As for his "Social Darwinist" comment (implying that Democrats are "charitiable"), I offer you the following bit to bounce off of him (gently!):
A Lesson On Big Government
Dinesh D'Souza
The power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people. Let me show why this is so.
I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man feels grateful to me, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits both the giver and the receiver.
But see what happens if the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich on the hungry man. Instead of being thankful to me, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the material result is exactly the same.
Now let's keep the same scenario but change the outcome. I am approached by the hungry man, as before, but this time, instead of agreeing to share my sandwich, I refuse to do so. Along comes a third man, who pulls out a gun, points it at my head, and forces me to hand over my sandwich to him, upon which he gives it to the hungry guy. What is the moral quality of the gunman's action? I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing - forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others - the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner. This is clearly not true.
Good luck...
