Welfare vs Charity

This issue bothers me more than anything nowadays, so let's have debate.

So why should a person be FORCED to help someone else? If someone needs help, they can always ask for charity.

>I've already answered this question repeatedly, but apparently you haven't understood, 'cause your asking again.  So again, charity is obviously voluntary.  Welfare, or social assistance, is implemented by governments, and as a voluntary member of a society with a democratic or republican government, each citizen is given a voice and expected to pay their share of the costs of the programs the governments implement.

>as a voluntary member of a society...

Don't equivocate government programs with society. Voluntary member, really. Do you have a choice in whether or not to participate in government programs? Do you have a choice to choose not to receive nor pay welfare? You don't. You are forced to participate, and you are forced to pay, by the government, under the socialist principle that by living among other people, among society, you magically lose all your Individual Rights and stop begin a human, but just another mindless bot whose live is to serve a public goal determined by corrupt politicians. That is your answer to why it is somehow not forced, because people stop be human begins once they live in a society and have no individual rights. And that's wrong. Whether the protocol to deprive those Rights is determined by the majority or a dictator is irrelevant.

>The idea that citizens should have some kind of line item veto sounds nice, but is impractical.

That's what you still don't get. This isn't about whether or not a political setup is practical or not at using human as slaves to sacrifice for some public goal. This is about whether something of this kind should happen in the first place, at all.

And if you have the nerves to argue that depriving people of their individual rights will somehow wind up serving the welfare of all, all of history proves you wrong.