One lesson all the statists should learn from this is if something is truely important it should NOT be controlled by the political system but rather voluntary free exchange.

Those that depend on the state suffer the most from its ineptitude. I sometimes have friends that are with my in opposition to the war machine but they act concerned about the so called safety net. How safe is it actually?

I would argue that the needy would be better served by church's, community groups, and fraternal orders than government programs.

People often say that the cost to do this is to high. It has to be done by the state. This is a myth. First of all the state doesn't create value. Even the money printing doesn't. The state only steals from one group to support another. And in doing so it usually wastes a massive amount.

Those suffering today would be better off if private voluntary charity were there source of assistance.

Another reason is that the cycle of dependency would be decreased, not increased. Local groups have much better connectivity with the people they help. I know the groups I have worked with know who really needs help vs who is just lazy.

I'm under no illusions about a transition phase being rough but that is the fault of politicians and the dependency that has been established.

The truth is that a truly unfettered free economy would be so prosperous all boats would rise. We'd still need to care for our neighbors and families but I think even those that see the state for what it is underestimate how massive the improvement would be.