1) LOL!
2) I'm calling you out. There were dozens of attempts at "freedom and small government" in the early nineties - they are called former Soviet states. Seriously, if you like "small government" and "low taxes" so much - move to Russia already. Or at least go live there for a year or two... maybe it'll change your views. I know in your mind it sounds like a sexy system ... but in practice it is much different than in the idealistic view in the back of your head... I moved out for a reason. And believe me "lack of opportunity" wasn't it. It is significantly easier to get rich in Russia then in America right now.
Ok,
1) For your 'LOL'; if you had a valid counter argument you would of said it, but you didn't = no arguments.
Let me expand a little on the so called ''safety'' nets. How do you think 'poor' americans lived before all those social programs? You think they were out starving in the streets? Of course not, they relied on charities.
And you're missing the real issue here. The problem with these programs is a moral & economic one.
Moral problem because you're forcing people to pay for what YOU think is moral. You'll create a dangerous precedent in society. This means that, if someone in 30-40 years from now get elected and says '' I think it's moral to double the income tax on all the people who's name is Alexei'', will you accept it? Obviously not, but the point is, he's using the same argument as you do. So how is your argument more valid than his? Clearly, it is inconsistant.
See it this way. Let's say I see a homeless in the street, can I put a gun to your head to take your money and give it to him? Of course not, it's a crime.
BUT, if I go see the governement and tell him to put a gun to your head to get your money for that homeless, all of a sudden, it becomes acceptable? Inconsistant again.
If it hurts you to see poor people (as it hurts me), take YOUR OWN money and give it to them. Organize yourself with likely minded people and give your money to the cause that you think is moral.
The economic problem is, in order to support these social programs, you need high taxes = it won't help the poor to get out of povrety.
Simple example, imagine 2 scenarios:
a) I run a business and I have $1. The government comes in, take my $1 and give it to a poor individual. The poor person goes out and buys a sandwich with that dollar, eat it, and is still poor.
b) Now, I still run a business and still have a dollar. But this time, the governement DOESN'T comes in, so I invest that $ in my business = I create a job = poor individual comes out of pauvrety.
So, if you want to keep that person in povrety, keep taxing me. And think about it for a second. If you had a low income tax, you would have more money = you can give more to charities = that money goes almost in totality and directly to the poor. But if you give it to the governement, he'll probably give 10 cents out of every dollar to the poor.
2) What you're missing here is that those countries had no real judicial system = property rights were/are not respected.
Property rights are KEY to economic success. Actually capitalism is based on that, i.e. volontary exchange & a strong judicial system that protect property rights.