Liberals of sound reason realize welfare and social programs are unjust, but promote them anyway.

"So you do agree that the idea of welfare is good." Yes, but not in a government-sponsored sense. Private charity (welfare) is agreeable to to both the donor and recipient. I don't know many people who feel warm and generous when they send out their tax returns. Nor do I know many welfare recipients who feel grateful as opposed to entitled. "You just disagree with the fact that your tax money is being spent for others in need without your consent?" I depends on what you consider "consent." If this is not a trick question, then yes. But some would say that we always consent to giving up our tax money as demonstrated by the fact that we have chosen to stay and live here. Some would argue our tacit consent by claiming that we already do pay for things others enjoy (parks, public education, monuments, libraries)-- as though that means we have no right to argue against additional expenditures of the same sort. I personally believe tax revenue should be spent on those things that are minimally necessary for people to operate freely and safely in this country, and nothing more. When taxes are levied solely for the purpose of protecting freedoms to which are necessary to ALL (ie police, military, court system), then ALL tax payers benefit as a result. When taxes are levied to benefit certain groups or entities (i.e. corporations, farmers, welfare recipients, artists, students, states, foreign countries, etc.) the likelihood of ALL tax payers benefiting from the expenditures decreases dramatically-- and with it the FAIRNESS of the taxation required to fund such expenditures. For the sake of this debate I will say that "fair" is synonymous with "just," and "unfair" is synonymous with "unjust." So such programs and the taxes necessary to support them are unjust. "well you do know that all the social welfare programs combined add up to about 1-2% of the federal budget over all." This statistic has no relevance as to whether government-sponsored welfare is just, but it is a figure that will undoubtably help liberals rationalize their support for it. I don't mind the use of pragmatism in defending unjust laws so much as I mind the unwillingness to admit they are unjust. "I think it is unjust to live in a system where people are PUT in situations where they need federal assistance and people complain about them." I too think it would be unjust if free people were PUT in situations where they need federal assistance. To my knowledge just about everyone in the U.S. has access to the same basic freedoms and rights which would allow them to survive. I'll admit that due to affluence some have more than the basics, but none who are able-bodied and able-minded have less than the basics. If we (meaning the ones who pay taxes) have PUT people in a position where they are unable to exercise their basic rights and freedoms to survive, I would agree that we owe them damages. In fact if you can prove this, a class action lawsuit is in order. Can you give me an example of how we (the taxpayers) have PUT people in situations where they are stripped of their basic abilities to make a living? This offense would certainly leave them in need of much deserved federal assistance.