I'm talking about Section 8, WiC, food stamps and public assistance.
I hate to say, but I don't see charitable donations outdoing the food stamps then what is provided by the state. Its hard to debate this with people, because liberals will often use these Government programs as a necessity for helping people
Would people get as effective help without these welfare programs? There's obviously a lot of problems with privatizing them, so I really don't see what to say.
We also have high standards of living with a population of 300 million.
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.
"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.
Capitalism is not only about competition, but also about cooperation. Try to get anywhere without cooperating and you'll see what I mean.
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?
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
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.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
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?
whipitgood:So someone who is on welfare because they don't want to work
There is no such thing in a free market.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.