Up until the Great Depression the question of welfare rarely came about; help from churches, charities, and families were expected to help those in need. This historical event in U.S. history was certainly and turning point and gas pedal for what we know today as welfare. American’s were faced with unemployment, due to the economies inability to create enough jobs; thousands of determined and hard working American’s were slowly running out of options and time through no fault of their own. It was impossible for any private groups to provide sufficient and immediate aid, therefore, the only place to look for help was through the federal government. This help, known today as welfare, changed the United States in both positive and negatives ways. Today, according to the US Departments of Health and Human Services, 12,800,000 American’s are receiving welfare benefits, 46,700,000 are on food stamps, and the total number of Americans on unemployment insurance is 5,600,000. (SITE) With the economy being in yet another all time low, those fortunate enough to live without such aid find it unfair to pay for those who “don’t deserve it” or those who “did it to themselves”. America finds itself in a heated debate regarding whether or not things to be changed, or if welfare should be terminated all together. For some, like Kai Nielsen a philosophy professor at the University of Calary, argue, “In a society that can afford to do so, everyone’s needs should be satisfied.” (SITE) Then there are others, like Political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Charles Murray, argue, “What would happen, if all transfer payments to the poor were abolished?” (SITE)

Kai Nielsen defends a position he calls radical egalitarianism “which combines the principle of need and the equality principle while recognizing limited entitlements. “ (SITE) After providing for common social and economic goods- without violating individual entitlements- Nielsen feels that society should distribute the remaining wealth equally. “He calls this view radical egalitarianism because it insists on equality of condition for all, not just equality of opportunity.” (SITE) Nielsen defends against the charge that too much equality interferes with individual liberty, claiming we have rights to fair terms of cooperation as well as right to noninterference. “Maximizing that right”, he says “results in the greatest liberty or all, even if it means limiting some other rights.” (SITE) Nielsen feels that our goal should be an equality of basic condition for everyone. Wherever