Yes, so if it really was irrelevant asking that question then how come I got it right?
Well, there are many left leaning libertarians who are also against the state control of welfare programs. My opinion on the issue isn't just exclusive to capitalists.
It's because you said "Living off the fruits of someone elses labour without consent is neither moral or a necessity for a society to function." Well, when a rich person is taxed and a poor person claims income tax, then what is practically happening is money is going from the rich, which the rich has worked for, and is going to the poor. So that made me thing you must be against the tax system, and if your against the tax system that must mean you believe everybody should keep the wealth that they generate, and if you believe that then you must be a free-trade laissez faire capitalist.
I think i see the point you are trying to make (if i make a strawman i apologise). The important words here are "without consent", an individual has the right to reap the rewards of his/her labour. State welfare funded through taxation is more or less a group of people living off the wealth of others, this is achieved through violence or in most cases a proxy (government). If a individual sees fit to voluntary give up his/her money to those living a poorer life, then capital is exchanged from one person to another without the initiation of force. I have nothing against this and i don't think anyone can make an objective reason how this could be a negative, you could nitpick certain situations but at face value it's harmless. This opinion is also not just exclusive to free-market laissez faire capitalists, for the voluntary sacrifice of ones own wealth for the good of others is a position held by many minarchists, anarchists and libertarians. Be it of the left or the right, collectivist or individualists.
So cool, I do have a lot of sympathy for free-trade laissez faire capitalism, but there are few points that I find slightly hard to accept, and I was just wondering if you had a possible reply:
1. I guess what is so attractive about Capitalism is that you reap what you sow, which is a very attractive principle and Capitalism seems to be the economic outcome of that principle when applied nationally. But what do you think of inheritance? I know you could say that you should be at liberty to spend your money how you want, which sounds fair enough, and so inheritance could be seen as you "spending" your money on your heirs, whoever you wish them to be in your will. But doesn't that take away from the principle of "reap what you sow"? The following generations of capitalism will no longer be following such a principle (as much) as the super rich will give birth to kids who will be born rich and the super poor will give birth to kids who are probably destined to be poor for the rest of their lives.
To begin with, we do in fact inherit many of our assets and do not earn them ? our good looks and health, if we have them; our talents; even much of what constitutes our personality, something that often helps us make our way to a certain measure of success in our lives. Our initial opportunities, too, are undeserved ? thus the chimera of equal opportunity. And in each of these cases we can both build on what we have inherited or waste it away good and hard. However, none of that makes these assets anyone else?s to take away from one! That would be a kind of enslavement, actually, or at least expropriation.
The point is that we all come into life with some assets and some liabilities. Whether we do or do not have these is something over which we have no control. However, once we find ourselves with them, they are up to us to deal with, and deal with responsibly.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/machan/machan44.html2. What about when big business monopolies occur? They are at liberty to pay their workers peanuts because they won't be able to work anywhere else? So the heads of businesses can sit back and watch the billions pour into their bank accounts whilst the workers work long and hard just to see them manage. Even worse, the heads of businesses could set up a system, that allows the workers to go into debt, and then make them pay interest. This is surely a cruel yet potential scenario in the capitalist world, right? I was thinking a possible response to this would be trade unions which I don't think is necessarily anti-capitalist, in fact I think that as long as trade unions don't receive funding from the government, they can actually be pro-capitalist. But I'm interested in what you think..
In a free market the effects of competition, supply and demand and the absence of tariffs, price fixing and government favouritism make monopolies (with monopoly pricing) almost impossible to exist for long periods of time.
In a market where there is freedom of entry monopolies and cartels can only maintain their positions as the result of low prices and/or high quality. A notable example of this was the Aluminium Company of America (ALCOA) which, prior to World War 2, was the only producer of aluminium in the USA but it did not charge monopoly prices.
http://libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn028.pdf
Topic: BNP to benefit from "Expenses" Scandal