You're also welcome to donate to (or even work for!) charities that provide for them.
But it's not OK to force everyone else to provide for them.
Contrary to what other comments have suggested, welfare isn't about being a nice civilized society that doesn't leave people behind. Welfare is a bribe. It's a tribute ("danegeld"[2]) we pay to the poor so they don't burn down the city or murder anyone between them and food/shelter. Arresting that class of people would be more expensive as it still pays for their food and shelter.
Do you really want to give up the cheapest and safest option for defending yourself against the bottom ~quarter of the population? Recent events at Ferguson and Baltimor are warning. Ignoring them is not recommended if you value maintaining your current standard of living.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld
[3] Exact amount and the scope of what is mean by "national defense" is off topic.
For me, personally, a random town in Germany is more pleasant from the social aspect than San Francisco with all its riches and its hobos.
(n.b. incarcerating a criminal costs tens of thousands of dollars per year; whereas the summary execution of a deadly threat during a riot, costs at most $10 of ammunition per criminal)
If you're going to advocate for murdering the poor why not go whole hog and just herd them into camps for eradication? That would presumably be a lot more efficient since you're centralizing everything
So, to be clear, my overall point here is that bribing people from threatening deadly violence, is not as good as directly responding to such threats when and as they are made.
Come to think of it, I'm not even quite sure why you made the leap that "allow riots to occur then respond to them appropriately" means "murder all the poor people".
If >it's not OK to force everyone else to provide for them.
Along the same lines of thinking:
it's not OK to force everyone else to defend your assets/property/lifestyle
Or at least it's unlikely you will succeed in that effort
No need for such a thing; that is the job we expect of the police in exchange for paying our taxes, is it not?
> they form because the culture is broken
Have you ever actually met many poor people? "Culture" isn't the problem, and they are some of the hardest working people in the country. They are also some of the nicest people I've ever met and by far the most generous.
If you want to actually fix the problem so welfare isn't necessary, fix the things that are currently denying them the opportunity to improving their situation such as the prison-industrial complex, racist crap like "redlining", various predatory business practices, and regressive taxes. Find ways to increase labor's power such as unions or guilds, with the goal of increasing both available jobs and job stability.
> Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown
That is pure nonsense. Seriously, try actually living[1] below the poverty line for a while, or talk to people that have had to live through a lifetime of denied opportunities.
[1] Due to an unfortunate medical situation, I currently live on less than $1500/month.
A cursory examination of the level of violent crime (particularly against property holders) in states where there is little or no welfare state compared with those in which there is a pretty comprehensive welfare state would suggest this isn't a very good argument...
Then it's the culture that needs fixing, not the welfare.
>Arguably it's the welfare money that significantly led to the culture breakdown in the first place by destroying economic and social structure.
Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, et al. have excellent welfare, but no "gangs" of that style. So it's not the welfare that causes that phenomena.
In contrast, most developing world hellholes have little to no welfare, and huge gangs, violence and destroyed economic structures issues.
In fact the "have the community provide for itself" is how you get support structures like the mafia, the cartels, etc, substituting a state that doesn't help its people.
If you want to try your hand at creating wealth without "forcing" others to provide for you, there are plenty of lawless regions in places like Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan for you to test your mettle. Sound unappealing? There you go.
They don't start out rich. So, maybe some rich people inherit their wealth, but go back enough generations and everybody had to start non-rich.
It's not just that, though. Rich people don't live in a vacuum with their wealth. They interact with the economy. They employ people, they contract for services, they trade with people. All of the people they interact with need to be fed, clothed, educated, etc. However, thanks to the power of economic growth, they still get more out of society than they pay in taxes.
For some reason people are always reluctant to follow that advice.
1. Are you willing to leave behind, say, 40-50% of the population? Especially since that group could include people such as your parents or your partner or your kids.
2. If you're willing to leave them behind, what are you going to do with them?