Yours points are true but also somewhat simplistic. I'm not addressing you point by point, but laying out a couple of points for you to consider.
1. There is a tendency to corruption in any concentration of power, government or corporate. There still remains the problem in capitalism that concentration of capital leads to entrenchment, stagnation, and corruption, and our regulations, faulty as they certainly are, have historically at least attempted to address problems in concentration (Sherman Antitrust Act and the original Glass-Steagall Act). There is no fire-and-forget legislation that can guarantee this, of course, since it is also in the nature of power to route around such fault lines.
2. Many theories based on the free market assume rational actors. The bulk of psychological research shows that this is a faulty assumption for individual humans. I argue that we also have sufficient evidence that this is a faulty assumption for behaviors in aggregate (corporations and governments). We need to take this into account when we talk about the power, the benefits, and the faults of the free market.
With regards to your point 2, I'm interested in data you have regarding the relative effectiveness of charity and the welfare state. My understanding is that the European-style welfare state consistently gets more balanced outcomes and a higher quality of life for more people than reliance on charitable institutions.
Your point 3 is too laden with loaded words to be used effectively in an argument and reads more like right-wing talking points than an attempt at discussion. When discussing this in the future, I recommend sticking to redistribution and outcomes, and leave out the rhetorically charged "taking my money through force" and "extort".
Also, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who will argue that "inefficient state run welfare programs" are a good thing; really the argument is about relative efficiency between state welfare systems and private charity.
I'll concede that my second and third points skew the conversation away from the issue of addressing homelessness.
If the topic were 'personal liberty' than they might have more relevance. I guess the attack on capitalism as being 'evil' brought out my personal bias.
1. There is a tendency to corruption in any concentration of power, government or corporate. There still remains the problem in capitalism that concentration of capital leads to entrenchment, stagnation, and corruption, and our regulations, faulty as they certainly are, have historically at least attempted to address problems in concentration (Sherman Antitrust Act and the original Glass-Steagall Act). There is no fire-and-forget legislation that can guarantee this, of course, since it is also in the nature of power to route around such fault lines.
2. Many theories based on the free market assume rational actors. The bulk of psychological research shows that this is a faulty assumption for individual humans. I argue that we also have sufficient evidence that this is a faulty assumption for behaviors in aggregate (corporations and governments). We need to take this into account when we talk about the power, the benefits, and the faults of the free market.
With regards to your point 2, I'm interested in data you have regarding the relative effectiveness of charity and the welfare state. My understanding is that the European-style welfare state consistently gets more balanced outcomes and a higher quality of life for more people than reliance on charitable institutions.
Your point 3 is too laden with loaded words to be used effectively in an argument and reads more like right-wing talking points than an attempt at discussion. When discussing this in the future, I recommend sticking to redistribution and outcomes, and leave out the rhetorically charged "taking my money through force" and "extort".
Also, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who will argue that "inefficient state run welfare programs" are a good thing; really the argument is about relative efficiency between state welfare systems and private charity.