@ Fides et Ratio
Never said I was against charity. I even support charity, although not as strongly as I support mutual aid societies. Mutual aid societies seem better suited to empowering poor people than charity. I believe a both mutual aid societies and charities shouldn't just give money to poor people, this doesn't actually help them in the long term, it is essential that the mutual aid societies and charities first work on eliminating the psychological, sociological, and political problems at the root of poverty. Without eliminating the root causes no real improvement will be made.
The reason mutual aid societies were practically wiped was because government decided to take over the functions which mutual aid societies were responsible for. Government, not properly suited to the task, has made things worse, in that now millions of people are dependent on government. (Then again I believe this was their intention all along.) It was a brilliant move on the part of government, in having so many people become dependent on them, it gave itself a free pass to do whatever it likes since those millions of people won't bite the hand that feeds. This is another one of the many reason why I believe government must be eliminated, it only really serves it's own interests to the detriment of society. As long as government is around, proper help for the poor won't be provided, because why would the government want people to become independent? The answer is that they can't afford to let people to become independent. The government wants people to stay poor.
1. http://mises.org/daily/2406
2. Subsidies reduce quality and increase prices, resulting in more people in need of subsidies. Hurts all except those that receive the money (the universities, building contractors, insurance companies).
3. Who "certifies" a charity? This leads to bureaucracies, which waste resources, which means less people are helped than could have been with voluntary contributions. Restrictions on freedom hurt all except bureaucrats.
4. Where does the government's money come from? The people. Thus resources are diverted from their most valued use to wasteful hands of bureaucrats.
5. Only acceptable is voluntary. Otherwise, it will still be theft, a diversion of resources to less efficient uses, which results in less voluntary charity and reduced production. Everyone is hurt except, you guessed it, bureaucrats.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
@Clayton I still fear that private charity could not be enough to provide a decent standard of living to vulnerable people.
I still fear that private charity could not be enough to provide a decent standard of living to vulnerable people.
As I pointed out already, "charity" is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon. "Providing a decent standard of living" for a "vulnerable person" might be applicable to a very burdensome charity case, such as a severely congenitally handicapped individual without family or with a very poor family. But as I pointed out, the mistake in generalizing the exceptional charity case is that it becomes the refuge of layabouts who are just looking for a handout and every dollar these people eke out of the system is actually being taken out of the hands of someone who - by any measure - needs it more than they do.
I think it is fair to give guarantees.
Then, by all means, do so. With your own money or the money that you are able to raise through voluntary contributions. But it's a mockery of reason to use the word "fair" when you're holding the statutory gun of the taxing power. If you're giving tax-funded guarantees, at least don't insult our intelligence and try to get us to play along with this "fair" business.
Don't you support any kind of government involvement?
No, none. For the same reason I don't support any kind of Mafia involvement.
How about the following proposals: 1. A negative income tax for the poor.
1. A negative income tax for the poor.
Yes, we've had that in the US since 1975. It's not helping. The logical conclusion is that income inequality is not the result of insufficient "negative taxation".
2. Subsidized education, housing and healthcare for the poor.
Yes, because subsidized education, housing and healthcare have been such a stunning success.
3. A "minimum charity funding", that is, each citizen is required give a minimum amount to a certified charity. 4. When you donate $1 to a certified charity, the government gives another 50 cents.
4. When you donate $1 to a certified charity, the government gives another 50 cents.
Please read this.
5. Conventional government-run charity, but at the county level. Thus it would be more answerable to the taxpayers, would have better information about the local problems, and the competition between counties would greatly increase efficiency and diminish authoritarianism. None of the proposals above is acceptable?
None of the proposals above is acceptable?
Perhaps they are but I could counter you with 1,000 variations on them that have no worse or better reasons than the proposals you've given. What's your methodology? How are you coming to these proposals? It looks to me that you're just pulling random proposals out of a hat. As a suggestion, let's deep-dive on a single proposal and really get to the bottom of why you think we need it, why you think it would work and why you think that it's necessary for the government to administer this solution.
Clayton -
Fides_et_Ratio: I still fear that private charity could not be enough to provide a decent standard of living to vulnerable people.
So charity is the means by which poor people acquire food and shelter and a comfortable lifestyle? Have you considered that maybe the problem isn't that poor people don't have enough money but that everything is too expensive? And have you ever considered that some poor people choose not to work because of the system in place?
I think it's fair to have guarantees
To who? Is it fair for someone who works to have their money given to someone who doesn't work?
So if someone makes 15K a year at a -2% tax rate, why would they ever want to go up to a 20K salary where they would have to pay a 2% rate? This is the kind of thing that creates more poor people. Subsidize something and you increase the supply. Subsidize poverty and there are more poor people.
We have all of that. How's it working? That's three threads' worth of discussion material you just brought up by the way.
3 & 4. Mandatory 'charity' giving.
This proposal misses the point. Institutionalized welfare seperates the decisions of the giver from the effects to the receiver, which opens a potential for abuse. If the giver may retract when he feels, it is more likely to be genuine charity (operations or food for poor people) and less likely to be parasitism (living free off of others' work).
5. Conventional government-run charity, but at the county level. Thus it would be more answerable to the taxpayers, would have better information about the local problems, and the competition between counties would greatly increase efficiency and diminish authoritarianism.
Warmer, but it's not addressing the fundamental issue which is the mechanism which best discriminates between parasitism and genuine charity, namely the giver's discretion. If a person is giving to charity then it is true that they are a charitable person, for one reason or another. This means they want to see the people they are giving to in a better position. If they can see that their efforts having zero or negative effects, they will stop. When giving is mandated, the situation becomes an actionless sterile cashflow.
