Helping the poor ( along with the need for bombs and guns) is probably the number 1 issue used to defend the state. the arguments are most often emotional – which allows all people regardless of intellect or research to engage in the argument.
Help me make the most comprehensive and succinct list of reasons why state welfare: hurts more than helps - is immoral etc.
I personally do not think the “gun in the room” approach works well for this or any other argument with most people.
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”
I think that basically explains it all. All welfare does is make poor people dependent.
From Profit and Loss by Ludwig von Mises:
All the reasons advanced in favor of an anti-profit policy are the outcome of an erroneous interpretation of the operation of the market economy. The tycoons are too powerful, too rich, and too big. They abuse their power for their own enrichment. They are irresponsible tyrants. Bigness of an enterprise is in itself an evil. There is no reason why some men should own millions while others are poor. The wealth of the few is the cause of the poverty of the masses. Each word of these passionate denunciations is false. The businessmen are not irresponsible tyrants. It is precisely the necessity of making profits and avoiding losses that gives to the consumers a firm hold over the entrepreneurs and forces them to comply with the wishes of the people. What makes a firm big is its success in best filling the demands of the buyers. If the bigger enterprise did not better serve the people than a smaller one, it would long since have been reduced to smallness. There is no harm in a businessman's endeavors to enrich himself by increasing his profits. The businessman has in his capacity as a businessman only one task: to strive after the highest possible profit. Huge profits are the proof of good service rendered in supplying the consumers. Losses are the proof of blunders committed, of failure to perform satisfactorily the tasks incumbent upon an entrepreneur. The riches of successful entrepreneurs is not the cause of anybody's poverty; it is the consequence of the fact that the consumers are better supplied than they would have been in the absence of the entrepreneur's effort. The penury of millions in the backward countries is not caused by anybody's opulence; it is the correlative of the fact that their country lacks entrepreneurs who have acquired riches. The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. It is to the foremost material interest of everybody that control of the factors of production should be concentrated in the hands of those who know how to utilize them in the most efficient way.
All the reasons advanced in favor of an anti-profit policy are the outcome of an erroneous interpretation of the operation of the market economy.
The tycoons are too powerful, too rich, and too big. They abuse their power for their own enrichment. They are irresponsible tyrants. Bigness of an enterprise is in itself an evil. There is no reason why some men should own millions while others are poor. The wealth of the few is the cause of the poverty of the masses.
Each word of these passionate denunciations is false. The businessmen are not irresponsible tyrants. It is precisely the necessity of making profits and avoiding losses that gives to the consumers a firm hold over the entrepreneurs and forces them to comply with the wishes of the people. What makes a firm big is its success in best filling the demands of the buyers. If the bigger enterprise did not better serve the people than a smaller one, it would long since have been reduced to smallness. There is no harm in a businessman's endeavors to enrich himself by increasing his profits. The businessman has in his capacity as a businessman only one task: to strive after the highest possible profit. Huge profits are the proof of good service rendered in supplying the consumers. Losses are the proof of blunders committed, of failure to perform satisfactorily the tasks incumbent upon an entrepreneur. The riches of successful entrepreneurs is not the cause of anybody's poverty; it is the consequence of the fact that the consumers are better supplied than they would have been in the absence of the entrepreneur's effort. The penury of millions in the backward countries is not caused by anybody's opulence; it is the correlative of the fact that their country lacks entrepreneurs who have acquired riches. The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. It is to the foremost material interest of everybody that control of the factors of production should be concentrated in the hands of those who know how to utilize them in the most efficient way.
From Human Action:
"The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the "Industrial Revolution," blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. The processing trades of earlier ages had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well-to-do. Their expansion was limited by the amount of luxuries the wealthier strata of the population could afford. Those not engaged in the production of primary commodities could earn a living only as far as the upper classes were disposed to utilize their skill and services. But now a different principle came into operation. The factory system inaugurated a new mode of marketing as well as of production. Its characteristic feature was that the manufactures were not designed for the consumption of a few well-to-do only, but for the consumption of those who had hitherto played but a negligible role as consumers. Cheap things for the many, was the objective of the factory system. The classical factory of the early days of the Industrial Revolution was the cotton mill. Now, the cotton goods it turned out were not something the rich were asking for. These wealthy people clung to silk, linen, and cambric. Whenever the factory with its methods of mass production by means of power-driven machines invaded a new branch of production, it started [p. 621] with the production of cheap goods for the broad masses. The factories turned to the production of more refined and therefore more expensive goods only at a later stage, when the unprecedented improvement in the masses' standard of living which they caused made it profitable to apply the methods of mass production also to these better articles. Thus, for instance, the factory-made shoe was for many years bought only by the "proletarians" while the wealthier consumers continued to patronize the custom shoemakers. The much talked about sweatshops did not produce clothes for the rich, but for people in modest circumstances. The fashionable ladies and gentlemen preferred and still do prefer custom-made frocks and suits.
