> Inflation is a redistribution scheme of the poor to the
  > rich and from savings to spenders.

Technically, from those with monetary savings to those with non-monetary savings. Inflation will strike someone with $1,000,000 in the bank much harder than someone with a stash of precious metal, large property holdings, or industrial equipment. The hardest hit are individuals who have accumulated wealth but are not skilled enough at managing it (e.g. retirees living on an immediate annuity). Inflation doesn't have much effect on the poor, because income tends to increase along with the cost of consumer goods.

Income does not rise with the cost of consumer goods. Why is it that people feel so much poorer now than they did 30 years ago?

The reason that inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is that the poor do have small savings and that gets robbed from them as the newly inflated money makes it way through the bank accounts of those with influence first and don't ever the poor in any positive way.

People feel poorer now than 30 years ago because of rising income inequality. People's viewpoints are relative, like all human thinking. By nearly any measure, people's ability to afford consumption is higher now than it was 30 years ago.

Should we eliminate taxes, welfare, and universal access to health care too? Let people starve or suffer if they can't find work?

The first sentence, yes. The second sentence, no.

You might do well by reading http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html

It's a rather popular anti-libertarian piece, and I have read it (although it's been a while).

How exactly does that work?

Why do you think it's either/or?

Can't voluntarily funded charities replace all of those functions?

Google "collective action problem" and "free rider problem."

To use an example, in my parents home country of Bangladesh there is no social welfare. The capital city is full of beggars, homeless children, people with missing limbs hassling you for a few taka. Social welfare is a non-excludable public good. That is to say, if you clean per sol this up, you couldn't limit the benefits just to those who paid, as you can with most goods. Therefore, people would have a strong incentive to avoid paying, because they would count on someone else paying and free-rising on that.

Collective action problems are real, they're important, and they are a major impetus for the existence of government. In a sense, welfare programs are voluntary. Generations of Americans have voted in majorities to continue to support these programs. It's not right to reject the voluntary nature of programs that exist by the majoritarian consensus.

> Google "collective action problem" and "free rider problem."

You mean, like expecting everyone to research politicians and political issues and vote responsibly?

A government (or, at least a democratic/republican government) is also a public good, and is at least as susceptible to those problems as government roles like welfare and public defense.

It's true and important that these problems apply to democratic decision making. It is not given (without evidence and/or argument) that it is "at least as susceptible". In general, I'd think it less susceptible, because poor decisions from my lack-of-involvement are more likely to disadvantage me than to disadvantage any other specific individual; this is not the case when neglecting to contribute fungible resources toward welfare or defense.

Even so, voted up for introducing an important point to the discussion.

Not donating $10 to your local homeless shelter meaning that 2 people won't get food is worse than a government policy affecting millions?

e.g. war on drugs, wars, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

No, nothing said implies that. Immediately, I see the following problems:

1) You're looking at amount of damage, not susceptibility.

2) You're assuming problems of government couldn't be for reasons other than those being discussed.

3) You're looking at the margin in one case, and the total effect in the other.

Why assume the economic problems in Bangladesh are caused by lack of social welfare, versus being caused by a lack of protection of property rights and economic freedom?

I didn't say anything about what causes Bangladesh's economic problems. I used Bangladesh as an example because it's a particularly stark illustration of the social costs of unaddressed poverty. Speaking from first-hand experience: it's a place where you can be rich, live in the most exclusive enclave in the capital city, yet still be panhandled by orphan kids with missing hands when you walk out your door. There's a dollar value you can place on alleviating that state of affairs, even based on purely selfish reasons like your own quality of life. The problem with private charities is that, for very basic economic reasons, they cannot be expected to fully capture the dollar value of alleviating poverty in the society.

I have a right to use force in self-defense.

Therefore I have the right to hire a bodyguard to use force in my defense. (In fact it is the same right - delegated.)

Therefore we have the right to elect a sheriff to use force in our defense.

...But I do NOT have the right to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither do I have any right to hire a bodyguard to beat and rob people.

Therefore, neither does our sheriff have any right to beat and rob people -- even if we voted for him to do so! Because you cannot delegate powers you never had.

Therefore the question isn't whether society should provide social welfare for the needy. Rather, the question is whether we have a moral right to use VIOLENCE to FORCE people to provide social welfare for the needy. (We don't.)

The reason you see poverty in various nations is because they do not have economic freedom and secure property rights. The nations with the worst poverty are the ones with the worst protections of rights. The nations with the lowest poverty are the nations with the best protections of rights. And note: those are also the nations who donate the most money to charity.

Government can never fix poverty by using violence to forcefully redistribute wealth. All that will do is cause worse poverty.

The best a government can do is strongly protect rights and economic freedoms -- then you will have a rich nation, which will not have poverty problems in the first place, and which will easily be able to cover the rest through private charity.

Unfortunately we do not see any governments today that respect rights and freedoms in this way, although some are better than others. But proposed solutions based on "social welfare" will only make those problems worse, not better.

In addition to the "collective action problem" issue, there's also the fact that amassed wealth can often translate into significant power[1], and if "anyone who isn't a huge jerk gives what's needed to charity" that amounts to a transfer of power toward huge jerks, which is not really an ideal outcome.

[1] There is an argument that unconstrained government is responsible for this. This is not completely without merit: it is certainly true that it can exacerbate the problem, as money corrupts politics and politics wields the force politics wields. However, it can be the case with a minimalist government too; denying that just seems silly. At the extreme, consider paying directly for use of force (open or secret); but subtler things like market power also come into play.

There was a time before welfare, and men and women didn't fall dead in the streets of hunger in droves.

Oh I like this logical exercise. How about, "there used to be a feudal system, and men and women didn't fall dead in the streets of hunger in droves." Did I do that right?