussion.


You would be hard pressed to find one single Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian who would deny that homelessness is a problem in America. A person who does not have a place to sleep out of the elements, decent food to eat, and clean water is tragic. We all agree that this situation should not be. However, we differ on how to solve the problem.

In general, Democrats believe we should equalize wealth to solve the problem; we should pass legislation that takes money from those who have it and give it to those who don’t—through government programs and public channels. This will enable the homeless person to receive the food, clothing, and shelter.

In general, Republicans believe we should pass legislation to stimulate the economy in order to make the homeless person more able to find a job to help himself. As well, we should take some money from those who have it and give it to private and religious channels that already help the poor and needy. This will enable the homeless person to receive food, clothing, and shelter until he can provide for himself through employment.

In general, Libertarians believe that no legislation whatsoever should be passed that interferes with Free Market Capitalism; the government should not pass legislation at all that moves money from one person to the next. Individuals who feel passionately about the plight of the homeless should create a private group, solicit private donations, and distribute the funds as they see fit. This is currently what churches and private charities do. Such organizations that succeed according to their purposes will grow and flourish because donors will continue to give; those that are not successful will fail.

It is my argument that the Libertarian method is the best and most efficient way to handle the problem of the homeless person on the street. The Democratic method is wrong because, among other reasons, it removes the incentive for an entrepreneur to start a business. Why should I take the financial risk to enter the market if the government sits ready to take away a larger and larger percentage of my profits to redistribute as it sees fit? And if business stops, the whole economic wheel stops turning, and America is left with nothing. This short-sightedness is the Democratic party’s greatest failing, in my opinion; they simply cannot see the long-term consequences of their policies.

The Republican position is also wrong, because, although the creation of jobs is a wise long-term practice, funding immediate felt needs and job-training of needy citizens through private agenda-driven programs through taxation is inefficient and tainted—even if the taxpayers agree with the agendas (e.g, Christian organizations).

Now, when I explain this in a public place, I get the following objections; my answers immediately follow.

1. Look around at all the homeless people!! What we need is to tax MORE, not LESS.

Response: Yes, look around. The government currently takes 15-45% of your net income and they STILL have not solved the problem of homelessness through government programs. Isn’t it time to admit failure and promote a more efficient system?

2. But if you don’t redistribute wealth, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Response: First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with gaining wealth; it’s what Free Market Capitalism is based on. Second of all, that accusation does not take into account the fact that many people are succeeding as “middle class” ; not every person who is “not rich” is “poor.” Finally, wealthy people can give to the private charities and churches of their choice exponentially more efficiently than the government can while serving as middle man.

3. But without government legislation, people would selfishly hold on to their money and let the homeless person die in the street.

Response: First and most importantly, it is not the government’s right to assume that I’m selfish and to proactively create a bumbling, grossly inefficient system that redistributes my assets by force. But the evidence is not on your side: when Katrina and Rita hit, for example, people left their jobs and fled by the thousands to help out their fellow man, with no compensation. Money and goods poured in from the private sector, as well as from the government, though recent research is showing the incredible waste of the latter. Don’t tell me people don’t care; I’m not buying it.

4. But the government is a representative government; you voted in those congressmen, senators, and city councilmen who tax you the way you hate.

Response: This is the only argument that stands, and does so only if you subtract real and actual corruption. And this is why it’s IMPERATIVE that you seriously consider your party affiliation when the time comes to vote. Please consider an independent party that does not first seek to pay the salaries of friends and family to perpetuate self-interest.