The outstanding fact about the Industrial Revolution is that it opened an age of mass production for the needs of the masses. The wage earners are no longer people toiling merely for other people's well-being. They themselves are the main consumers of the products the factories turn out. Big business depends upon mass consumption. There is, in present-day America, not a single branch of big business that would not cater to the needs of the masses. The very principle of capitalist entrepreneurship is to provide for the common man. In his capacity as consumer the common man is the sovereign whose buying or abstention from buying decides the fate of entrepreneurial activities. There is in the market economy no other means of acquiring and preserving wealth than by supplying the masses in the best and cheapest way with all the goods they ask for."
To prevent people from speeding on roadways, we introduce a fine for speeding. As a result, less people speed because there is a disincentive.
To make people live poor lifestyles, we introduce the concept of "welfare for nothing". As a result, more people do nothing to get paid. Welfare is an incentive to be poor/unemployed.
I disagree with this approach. I used to use it in the past but I believe it suffers from the flaw Rothbard identified in his essay Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature: it cedes the moral high ground from the outset. That is, the "government hurts more than helps the poor" argument cedes from the outset that it's a nice idea to use government to help the poor, it's a good theory, it just doesn't work out in practice. "You have the right intentions, but it's just not practical." At one time, abolishing slavery was not practical since most of the economy relied on slave production... production that would have gone to zero if the slaves were freed since they were incapable of producing independently. Today, no one would accept this as a justifiable excuse for the continuation or resurrection of slavery. In other words, even if abolishing slavery were at one time impractical, it was nevertheless the morally right thing to do and every endeavor to free slaves from their plight was morally justified.
If we cede from the outset that State redistribution of property is a "noble goal" then its impracticality is a mere hiccup. But it is not a noble goal. Pursuing a policy of redistribution of property not only has bad side effects it is bad.
Now, the vast majority of people either actively defend this bad policy or shrug their shoulders at the suggestion that it is bad. This is unfortunate but there is no quick-and-dirty rhetorical trick which you can employ which will change the reality that these people are not correctly assessing the situation, ethically. You can't argue someone into seeing the truth. There is no argument you can employ which will right someone's moral compass. All you can do is lay out the truth and wait and hope for people to see it as it is.
Clayton -
Clayton,
This approach doesn't "cede the moral high ground". Rather, it is a matter of shifting altogether from the moralist battleground (which is equally flat and muddy for all its spurious disputants) to the scientific battleground of economics, where the battle is fought over existential propositions that can actually be meaningfully affirmed or denied, and where the scientific case for capitalism is invincible, assuming the disputants prefer abundance to privation.
Clayton, This approach doesn't "cede the moral high ground". Rather, it is a matter of shifting altogether from the moralist battleground (which is equally flat and muddy for all its spurious disputants) to the scientific battleground of economics, where the battle is fought over existential propositions that can actually be meaningfully affirmed or denied, and where the scientific case for capitalism is invincible, assuming the disputants prefer abundance to privation.
While I reject Rothbard's belief that he derived ought-from-is, I do agree with him on the priority of ethical over practical arguments.
I don't dispute that economics provides a powerful tool to critique the transparently self-serving rationalizations of statists and the silly schemes of social engineers. But economics is value-free science, as Mises said, and is therefore of no use in choosing ends, only means given ends. And I think it is more pressing to critique the ends of the State than its means. Both are evil, but the ends of the State are morally reprehensible and so long as that is left off the table, a discussion of the means of the State is just a polite disagreement between like-minded people over the best way forward to a common goal. The State is a voracious band of thugs (at least, the kernel of the State) and we ought not confine ourselves to mere polite disagreement over Keynesian versus Austrian ideas regarding economic stimulus. Without calling out the fact that the State is a crime-racket and its ends are criminal, we have fallen infinitely far short of actually providing a real criticism of the State. It's like saying that Al Capone was a menace to society merely because he did not pay taxes. His failure to pay taxes is so trivial as to be irrelevant... his murder, extortion, racketeering and general mayhem are the reasons Capone was a menace to society.
