Imagine people of a territory (be it New Hampshire, Egypt, or Switzerland) getting a chance of abandoning welfare state.
What course of action would you recommend?
Abolishing the state overnight? This will lead to loss of health and life for many people.
Gradually decreasing benefits over the course of decades?
Leaving the tax burden intact, but removing the promise of benefits in future?
I do not really see a fully satisfactory solution, and what's worse, it looks like a transition from the government solution to market solution cannot be guided by market process - sounds like a catch 22 - we need coercion to end coercion.
To clarify my point - assume a person's life is sustained by use of really expensive drugs or machinery, so that he cannot afford that himself. I agree that there is no such thing as a (positive) right for health, but wouldn't instantaneous abolition of welfare benefits kill the person? How can we view this situation in NAP perspective - is this patient an aggressor, and killing him a just and proportional defense? Or is his death just a natural event, and not a murder?
Oh and BTW, I know about private charities, but somehow this argument never works when I try to use it against my opponents.
People have no right to anything, even things they need to survive. If abolishing welfare meant someone would starve to death - so be it. No one is aggressing on anyone by ceasing robbery.
Right, but how to defend this point in discussions with (yet) non-libertarians?
abirkmanis: Right, but how to defend this point in discussions with (yet) non-libertarians? I have no suggestions. I think most people are socialists by nature and base their ethics entirely on popularity/signaling and irrationalist intuitionism; ergo I don't much bother trying to defend rational positions from nonsensical criticisms. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
The biggest issue is the source of money for the theft by government. That would be the central bank. Then you have to allow people to provide these services in competition with the government then allow opting out. So here is my progression:
1. Allow money producers to compete with the Federal Reserve. This includes removing all taxes on gold and silver transactions and allowing people to write contracts in gold and silver.
2. Remove licensing, restrictions on competition, etc and allow market forces to compete with the government sponsored folks.
3. Once market actors get up and running then allow the payers to opt out.
At 3 the government provision of the service is dead. But note that the base is not taxation but fiat money.
To clarify my point - assume a person's life is sustained by use of really expensive drugs or machinery,
I don't want to be mean so i won't say it. But concerning machinery. In Canadian Hospitals, they make decisions everyday on who to unplug.You can't pay for healthcare, everyone must be treated the same and wait in line.
So, if you pay taxes all your life and they deem that your father is not worth keeping alive, well.... Imagine they decide to use those resources on someone who's on welfare. Socialism doesn't save anyone.
I live in Quebec, and guess how much the government spends and what our debt is...225 537 942 725,72$ and it's constantly growing.
Arguing with these people is a enormous waste of time. While you're at it, you can also argue with conspiracy theorists, like those nutjobs who believe that the world is ruled by reptile like aliens(I'm serious lol). You can also join a religion and tell me how that works out for you. It is absolutely pointless, some people are too into they're ideology.
In college, my Marxist geography teacher and the majority of people my age think I'ma white oppressor capitalist pig. All this because I wrote my opinion, when we were asked what our political beliefs were.
"I know about private charities, but"
lol. I love it. If you abolish forced wealth redistribution, people would become a heck of alot more charitable.
But of course, no statist can be bothered to think about that.
Give all tax-collecting responsibilities as well as all expenses, welfare and otherwise, to cities and communes (let them sign a treaty setting up a mutual company to run their defense, or even outsource defense entirely). Some will go bust (and suffer revolutions), but not all. Increased political competition will allow more freedom and prosperity. Perhaps it will make welfare go away in time. But cutting welfare immediately will not erase the state, it will just fuel a revolt that’ll end up setting a far more powerful state. Decentralization is the only way forward. No overnight anarchy, I’m afraid.
Merlin: Give all tax-collecting responsibilities as well as all expenses, welfare and otherwise, to cities and communes (let them sign a treaty setting up a mutual company to run their defense, or even outsource defense entirely). Some will go bust (and suffer revolutions), but not all. Increased political competition will allow more freedom and prosperity. Perhaps it will make welfare go away in time. But cutting welfare immediately will not erase the state, it will just fuel a revolt that’ll end up setting a far more powerful state. Decentralization is the only way forward. No overnight anarchy, I’m afraid.
I agree. Going back to the Articles of Confederation is a necessary first step.
Abolish Soveriegn Immunity.
One week after such a thing were implemented, all State programs would yield to the market almost overnight.
Well, at least de jure, most governments have no immunity from tort and contract.