Actually, not always, but often. The federal reserve does a pretty good job these days in dampening business cycles. The larger point of course is that some subsidies for the poor may benefit society as a whole, ie to the old poor, and to the physically handicaped, and perhaps to some others on a selective basis. The devil is in the details.
Sounds like inner city public schools to me.
Yes, but the issue is the subsidy. I am a big fan of school vouchers, but that involves a subsidy.
Which we have now. The historical experience of Prohibition shows that it only gets worse when the government bans objects. (BTW, if the prohibition of alcohol needed an amendment to be Constitutional, why doesn't the prohibition of other drugs?)
Yes, but maybe the legalization of all drugs is a bad idea. That is an empirical issue. I won't get into the constitutional issues. It is a states rights matter, and back when, the commerce clause had a more circumscribed interpretation.
Made possible by using the government as a solution for the first problem you listed.
As to procreation, maybe the government should be engaged in agitprop here. Cutting checks to welfare mothers was indeed a bad idea in practice as it turned out. Again, it is an empirical issue.
You have a point, but I maintain that a way can be found to address it in a property rights framework.
Much enviromental polution can be addressed with pollution credits etc, but again that involves governmental intervention. It is not practical to round up the hundreds or thousands or millions that are affected by a polluter, to contract it out. And sometimes even pollution credits, for reasons I won't get into, are simply not practicable, and proscription is the only alternative.