You are also mistaken in thinking that scientific debate is more "solid" than ethical discussion which is "muddy". Humans have evolved an ethical sense which is not socially programmed or arbitrary. The State is an affront to the most basic ethical principle of all: the Golden Rule, the idea that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The State sets up and carefully maintains a two-tiered law to protect the criminal actions of its agents and to impose its arbitrary will on its subjects. Exposing this fact is the single most powerful attack on the State, in my view. Nothing else even comes close. Joe Six-Pack will never hear of - let alone, understand - Mises' regression theorem. But he can understand that the State maintains a blatant double-standard between itself and its subjects. And while I agree that the opinion-molding class is important to long-term change from the state order, as long as the masses are willing to accept the State's moral/legal double-standard, there is no hope for change. The State will continue to be able to extort taxes from the public and then use these monies to buy up the buyable minds in the opinion-molding class and suck all the oxygen out of the existential debate over the state order. Things will never change until there is first a movement in the masses to throw off the moral/legal double-standard of the State. After that, it's all downhill.
Taking money away from people makes them less charitable. I could want to give away $2,000 per year, but if someone forces me to give only $1,000 away to someone I don't know, then I'm not going to give the other $1,000 because I feel ripped off.
And the ever-famous, when you take money away from companies, they can hire less people. They aren't going to take money away from their own salary when taxes are high. They'll simply fire workers.
Just look at unemployment duration in the European Union compared to the U.S. and Canada. It's ridiculous.
the ends of the State are morally reprehensible and so long as that is left off the table, a discussion of the means of the State is just a polite disagreement between like-minded people over the best way forward to a common goal.
What is wrong with that?
Without calling out the fact that the State is a crime-racket and its ends are criminal, we have fallen infinitely far short of actually providing a real criticism of the State.
Such criticisms are merely an expression of one's own value judgments. You cannot prove a value judgment. There is no way of objectively determining the superiority between your expression of your own value judgment and a socialist's expression of his value judgment about property being evil.
his murder, extortion, racketeering and general mayhem are the reasons Capone was a menace to society.
Whether someone is a menace to society is a consequentialist, not a moralist, concern.
Humans have evolved an ethical sense which is not socially programmed or arbitrary.
Naturalistic fallacy
Joe Six-Pack will never hear of - let alone, understand - Mises' regression theorem.
He doesn't need to. He only needs to have enough of a general grasp of economic thinking to be convinced of the bounty of capitalism, and the destructiveness of interventionism. Either that or the thought-leaders of society can be convinced of the superior bounty of capitalism (even for themselves), whose intellectual authority can sway the second-hand dealers of ideas, whose intellectual authority can sway joe six-pack.
as long as the masses are willing to accept the State's moral/legal double-standard
They will ALWAYS accept a double-standard if they think doing so will mean a more plentiful life for them and their children.
the ends of the State are morally reprehensible and so long as that is left off the table, a discussion of the means of the State is just a polite disagreement between like-minded people over the best way forward to a common goal. What is wrong with that?
Well, I don't share a common goal with 99.9% of those discussing the State, namely, to reform or reshape or reorient it, etc. My only goal is to eliminate it.
Without calling out the fact that the State is a crime-racket and its ends are criminal, we have fallen infinitely far short of actually providing a real criticism of the State. Such criticisms are merely an expression of one's own value judgments.
Such criticisms are merely an expression of one's own value judgments.
Yes, and without making a value judgment (even something like "abundance is preferable to destitution") it is impossible to critique the status quo. The status quo is just another category of human action without value judgments.
You cannot prove a value judgment.
OK, but value judgments are not arbitrary, either. So I don't see why it matters whether I can "prove" one or not. They are, at least in part, a consequence of our nature. Poison tastes bad for a reason... because we are not the descendants of creatures which did not have a distaste for poison. We experience guilt and shame when we engage in bad behavior for similar reasons.
There is no way of objectively determining the superiority between your expression of your own value judgment and a socialist's expression of his value judgment about property being evil.
OK, but who cares? Everyone knows a double-standard is wrong (Golden Rule) and that is sufficient to establish an ethic of self-ownership (and, by extension, private property) as well as to deconstruct the most crucial and pernicious aspect of the State, the system of personal privilege.
his murder, extortion, racketeering and general mayhem are the reasons Capone was a menace to society. Whether someone is a menace to society is a consequentialist, not a moralist, concern.
I was speaking colloquially... "menace to society" ~= "bad person"
Humans have evolved an ethical sense which is not socially programmed or arbitrary. Naturalistic fallacy
Not at all. Speaking to people's evolved ethical sense is exactly what we mean by "moral argument." It is only because ethical sense is not arbitrary that moral argument is possible.
