A little sophistication and common sense would go a long way in a discussion like this. Humans act while possessing multivariate, complex and sometimes conflicting thoughts and emotions. If we're responsible, vigilant and diligent, our reasons for choosing a certain course should be prioritized along the lines of fundamental principles, first, civic virtue, second, and efficacy, third, with our personal interests coinciding with those concerns but not dictating them. Now, of course, there are instances where straight interest-politics is played, and perhaps it is most of the time. But always not only should the effort be made to derive principle from interest, but in arguing the matter in the public forum, principle should predominate, if only because it's usually better (more effective) politics. Thus, the bare statement, "I want a tax break," for example, is more effective stated as, "I need relief so my kids can continue in college," drawing in a societal benefit in the sense that an educated populace, in the aggregate, makes for a strong citizenry.
Matching principle to interest is not the hard part. So often, the dispute lies with choosing (prioritizing) the principles themselves, as in this instance where we all seem to agree that poverty and true economic want (how do you define the latter?) should be ameliorated. Prince puts the highest premium, however, not on alleviating want but on maximizing freedom. I, on the other hand, am inclined to sacrifice some of the prerogatives of liberty for an effective program (which I won't define or describe) of aid and remediation. This latter statement presupposes efficacy, and extends beyond government-run programs to private programs into a coherent whole that can actually get the job done. How to do all this is a separate discussion or a stage of this discussion not yet reached -- at which time I'll defer to Michael or JS because that is not my forte.
