Poverty Alleviation for Capitalists

1) The argument he uses against externalities is the fact that the extra taxes used to cover the external cost would bear on low-income people, which is undesirable. Against aid to the poor, he argues that it would be more beneficial to give them cash instead of cash in the form of housing. For the paternalistic justification he argues that there is no guarantee that the adults (i.e. parents) would be responsible enough to see to the welfare of their children. I do agree with his arguments.

2) The premise of the stereotype assumes that business people run businesses on moral principles, or the lack thereof. While moral principles are a part of running a business, Friedman's example shows that most business decisions are also made on the premise of what is economically smart. What the northern trade unions and northern firms did was neither good nor evil, it was good business sense exercised to ensure a balance of competition with southern businesses.

3) If there is any justification for supporting people simply because they are past working age, Friedman finds none. However there is a familial obligation for children to take care of their parents in their old age. Another factor that is ignored is God's providence, he will not permit those in want to go aided. Thus the concern for those in need is relatively unjustified because God inspires the generosity in those who have plenty to give to those in need. Thus the poor should never worry where they will get their next meal, as God will see to their sustenance as He does to their salvation.