A famous economist who goes by the name of Milton Friedman addresses the argument of social safety nets in one of his essays that he writes. One of the first points he addresses is that he believes luck and race play no role in determining what you receive from inheritance or other factors. Friedman then makes an analogy with social safety nets with two main different point of views. First, he makes a hypothetical supposing that there are four different Robinson Crusoe's on four different islands. One of them has a luxurious island and the other three have inferior islands. Friedman then poses a “what if” suggesting that if the three on the inferior islands were to ask for the ability to live on the more luxurious island with the Robinson Crusoe that is the best off if the best off Crusoe would allow them. If the Robinson Crusoe that was best were to say no, he then asks if it is just if the three were to join forces and abusively allow themselves passage on the fourth, most extravagant …show more content…
Ultimately, they would argue in favor of government programs that help people in or near poverty. They could also begin to pose the idea that not everyone who is utilizing the system is taking advantage of it. This objection is falsified because the people who are in poverty are able to receive other forms of help. There are numerous ways to get different types of help and help is there if you look for it. During the 1930’s during the Great Depression, almost all of America was in poverty. It took years for the government to step in and help, but until they did step in and help, people were on there own. During these times, people sought help from friends, family and the church and people were able to get by and survive. Today’s time is not nearly as bad as it was back then so there is no excuse for people who say that social safety nets are necessary for people in poverty in