Economics Questions

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:46:22 GMT

Southern:
Of the 40 million or so who recieve public assistance, how many do you think meet your criteria for being completely helpless. (I looked briefly but could not find any numbers, but I believe it is safe to say that there are only a handfull) That raises another question.

If this small group of people is unable to care for themselves, how do they negotiate the tangle of paperwork and regulation neccessary to recieve their entitlements? If you think about it for a minute you will answer your own concerns.

It is people who care and freely give of thier time and money, take them down to the DSS office, fill out the neccessary paperwork, they open a savings account where the money is deposited, they go to the grocery store and buy food, they dress them in the mornings, so forth and so on.

Excellent point. I'll have to remember this.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Southern — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:44:26 GMT

whipitgood:

Stranger:
However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can't provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the 'it's immoral to force another person to give them financial aid' objection, and that's all well and good, but if you don't have a real solution, then you're never going to convince those who don't already accept libertarian ethics. You're asking them to abandon their concern for those who can't fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

Of the 40 million or so who recieve public assistance, how many do you think meet your criteria for being completely helpless. (I looked briefly but could not find any numbers, but I believe it is safe to say that there are only a handfull) That raises another question.

If this small group of people is unable to care for themselves, how do they negotiate the tangle of paperwork and regulation neccessary to recieve their entitlements? If you think about it for a minute you will answer your own concerns.

It is people who care and freely give of thier time and money, take them down to the DSS office, fill out the neccessary paperwork, they open a savings account where the money is deposited, they go to the grocery store and buy food, they dress them in the mornings, so forth and so on.

So lets take the resources we give the 39 million or so that are capable and give it back to those who earned it. A portion of that money will go straight back into the hands of people who care, who will then be more capable of caring for and protecting the helpless.

The system is set up now so that those trully in need have to compete for resource with people who are not in need. This because those doing the giving are completely removed from the situation. Its not their time or money. Need is determined by some arbitrary set of income figures, set by a political process.

A free market system where assistance is given on a personal level will ensure that the resource go to the ones who need it, because those giving will be neck deep and personally invested.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Torsten — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:50:06 GMT

Stranger:

There is no such thing in a free market.

Is there such a thing like a free market? I also doubt that there will be no leeches in a free market society would it exist.

Just that private welfare institutions, might be looking a bit closer on the guys that ask for welfare (then in a state were some armchair-marxist in the welfare office does deal out tax money) or so I imagine.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

bobbyveech — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:01:02 GMT

whipitgood:

I understand the 'it's immoral to force another person to give them financial aid' objection, and that's all well and good, but if you don't have a real solution, then you're never going to convince those who don't already accept libertarian ethics. You're asking them to abandon their concern for those who can't fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It seems to me that there isn't any specific market solution for this situation (if the appeal to charity isn't enough) in the same way that a socialist country that decided to privatize bread production could not predict how many loaves of bread would be baked one year from now. I don't think there's any way to "guarantee" that, absent government welfare, all those who are disabled and hence unable to work would receive $____ million dollars, or whatever else might convince a proponent of the welfare state.

I think the best path to take is to stress the underlying coercion of the government welfare system. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room. I've had several extended conversations with a friend of mine who can agree that taxation is theft, but still can't get the possibility that some people might slip through the cracks with voluntary charity.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Stranger — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:34:17 GMT

whipitgood:
So someone who is on welfare because they don't want to work

There is no such thing in a free market.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

whipitgood — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:28:52 GMT

Stranger:

whipitgood:

Stranger:
However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can't provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the 'it's immoral to force another person to give them financial aid' objection, and that's all well and good, but if you don't have a real solution, then you're never going to convince those who don't already accept libertarian ethics. You're asking them to abandon their concern for those who can't fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It is exactly the same.

So someone who is on welfare because they don't want to work is the same as someone who is mentally disabled and physically can't work?

