I didnt know if this should put under economic questions but I felt it's more relevant here. Anyways, on what grounds would you reject or approve of having a social safety net(if minimal) to ensuring that society can function without hiccups and not fall into "french revolution" scenario where there are people dying because they can't get the adequate means of survival due to forces outside of their control?
Mises and Hayek came across as being somewhat vague on the issue from what I read since they basically say "the states purpose is to do what benefits society and keeps it afloat"(paraphrase).
I'm not a minarchist so I shouldn't answer but here's my reply in one word: family.
Clayton -
Health insurance, unemployment insurance, and other forms of safety can be privately provided.
SparkNotes: The causes of the French Revolution, though, are difficult to pin down: based on the historical evidence that exists, a fairly compelling argument could be made regarding any number of factors. Internationally speaking, a number of major wars had taken place in the forty years leading up to the Revolution, and France had participated, to some degree, in most of them. The Seven Years’ War in Europe and the American Revolution across the ocean had a profound effect on the French psyche and made the Western world a volatile one. In addition to charging up the French public, this wartime environment took quite a toll on the French treasury. The costs of waging war, supporting allies, and maintaining the French army quickly depleted a French bank that was already weakened from royal extravagance. Finally, in a time of highly secularized Enlightenment, the idea that King Louis XVI had absolute power due to divine right—the idea that he had been handpicked by God—didn’t hold nearly as much water as in the past few decades.
Ultimately, these various problems within late-1700s France weren’t so much the immediate causes of the Revolution as they were the final catalyst. The strict French class system had long placed the clergy and nobility far above the rest of the French citizens, despite the fact that many of those citizens far exceeded nobles in wealth and reputation. Moreover, these exclusive titles—most of which had been purchased and passed down through families—essentially placed their bearers above the law and exempted them from taxes. In 1789, when France’s ancient legislative body, the Estates-General, reconvened and it became apparent that the higher-ranking classes refused to forfeit their privileges in the interest of saving the country, the frustration of the French bourgeoisie reached its boiling point. The French Revolution was thus a battle to achieve equality and remove oppression—concerns far more deep-seated and universal than the immediate economic turbulence France was experiencing at the time.
The question itself implies a false theoretical proposition; namely that the State can provide such a safety net in the first place. It cannot. It can only provide with the myth. So the question should be restated: What is your opinion on the myth of social safety net?
Gero: While I think most people would find a means to support themselves so they can pay for services like those while working i'm refering more to people who have no control over the factors that can help them attain a means to support themselves such as being crippled or no jobs being available during a downturn.
And I know the causes of the revolution were more complex, but I stated it since it's often a fallicy used in favor in supporting social safety nets. DD:
I ask this question because mises and hayek made vague assertions about the state being used as a tool to make sure society functions properly. They never really explained it though this topic is for Minarchists since we aren't all made equal in our opinion of what the state should be doing if it's to ensure that society is run properly. And please dont take "properly" out of context.
I don't think Mises ever implied a social safety net as part of "making sure society functions properly". As for Hayek, he has made more anti welfare and safety net remarks in his career then the few "vague" remarks here and there. I don't think Mises and Hayek can be ever used as a basis to advocate for any safety net.
I thought this thread was addressed to minarchists?
DD Thanks for addressing that since I came across stuff that was vague. Do you have any quotes from either of them.
Dondolee It is, why do you ask?I know what the anarchists position is or how they might respond.
Maybe I misread the post, I thought one of the people replying was giving an anarchist critique to your thread.