And that was why I disagreed with you. It ultimately comes down to value judgments. Yes, I do think it is a bit naive to believe in the generosity of people whoI actually agree with you on a personal level. But I don't believe that it's the government's place to to try to negotiate the choppy waters of redistribution of wealth. I believe that such things should be given freely, not seized. I have a strong belief in personal charity, and I think it's ethically incumbent on the wealthy to give a little back and help his fellow man. I know that sounds ridiculously naive, and maybe it is. But it's the only path that morally makes sense to me on all sides.
There is private social work. However, it has many of the problems inherent with being private. Mainly, it is expensive and serves only the clients who can afford it. Not to mention, private sector social work is a business and so the primary motivation is to make a profit, not help people. Some individuals even buy up the private practices in an attempt to monopolize an area.IMO Kiddo, if we privatized social work, the social work would likely become more efficient, and you are likely to get paid more (that's the alchemy of a good functioning market, an increase in gross production). The problem however, is that you will need some creative entrepreneurs to come up with proper business models to have social-work businesses be successful in the market place. The government would likely have to come up with a proper way to monetize the externalities of social-work and still have to regulate it to make sure there isn't corruption, human rights violations, or abuses of privileges. A government with fewer things on its plate would be able to eliminate corruption more easily.
Objectivists obviously see the Free Market as the lesser of two evils, and Relativists see the Government as the lesser of two evils. Maybe the problem is we are satisfied with existing with two evils.