> It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. S

> It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. So we agree that you were able to increase the efficiency of your capital expenditure by not giving to charity. That is an increase in the efficiency of capital allocation over the taxation approach. > If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions. Now you're contradicting the $0 charitable allocation. If you want to prevent starvation, then your optimal charitable contributions would be nonzero. All society does in your example is force everyone to give to a cause that not everyone may want to give to. You're able to lower your contribution to the cause by forcing your neighbor to give to it under threat of violence. This is the problem I have with welfare, and this situation is known as "tyranny of the majority," which is what the republic US system sought to avoid.