Obviously there shouldn't be social systems in place to support those that are too lazy to work... but at the same time, you cannot seriously believe that the children involved should starve or freeze to death just because their parent(s) could care less. I know all about deadbeat parents, and we don't even have a good system in place now to force those people to support the children they decided to have.
The "hands off" attitude is a wonderful theory and I totally agree with it... in theory. But this is a serious question that needs a serious answer. And not just the usual "Get a job!" replies.
-What about health care (which middle class America can barely, if at all, afford)?
-What about the children who are orphaned and living off the system via foster care or social security or other welfare programs? What happens to them?
-What about subsidized childcare programs to allow single parents to AFFORD to keep their jobs?
-What about mothers and children that are abandoned by the fathers?
-What about single parents with special needs children?
-What about single parents that face tragic illness and/or accidents and are UNABLE to work?
I think a lot of these problems CAN be addressed by non-profit agencies in lieu of government involvement, but there needs to be government involvement and assistance to encourage these types of programs (and moderate them). The one that the government has an absolute responsibility to address and solve is HEALTH CARE. It is simply inhuman and irresponsible to say any person deserves to die because they cannot afford $300+++ a month for health care for their family... not to mention premiums and copays and what-the-fuck-ever-else the insurance companies have figured a way out of paying.
This is too long for me to even get into the issues that trickle down when you start to seriouly think about what social welfare means. Crime, poverty, social health, economy, worldwide approval ratings, etc...
I have read many of Ayn Rand's books multiple times. I know she has a lot of fans. Her world is an IDEAL world, but it's not the world we live in. She never addresses the needs of the innocent... the children, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly, the disenfranchised... perhaps because she didn't have a poetic way to say those people simply didn't have a place in her ideal world.
So to summarize and in the process repeat what I have already stated:
This is a serious question that deserves a serious, well thought out answer. IMHO.
