Welfare is a basic right?
Do you know what "welfare" means? Eg public education is welfare. And having access to education is a fundamental human right, yes. You have rights to plenty of other things that weren't accessible when we didn't have welfare. Such as a nontoxic air and enough food to support your family. It's in the UN charter. Go read it before yelling out nonsense about human rights.
Next you'll tell me the ability to steal "Certain things" is also a right...
In compensation for the protection of property rights, there's no ill in demanding financial support to maintain the establishment of the capitalist state. It has nothing to do with rights, though, so that's a strawman, but I want to say something.
I get really bugged when liberals (libertarianism is a subsection of liberalism which really is just the American word for what liberalism means) present the poor job providing factory owner who has rights to his property of wealth. It's a card played assuming he has worked his way to his position through hard work and brilliance and that taking wealth from him is wrong as it is rightfully him who produced that wealth.
Now let's assume that that is true - his work into a certain position is due pure entitlement. He
deserves what he has. And that is not only true for him. It's also true for the lazy/dumb worker in his factory or the capitalist banker who lent him the money necessary for starting the business. You therefore get to the conclusion that taxation is theft.
But it doesn't stop there. Because the analysis isn't over. There's a certain situation, a framework in which all the wealth these people are entitled to is produced. And that is the Western capitalist model of the democratically elected state.
Starting a business isn't just piling rocks and calling in your friends until you have a working factory. You need starting capital (which you never have) so you need to loan money from a bank. You need a contract with construction workers that in turn need pay to construct the buildings. You need legally binding documents to keep the workers arriving in the factory when you pay them. You need rights to your goods so competitors don't steal the property you're entitled to.
All of these social contracts are done in the capitalist framework, the liberal state. You need enforcement under the threat of punishment in all of these contracts in order to make it work. What happens when you don't repay the loan? What happens when you don't pay the construction workers? What happens when your workers steal money from you? What happens when your competitors steal your intellectual property? Punishment happens.
Any kind of liberal product you are entitled to requires an entitlement, and that is provided by the state. An entitlement does not exist without a concept of property, your business cannot hold together without the protection of the state. Businesses are entwined with the state that way, as such taxation is not theft. Because by even starting a business or working in a business makes you partake in the established system of social contract. And simple exchange of wealth - or compensation of services - is not theft. It's trade.
And the enforcement only exists as long as you are a part of that system. But you're not required to, really. You don't have to pay taxes. Even in Denmark. You can live as a homeless guy off the soil. It's even perfectly doable in most Western countries with all that food we throw out.
You can't make a capitalist business without being a part of a capitalist community, and if you wish to be part of that community,
not paying taxes is theft.
Libertarians don't support pro-business policy, Republicans do. Libertarians support free markets. Depending on the libertarian they might even support checks to prevent monopolies (I know I do.)
Actually libertarianism is tied in with idiots like Rand that proclaim there should be no government intervention in business affairs because x reasons of moralist ideals she proclaimed effecient. What you're advocating is a social liberal policy.
Money at least is the kind of thing the wealthy would WANT to horde. Why hoard food?
It costs time and money to provide surplus food for free because the cost of distribution always exists. Also, it makes the concept of food being something you distribute through monetary compensation. If you get the surplus food for free, why would you buy it?
Food prices have to drop to a certain low in order to cover all. In many African states, for example, they actually have the food resources to sustain themselves. Citizens are simply too impoverished to afford it; surplus farmers won't drop food prices that low because the free market seeks out the best buyer, who is Western and wasteful. We buy food and hoard it, letting it rot. And I don't feel I need to go into the specific economic marketing practices that make it so we buy more food than we can eat.
The question isn't "why hoard food", it's "why bother to distribute it for free" or "why sell food at a price that won't be profitable".
If a child starved to death that says more about his parents than anything else...
If think you're really rude to Africans right now.
Yes, your reply was in regards to the UK. If so, specify. This seems like a universal statement.
