[ZwHRoTTn]

I hate it when people make this mistake. Ask yourself how far you would get in this world without making judgements about the reliability of sources. True, but we don't assess sources by saying "he's just like Ann Coulter."

That's an ad hominem.

Compare: "I'm not going to the psychic to cure my infection" or "I'm going to believe the consensus of established scientists, and not the wingnuts" with "I'm not going to take Ann Coulter seriously". Actually, that elevates his reliability in my eyes. Whether that comparison increases or decreases his reliability has to do with your political persuasion, which is why it's a poor measure. Reliability ought to be independent of your politics.

Nope. Left wingers would happily give their own money, as long as everyone else who was able to had to do the same. It's a small difference, but a big one. So until everybody else ponies up, liberals won't give a cent? Sounds like ol' Ebeneezer to me. Why should it matter what other people give before you choose to step forward?

Tough. Parking fines aren't voluntary either. Neither is paying to support the military. Citizens derive a benefit from the military that applies to everyone in the state. Parking fines are a violation of private property, if you choose to park there and break their regulations, they ought to be able to fine you.

How does someone benefit from welfare payments in the same way that they do from the military?

Sometimes voluntary payment produces worse results for everyone than coercive payment. It's called a collective action problem. Both your examples show cases of this, but how is that also true in Welfare? The cases are not analogous. How does welfare benefit everyone?

In a modern society people want things that markets cannot fund efficiently. There are obvious public goods that benefit everyone, such as the police and the fire department. There are also goods that substantial portions of the population want, but others don't. Such as? Seems to me everyone wants and benefits from police and fire services.

Thus we have a social contract. Some of my tax goes to pay for churches (or to offset the tax breaks they get – same thing) WTF? No. The two are not the same thing at all. Churches have to pay for everything they do. The ONLY thing they are exempt from is property taxes on their buildings, that is all. They still have to pay for maintenance, utilities, etc, they pay to purchase the building and the land in the first place.

How is giving someone a tax break, the same as you paying their taxes for them?

that I don't like, and religious people pay some tax that supports state funding of conceptual art with naked lesbians, which I like. It would be fair if you had to pay the salary of the priests, whereas you are already paying the salary for these artists.

No. Because it isn't. Tax fraud is a much greater problem. It is a huge problem. You can't just ignore it because it's inconvenient.

I'd rather it worked more efficiently to combat poverty than to foster relationships between people who could find better things to do. Well Charity is more efficient at combatting poverty because people are more likely to get out when they know other people give a **** about them.

It seems you understand neither efficiency nor welfare if you say that. Welfare is an efficiency promoting institution. People don't consciously realize this, although their continued support for the welfare state shows that they understand it on some level.. Well sure they support the welfare state. Free money when they don't want to work? They have self-interest in it that has nothing to do with 'efficiency' but everything to do with getting in line for the trough.

You say welfare is efficient. What percentage of the total amount disbursed is consumed by administration?