Not in my opinion. What is your concern? I assume it is that life is too hard for poor people. They can't afford medical services or food. I agree wholeheartedly. Now, before you set about creating a system ripe for parasitic abuse and a class of vote-cattle, who will literally reproduce only to recieve a bigger welfare check, why don't you ask in the first place: why is everything so expensive? Why can't these people get by as it is? You're putting a bandaid on a wound inflicted by a screw from a septic tank, not addressing the root issue.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I think it is fair to tax 10% out of a millionaire's income and give it to orphanages.
So it is "fair" to steal? What about taking $1 from a man that only has $10? Is taxation (coerced extortion or theft) "fair" here too?
And please continue asking if you don't understand something. It not only helps you, but it helps us out in considering your concerns and understanding logic more thoroughly. We enjoy having you here to discuss! :)
some poor people choose not to work
Yep. Some people choose to simply "opt out" of the workaday system. For example, this man never had much income and probably would have been classified as "poor" by any government metric but he didn't need or want any handouts. His bills piled up but that was something he simply didn't care about. His contribution to our world was simply living out his life in the way he chose to, the way that he saw fit. He never took a dime in handouts but he enriched us all with his love of the Earth and life itself. We're all richer for his having lived.
I don't mean that it's bad not to work, I just mean that it's bad to not work and be paid for it with income of those that do.
Fides_et_Ratio: I still fear that private charity could not be enough to provide a decent standard of living to vulnerable people. I think it is fair to give guarantees.
I still fear that private charity could not be enough to provide a decent standard of living to vulnerable people. I think it is fair to give guarantees.
Unless you fancy yourself as an enlightened philosopher king or a sociopath, there is an evolutionary reason why most humans (subjectively) share similar values as yourself. In this case, charity/help to the less fortunate ones is a thing you seem to subjectively value. If most other humans share this valuation then they will contribute towards it voluntarily. If they don't, then what is your basis for forcing them to contribute towards your (subjectively valued) ends at the point of a gun (taxation)?
What makes anyone (you, someone else, the majority?) entitled to impose their subjective valuations (ends) over other people? Why is your subjective valuation of helping the poor, more important than my subjective valuation of, say, a flower pot being planted at every intersection in the country? If the majority really, really, strongly subjectively valued flower pots at every intersection -- and they "feared" that private/voluntary contributions would not be enough to cover all intersections with large enough pots -- would they be entitled to take your money toward realization of that end?
Expectations and varied institutional frameworks arise organically in society all the time. Different social arrangments have different expectations. Can't speak for the OP, but I doubt most people use "fair" as some propositional or analytical word. It is most likely to refer to something of custom, which is ...out of the scope of "reason". Some people choose to live in neighborhoods where grass can only be so high, and the volume can only get so loud, and the street parking can be limited or there will be fines...no big deal. It's part of the process of living with other people.
The Aboriginals had a completely different concept and set of customs and expectations of property than the Aussies did, and it got them massacred, because they weren't following the expectations of the Aussies in regard to property.
As for methodology, how important is it really? All we really need is a general picture that corresponds with what we see and go from there. Trying to be methodologically sound is going to put someone in an inescapable straight jacket that will get in the way from trying to communicate the more important information that needs to be communicated.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Trying to be methodologically sound
If you follow my posts, you will know that I'm not a methodology-Nazi... methodology is just a means to an end. But without that means, you get nowhere. It's a reasonable question. I say the government should match dollar-for-dollar, Fides says 50 cents on the dollar. What a cheap-o! Clearly, I care for the poor much more than he does.
fair enough,
The more I read posts by you the more I think you would get a real kick out of Hayek's work's like Individualism and the Economic Order and his other sociological oriented work. He really did kind of pre-empt, and goes hand in hand with all that evo-psych thinking, plus he isn't a "method nazi"..
Plus that , if an individual gives, it wants the money to be used in the right way. A bureaucrat using other people's money that can't hold him accountable effectively, will just care to "get his job done". I however think the point he's trying to make is free-riders, leeches or anti-social people that take advantage from society, but don't contribute in any other way they aren't forced to.
Torsten:I however think the point he's trying to make is free-riders, leeches or anti-social people that take advantage from society, but don't contribute in any other way they aren't forced to.
I don't think he was concerned about that. He expressed his fear that not enough would be given (for charity) voluntarily.
If free-riders or leeches were his concern, my response would be: Would you help someone in need only if everyone (or someone) else also did the same? If they didn't, would you feel better -- or be more inclined to help -- if they were forced to do the same?
Btw, how does someone "take advantage from society"? Would "taking advantage from society" include extracting benefits (improving one's condition) through voluntary exchanges with others and, if so, would one "owe" said society anything back for the "privilege"?
Morally speaking (disregarding every economic problem with government run charity) forcing people to give to charity causes the act to no longer reflect a moral choice When a man gives to those in need out of the kindness of his own heart, he is making a powerful moral decision. If he is forced to give, there is no good will involved; there is no moral righteousness in stealing, or being stolen from.
Forcing people to give to charity skews the morality of the situation to such an extent that it stops being charity at all.
I'd rather live in a society where people are faced with the moral choice of giving to charity and can say no than one where all charity is mandatory and therefore there is no real moral charity in existence. People must be allowed to solve moral dillemas for themselves.
The more moral choices that the government makes for an individual, the less he is able to develop his own sense morality.
You maybe right on his emphasis.
Simple, one does have advantages from specific societies/communities, if peace, honesty, adherence to contract, respect for property, etc. are institutionalized norms there. One would of course owe then some kind of appropriate action to maintain these institutionalized norms. Some societies have contribution in the form of taxation institutionalized as "appropriate action". My personal opinion is that civic virtues are a far more appropriate action contributiing to the maintenance of thos institutionalized norms.