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Stranger — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:13:55 GMT

whipitgood:

Stranger:
However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can't provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the 'it's immoral to force another person to give them financial aid' objection, and that's all well and good, but if you don't have a real solution, then you're never going to convince those who don't already accept libertarian ethics. You're asking them to abandon their concern for those who can't fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It is exactly the same.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

whipitgood — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:54:59 GMT

Stranger:
However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can't provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the 'it's immoral to force another person to give them financial aid' objection, and that's all well and good, but if you don't have a real solution, then you're never going to convince those who don't already accept libertarian ethics. You're asking them to abandon their concern for those who can't fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Torsten — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:28:55 GMT

Novus Zarathustra:

"We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper".
Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

... If the state is "looking after everyone", the idea of looking after each other gets weakened.

Capitalism is not only about competition, but also about cooperation. Try to get anywhere without cooperating and you'll see what I mean.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Stranger — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:08:04 GMT

Novus Zarathustra:

What the hell do you say to people who think we need a dependence on the Government? I often get this mainstream statement from statists

"We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper".

Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

Tell them that there is a market for welfare just like everything else, and just like everything else on the market welfare should not be free. If someone is truly in need and has truly experienced misfortune, then others will come to his aid (make sure to ask if the person debating you would help someone in need). However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself. Especially if he is in trouble because of a self-destructive lifestyle, he will not obtain aid without reforming his lifestyle.

The problem with government welfare socialism is the same problem as with all socialism, it gives welfare away for free. Because it does this, it drives out of the market all forms of private welfare.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:00:22 GMT

understanding capitalism, means understanding that self interest , in a capitalist system, leads people to benefit others.since to benefit themselves they must. (the invisible hand . consumer sovereignty)

capitalism, or in other words, civilized society, is precisely the system of people voluntarily doing 'good deeds' for each other( even without needing to know each other intimately)

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Novus Zarathustra — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:46:21 GMT

What the hell do you say to people who think we need a dependence on the Government? I often get this mainstream statement from statists

"We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper".

Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

DD5 — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:07:39 GMT

whipitgood:
but I have a difficult time believing that private charity could help the mentally disabled, who require a lot of money to care for.

What is "a lot of money"? What is the sufficient adequate sum that you have in mind? How is it calculated and by what sort of objective standard do you determine what is sufficient?

If you cannot precisely answer the above questions, then your belief is mythical in nature. Your objection to charity is unreasonable.

whipitgood:
I understand that line of reasoning, and I'm inclined to agree that it's wrong to take from one and give to another by force, but is there a viable non-state alternative to government benefits to people who physically cannot work to support themselves?

If you support the principle of government intervention whenever you personally don't deem the outcome of private voluntary initiative satisfactory, then you support tyranny. Clearly, the government in all such cases is not acting on behalf of the people, but on behalf of dictatorial aspirations.

This is not unique to welfare, but to all forms of regulations and intervention in the economy.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

Felipe — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:27:19 GMT

Conagain:

no, people WILL NOT get the help they get today (or else they'd be getting it today)

BUT, why should they? Helping losers is an abomination of nature and hinderence to social progress.

We don't prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?

Sometimes people just have bad luck

I understand the contradiction in helping some people by robing other people but if you put it like that you are just handing out the moral high ground to the socialists.

Re: Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

whipitgood — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:24:11 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

That's why charity exists.

This is probably poor forum etiquette, but I'm going to be "that guy" and resurrect this thread for a day or so in the hopes that someone can answer my question. I figured this was better than starting a whole new thread.

I totally agree about welfare insofar as it means forced redistribution of money to the poor, but I have a difficult time believing that private charity could help the mentally disabled, who require a lot of money to care for. Is there a better argument than 'why should I have to pay for it?' I understand that line of reasoning, and I'm inclined to agree that it's wrong to take from one and give to another by force, but is there a viable non-state alternative to government benefits to people who physically cannot work to support themselves? Do you think that they would likely be taken care of, and if yes, how might that work?

Not trolling, it's a sincere question.