I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. ...Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the waste

I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. ...Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the wasteful what they deserve (nothing)? Well, of course that's because it's easiest to argue against the wasteful :) For those that are truly victims of circumstance, the argument requires quite a bit more finessed debate, and obviously I'm better at the fiery rhetoric. I think that the best work concerning liberty and social justice is that of Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls ) and the reply by Nozick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick ). Your mileage may vary, I guess, because the topic is still argued, but I think that Nozick has the better argument. From a quick search, this (http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 ) appears a decent essay on the debate. Rawls wants us to create a fairer world today by taking from the fortunate to help the unlucky. But Nozick shows us that this interferes with the "natural" way that people will distribute money, allocating it to those who give to him the greatest benefit. Interpreting this through Hayek, we can see that diverting wealth away from those who would be delivering the greatest returns will, over time, hobble all of society. Without the work of those who would be creating more wealth, the entirety of society is destined to poverty relative to what could have been. Framed in this comparison, it looks to me like the disadvantaged aren't worse off in the big picture; it's not that anything is being taken from them, but that they're not benefiting as much from progress as the rest.