if i changed my basic premise that charity should be the provider, maybe you could call it adequate.
Morally adequate yes.
plus i dont even know in today's depraved world if charity would do it
That's because tons of people are getting poorer and they're told the government is stealing from them to handle these issues.
Giving beyond the absurd amounts already stolen feels like being cheated (and it is).
When people are wealthy and getting more wealthy, when they can see how donations are helping they give much more (and they did).
unlike you, maybe, i dont think it's right to let people die in the streets
I value life, especially human life; I don't think it's right to let people die in the streets and nothing I've ever said would reasonably lead someone to that conclusion.
I understand the dynamics involved so I understand that the best way to keep people from dying on the streets is to have a society with overflowing prosperity where even those of meager capabilities can meet their own needs and those with no productive capacity can be taken care of without seriously harming quality of life for the rest.
Morally this is profoundly simple: If you want to give bread, give bread. If I want to give bread, I'll give bread. If you want to steal from me or anyone else to pay for someone else's bread, you're in the wrong.
Practically this is almost as simple: If you steal to pay for bread, and you buy the bread regardless of how much the price increases (because you don't care it's not like it's your money/production), then the bread price will go up and up; there will be more and more freeloaders and the ratio of productive people to non-productive people will increase which again increases the price of bread. You will try to inflate the currency to keep buying bread because "if I don't people will starve" and in the end a slice of bread will be 20 trillion dollars and no matter who you try to steal from in what way there will be no more bread.
This is a theory, you can read about it in "wealth of nations", this is also a fact; you can observe the history of communism.
it's the idea that if God let apple trees grow, and the government deprives me of accessing that tree, or farmland, they have an obligation to proportionally serivce its population.
but god doesn't let apple trees grow, first of all he doesn't exist; second of all you need to graft many fruit varieties (including the good apples) to get an acceptable result.
Food, housing, healthcare, energy. It all comes from people. You aren't being blocked from nature you're being blocked from stealing.
Now of course you are being blocked from nature by national parks, but if you weren't what you would do is go in there live on subsistence farming and then somebody else would come by and ask why you should get to enjoy that cabin you made without sharing.
It doesn't matter what you think the government owes you. The government is not god, it has no resources except those that it is given, those that it earns, and those that it steals (just like the rest of us).
If there was no government you could not go steal apples, the farmer would shoot you.
Yes government ought to be based around a social contract, but the social contract you're assuming isn't the only one and it's not one I would sign up for because it is immoral and it won't work (just like the partial implementation isn't working).
your idea of taxation as theft is completly ridiculous and a sheltered view.
Sheltered from what? Do you think there is something I can go out and see to change my mind? Should I expose myself to counter arguments?
I've done the latter for over a decade, that's what convinced me it was true; I wouldn't have felt comfortable believing such an abnormal (yet at the same time obvious) thing if I never gave others a chance to debunk it.
i think the only reason the government got involved in healthcare, again in every develoepd country, is because people couldn't afford it
People couldn't afford food in post WW1 Russia. So they took over the farms. If you're climbing a mountain and fall a few meters, the solution isn't to jump off the nearest cliff.
In almost all cases you'll find that a period of avoidable suffering was caused first by government (wars are government behavior too), and then using that suffering as an excuse the government steals more and regulates more and the suffering persists, worsens, or is resolved more slowly than it could have been.
i dont know how often other government ration care... but it's not necessary to ration it, just regulate the cost.
Costs cannot be regulated. The cost is determined by the supply and demand curve and the relative availability of all required inputs including human labor.
Technology, good ideas, that changes costs. Force does not change costs, force can only immorally shift the cost from some people to other people. For instance slavery forces the costs away from the master to the slave and allows the master to prosper in ways that would have been impossible if the slave was allowed to maximize his own profit.
Government theft for social programs is just that, shifting costs; the partial slave is the dollar holder (for inflation) or the taxpayer (for taxation). The slave master can (and they often did) use the wellbeing of slaves and others as excuses, but in reality often wasted the excess they stole and the total utility was reduced regardless of distribution.
just because the libertarian elements of other countries are what makes them sucessful, including ours, doesn't mean libertarianism is ideal.
We tried near pure communism. It wasn't ideal. Let's try pure liberty, see how many people it kills. It worked out pretty well when we were closer before (industrial revolution).
i pointed out that no libertarian countires are sucessful and you technically didn't show me any
There are no pure countries under any theory. The united states from 1870 to 1913 was as close as we've gotten to a libertarian country (economically). Whatever cultural problems there were that period saw exponential increase in quality of life for every demographic group across all objective measures.
We took a golden goose and we strangled it because people did not know why things the good things were appearing and what was causing the troubles that they did have. This allowed thieves and ideologues pedaling fallacious philosophy (socialism) to subvert civilization and causes people like you to ignore the grand pattern of history for the fantasy that you can guarantee anything by stealing.
