However, I’m wondering something else. Why is welfare taken to be some unique evil in so much libertarian writing? Is it because of the Randian influence? Here is a problem – there has never been a successful politician, with the exception of some revolutions, who actually cared about the poor. Certainty in the US, there was never a concerted interest in transferring wealth from the upper to the lower – how could there be when, as Kolko so aptly described (in contrast to so many things he did inaptly) the government is intertwined with big business? So, why does welfare exist at all? Simple – government policy can be described, overall, as a concerted attempt to bypass market means in order to make the rich richer without them having to work for it. This would have led to revolutions, torches, pitchforks, and the like, so politicians, while doing exactly what they wanted, threw some scraps to the poor. More precisely, the riots would have been more costly to the rich than the welfare is. The poor, having been robbed and fleeced at every turn, are given handouts to prevent uprisings – and they are thereby made dependent. Rather than rising up at the corporate welfare, they came to imagine that they could not survive without the handout. This is true – so long as the massive reverse redistribution is going on. So, why not see welfare as a poorly directed, horribly mismanaged, cruelly inept – step towards reversal of the corporate welfare? Why should a libertarian focus his energy on opposing welfare, when he ought to focus on a fundamental critique of the state?