http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySOgWb9PI-k&feature=related
I think the strength of this video is that you don't even have to prove that welfare state doesn't help the poor. And you can also accept the ridiculous assumption of the democrats that the will of the majority should be highest standard of truth.
So Stefan's argument:
If the majority of the people want to help the poor, then we actually don't need welfare programs because if these people are really charitable and virtuous then they will voluntarily help the poor.
If the majority of the people do not want to help the poor, then welfare programs become undemocratic, the current democracy is therefore a lie and the system is controlled by a violent minority.
You don't even have to expose yourself as a voluntaryist in using this argument.
If the majority people want to help the poor, they can extort a minority and leave themselves alone. This is why democrats favor taxing the rich, leaving themselves alone, and benefitting the poor.
Playing devil's advocate here:
If wealth is distributed unevenly enough, then it's possible that the majority wants to help the poor but lacks the means to do so.
What Zavoi said. Stefan's argument is bull.
The argument can at least be modified to show that the majority of people in a wealthy country are total douchebags and don't want to pay for their own agendas. Despite what we always hear about the oppressed middle class, they still go out to eat at resturaunts and buy brand name clothes. It would be very easy for them to simply cook at home more often and buy walmart/second hand so that they could have surplus to give. The American middle class are so pressed trying to live this yuppi traditional lifestyle no one talks about how easy it is to just get by as human beings.
Stefan's argument though does fall apart in a very poor democracy, say where the majority of people are poor and vote money from the rich.
The argument doesn't necessarily fail just because you can have a situation wherein the majority are poor. Because democracy then, is revealed for what it really is, which is rule of the lynch mob.
The market is the only system that enforces true "democratic" principles. Self "government" is only possible when people can "vote" with their own property. Anything else is a sham.
Stefbot's point is (as I understand) that majority of people really do not care about the poor, that's why they are ok with taxing only rich people. And that's why this is not really democratic and actually tyranic.
Yes, it's just a short explanation for "dummies" as I say and not actual argument for why democracy is bullcrap.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Well, let's start with a premise. Would you pay more to your favorite charity if an anonymous donor agreed to match your donation? Probably, right? That's how taxation works; I might want to see space exploration, but I'm not going to contribute $20 to space exploration on my own, because it will accomplish nothing. But if I know everyone else is also going to contribute $20, then I would be happy to contribute along with them, because it will actually achieve the goal. That's how democratic taxation works.
If 60% of people want to help the poor, and 40% are heartless bastards, then you can have 2 scenarios:
1. There's a tax. The 60% decent humans and 40% heartless bastards both contribute. The assistance program gets fully funded.
2. There's no tax. The assistance program is only 60% funded, at best. The 40% of society who are heartless bastards keep all of their money to themselves. This gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Over time, the most callous and selfish individuals rule over all of society.
I'd also like to say that all of this stems from the logical fallacy that the rich people become rich on "their own merits"
It's like a man who starts a pizza shop, manages it well and becomes wealthy, and says "I did this."
Except, his pizza shop succeeded partly because he had a good employee who made great pizzas, and this employee lived on food stamps for a year before he started working there; also, he had a good employee who honestly looked after the finances, because he was raised by caring foster parents who instilled good values in him, also he had a good employee who delivered the pizzas on time, but who would have died from a bad heart if he hadn't recieved free medical care when he was younger.
Then the pizza shop owner says "I made this money myself, these taxes for other peoples food stamps, children and medical care are theft!"
Benjamin: If 60% of people want to help the poor, and 40% are heartless bastards, then you can have 2 scenarios:
Never mind the gruesome analogies and fallacies in your reasoning, let's have it your "democratic" way and allow for a 3rd option:
3. There's no tax and the statistics are the other way around; 60% heartless bastards and 40% decent humans. The assistance program gets no funding! poor people starve to death. Oh well, that's how democratic taxation works.
So even by playing it your way, you still err in making your point about political Democracy.
Quote by Benjamin:"I'd also like to say that all of this stems from the logical fallacy that the rich people become rich on "their own merits"
Except, his pizza shop succeeded partly because he had a good employee who made great pizzas, and this employee lived on food stamps for a year before he started working there; also, he had a good employee who honestly looked after the finances, because he was raised by caring foster parents who instilled good values in him, also he had a good employee who delivered the pizzas on time, but who would have died from a car accident before he started working there if he hadn't recieved free medical care when he was younger.
Then the pizza shop owner says "I made this money myself, these taxes for other peoples health care, children and medical care are theft!"
You assume that if all those things such as food stamps and free medical care weren't available, those employees would've been dead. I don't believe it just because you say so. Who's to say there wouldn't be other options if taxes were never taken to start those programs? Medical and food costs weren't always so high. Besides why does having great employees mean that he should pay for other people's benefits? Of course those taxes are still theft.
And if the pizza shop owner didn't START a pizza shop. There would be no pizza shop and no employee, and no nothing. So yeah its because of him that there was money to be paid and employees that got paid at all. Thank goodness for the Pizza Shop owner or else the first employee would still be on food stamps, the 2nd employee would never show his foster parents how much of a hard worker he is, and the 3rd employee can afford to take care of himself.
But the scenario you described means there's a scenario where the shop owner IS justified even in your view that taxes are theft. What if none of his employees used the welfare state for their needs at any point in their life? Would you then consider it ok that taxes for other people's benefits are theft? Or what if the Pizza shop owner himself works a lot more hours than any of his employees, pays them even during times when the business is going into a loss, and some of his employees even take cash from the register without his knowledge? At that point is it ok for the shop owner to dislike taxes?
The business owner bears the risk of the venture. He provides his employees with the tools necessary to realize their productive value. If his business fails, he might lose everything he put into it; his employees just move on to another job.
And that's why he has earned a legitimate claim to all his profits.
What if the shop owner's employee(s) were recent immigrants? Is he obligated to fund the welfare programs of their countries, as well? Am I obligated to pay for the Chinese medical system because many of the things I use are made in China? A tax of this sort on recipients of posiitive governmental externalities, taken to it's logical conclusion, results in either world government or autarky.
Hell, let's take it one step further. In the very unlikely event (but unlikeliness doesn't seem to stop most people) it was discovered that human civilization spawned, 2001: A Space Odyssey style from alien monoliths, is all of humanity obligated to the space programs of the aliens who placed these monoliths?
benjamin:I might want to see space exploration, but I'm not going to contribute $20 to space exploration on my own, because it will accomplish nothing.
Furthermore, the "too expensive for individuals" logic just reveals how ignorant you are of markets. Doesn't the same logic apply to drilling oil wells? No one investor or employee of exxon has enough money to drill a hundred million dollar well. Guess what? They pool their money through contract. Zomg so hard can't get it through my brain...
Drilling oil wells! What a great example!
Benjamin:Drilling oil wells! What a great example!