Joe Six-Pack will never hear of - let alone, understand - Mises' regression theorem. He doesn't need to. He only needs to have enough of a general grasp of economic thinking to be convinced of the bounty of capitalism, and the destructiveness of interventionism. Either that or the thought-leaders of society can be convinced of the superior bounty of capitalism (even for themselves), whose intellectual authority can sway the second-hand dealers of ideas, whose intellectual authority can sway joe six-pack.
Yes, I understand and assent to the Misesian/Rothbardian/Hoppean strategy. Nevertheless, I do not think it beats the Establishment strategy which is: "keep the masses inured into the system of dual-law so we can propagate our Establishment by any means at any cost paid on the backs of the masses." Until the masses begin to resist the State, the State will continue to win against all comers.
as long as the masses are willing to accept the State's moral/legal double-standard They will ALWAYS accept a double-standard if they think doing so will mean a more plentiful life for them and their children.
I don't think that people are amenable to the State's double-standard out of a misguided self-interest. I know that's Hoppe's account of why people tolerate a State but I just feel like it's inconsistent... "humans act in the pursuit of their own interests ... except when it comes to the State when they are brainwashed and go all haywire and only think they're pursuing their own interests when, in fact, they are not." I think there's some truth to that but it just seems like a weak argument to me.
Hazlitt destroyed Welfare programs and gave great examples in Man v. The Welfare State. Truly insightful.
Wouldn't you like to shrink the state? If so, you would have a common goal with a lot of people if we just taught them some sound economics.
Yes, and without making a value judgment (even something like "abundance is preferable to destitution") it is impossible to critique the status quo.
Almost everybody already shares that value judgment. They don't however share the judgment that state action is inherently criminal.
Yes, our values have causes. So what?
Everyone knows a double-standard is wrong
Obviously they don't, or they wouldn't accept on a daily basis with regard to the government.
Speaking to people's evolved ethical sense is exactly what we mean by "moral argument."
People do have a natural revulsion to certain acts; but that is just one of many sensibilities which contend within a man's psyche to determine action. Your attempts to foster a man's indignation at theft can be matched at every turns by someone else's envy-mongering. On the other hand, sound economics has a decided advantage over fallacious economics, because it's true and useful. Appeals to emotion are not the way forward.
It is only because ethical sense is not arbitrary that moral argument is possible.
You are confusing the term "arbitrary" with the term "uncaused" or "indeterminate".
Nevertheless, I do not think it beats the Establishment strategy...
The establishment would be better of under maximal capitalism too. There IS an ecumenical harmony of interests.
But, Economic prosperity means more money for people. More money for people means more taxes to collect. So why does government perpetuate the poor problem?
I think it's for votes/power... How can you 'help' the poor if there aren't many poor people to vote you in as thanks?
Grayson Lilburne:The establishment would be better of under maximal capitalism too.
Their actions reveal otherwise, do they not?
Clayton, the problem with doing what you're doing is that you are appealing to subjective value systems. Not everybody shares the basic axioms that you need to build your "moral" argument. If you're going to argue about the proper role of coercive action, there will be tense disagreement. Let's remember, you're not going to create a society without coercive action, as even anarcho-capitalist societies will utilize coercion in some form or another. And in case you need to be reminded, most people on the planet are not supporters of the non-aggression principle. We live in states after all, don't we? They think their sense of moral order overrides peoples' ability to be free.
There's nothing you can do to change that. Unless you show them a way that maximizes economic efficiency so that they will not feel the need to ram anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-welfare bullcrap. Rather, you do have to argue the economics. If you're in a debate with somebody who says the State provides good health care for everybody whereas the market would leave them by the wayside, you either say a) that it's okay for poor people to die on the streets or b) that the market better provides health care on a mass scale. In other words, you wind up arguing the economics because you each want to see society healthier. Even then, you may have the Statist say, "if even one person goes without health care, that is enough reason to have a State" whereas an anti-Statist will say, "if even one person is unjustly coerced into funding this unkown person's health care, it is a moral travesty!" Again, different value systems.
Let's extend economics to morality though (because subjective preferences overlap to a great extent). You bring up the issue of the slavery when once upon a time it was economically beneficial. But the well-being of the slave can also factor into our decision making, thus making it a cost/benefit analysis. If slavery is economically advantageous in the future, do we use slavery? I'd argue some would want to, but most of us would detract from that proposition because the idea of people being in bondage makes us feel bad. The opportunity cost is the lost efficiency in the market, but the benefit is not having slavery on your conscious. Voila, it boils down to economics.