|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
#6465379 - 01/16/07 10:22 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yes, and the fact that i am opposed to forcing some people to provide for other people means i don't care about them? the fact that you are not means that you do?
Regardless of which intangible philosophy you have chosen to stake a piece of your ego against, if scenario A (Welfare State) means group A are forced to contribute to the welfare of others (Group B) which in turn helps Group B to improve their standard of living whilst not having a large negative impact on Group A why would you then prefer Scenario B (poorly funded private charity) which will have a positive impact on Group A but an adverse affect on Group B?
Which is more important, people agreeing with you and following your philosophy or as many people as possible enjoying a satisfactory standard of living?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
#6466267 - 01/16/07 02:46 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: Regardless of which intangible philosophy you have chosen to stake a piece of your ego against, if scenario A (Welfare State) means group A are forced to contribute to the welfare of others (Group B) which in turn helps Group B to improve their standard of living whilst not having a large negative impact on Group A why would you then prefer Scenario B (poorly funded private charity) which will have a positive impact on Group A but an adverse affect on Group B?
Which is more important, people agreeing with you and following your philosophy or as many people as possible enjoying a satisfactory standard of living?
The problem is that the scenario of the truly beneficial "welfare state" doesn't actually exist anywhere because of a total lack of accountability.
I've never understood the kinds of claims made in favor of the current welfare state. Quite frankly it hasn't worked for the past 50 years, and I can see no indication that it's about to start working in the foreseeable future.
The exact same groups that were poor and uneducated in 1950 are still, unfortunately by and large, uneducated today. This happened despite the civil rights movement, social security, welfare, the "Great Society", medicare, medicaid, the NEA, etc. et al.
It's even worse in Europe. France, which has a far more massive social net than the US, sports a 10% unemployment rate, but among the Muslim population, the unemployment rate is 40%. How's that for equality?
For 5 decades we've tried socialism, and I'm sorry to say, it's not working, it never has worked, and there is no evidence suggesting it ever will work.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, during the Great Depression, Private Charity was NOT "poorly funded". On the contrary it was able to provide for those Americans not working. The claim that private charity will be poorly funded in a world without a social net is baseless, as we have a historical example of private charity actually being quite adequately funded prior to the introduction of a social net.
Instead, a better picture looks like this: Scenario 1 means that Group A must fund Program B to held Group C, or face a penalty under the law. As a result, there is absolutely no accountability to Program B, because they have the police to ensure that Group A keeps forking over cash. Adding to this dilemma is the fact that the administrators of Program B have learned to manipulate the votes of Group C to keep them perpertually in administrative positions. This is a fairly accurate description of the modern welfare state, not just in America, but also in Europe.
Scenario 2 means that Group A voluntarily donates to Programs B, C, and D, all of which attempt to help Group E in separate ways. Programs B, C, and D all compete for the same dollars from Group A and have no method of manipulating Group A. B, C, and D must constantly find ways to be more helpful to Group E, otherwise they know that Group A will stop funding them in favor of more successful groups, since Group A is giving their money voluntarily. This is, in my opinion, a far preferable scenario.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
#6466444 - 01/16/07 03:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
Between the now- disgraced inner city nonprofit and the liberal radio network that took $875,000 of its taxpayer- funded money, why won't anybody face jail time?
So was this money provided to this org. by the gov't or private donors? That sentence is really confusing.
They received some funding from various government agencies as well as private donations. I think they got kicked off the government list for assistance because of this and the publicity dried up any private funds so they are now a dead thing. Frankly, I think the guy makes an irrelevant distinction. Embezzlement is a crime no matter whose money it is or what it was to be used for.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6466450 - 01/16/07 03:53 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Scenario 1 means that Group A must fund Program B to held Group C, or face a penalty under the law. As a result, there is absolutely no accountability to Program B, because they have the police to ensure that Group A keeps forking over cash. Adding to this dilemma is the fact that the administrators of Program B have learned to manipulate the votes of Group C to keep them perpertually in administrative positions. This is a fairly accurate description of the modern welfare state, not just in America, but also in Europe.
Scenario 2 means that Group A voluntarily donates to Programs B, C, and D, all of which attempt to help Group E in separate ways. Programs B, C, and D all compete for the same dollars from Group A and have no method of manipulating Group A. B, C, and D must constantly find ways to be more helpful to Group E, otherwise they know that Group A will stop funding them in favor of more successful groups, since Group A is giving their money voluntarily.
We already have both these scenarios yet it still doesn't seem to fix the problem. How would elimating one of them help anything?
|
Economist
in training
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
|
We don't actually have both of the scenarios because of the misconceptions, as well as burden, placed on Group A (the donators/taxpayers) by the government.
Donators who are already carrying a tax burden are less willing and less able to donate towards private institutions (some don't have anything to spare, others think the government is doing "enough"). Since private institutions have an incentive to be efficient, but the government does not (especially since welfare recipients are able to elect government officials) the current system is biased towards inefficiency. However, if the tax burden was done away with, more money would be free to donate towards private organizations, which would tend to use it more efficiently.
Look at it this way, if the US government welfare systems (any of them, whether its social security, medicare, or unemployment) had to compete with independent organizations, do you really think anyone would voluntarily donate money to the current system instead of alternatives?
I'd also offer the evidence that no private retirement plans even remotely resemble Social Security as proof that no one would voluntarily pay into an organization that resembled the current US government systems.
Also...
I noticed your post about Negative Income Tax earlier in the thread, and I'm just curious about what your view was on how it should be set up. Personally I liked Milton Friedman's ideas, but by his own admission you would have to set the "citizen paycheck" at a level that no one could actually survive on it for very long at all. I don't disagree with this, but I do think it's problematic, hence my wish to free up funds for private charity instead.
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
#6467308 - 01/16/07 07:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
if scenario A (Welfare State) means group A are forced to contribute to the welfare of others (Group B) which in turn helps Group B to improve their standard of living whilst not having a large negative impact on Group A why would you then prefer Scenario B (poorly funded private charity) which will have a positive impact on Group A but an adverse affect on Group B?
because it is not my place to decide what is or isn't a large negative impact on group B.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6467834 - 01/16/07 09:48 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Look at it this way, if the US government welfare systems (any of them, whether its social security, medicare, or unemployment) had to compete with independent organizations, do you really think anyone would voluntarily donate money to the current system instead of alternatives?
I agree that our current system is not effective. "The government is an organization that, while doing small things badly, does large things badly too." I think Hurricane Katrina also showed just how much more effective private organizations are than the government. I'm certainly not trying to debate you on that point. I just have a hard time believing a private organization would receive as much money as the federal government receives through taxation.
I noticed your post about Negative Income Tax earlier in the thread, and I'm just curious about what your view was on how it should be set up. Personally I liked Milton Friedman's ideas, but by his own admission you would have to set the "citizen paycheck" at a level that no one could actually survive on it for very long at all. I don't disagree with this, but I do think it's problematic, hence my wish to free up funds for private charity instead.
I liked Milton Friedman's ideas very much. I'm far from an expert concerning this subject, but it seems that a Negative Income Tax would be much less wasteful than our current welfare system. A lot of money seems to get clogged up in red tape.
I also think a major cause of poverty is the lack of jobs in certain communities. If you take a stroll through the ghetto, you'll notice there aren't many businesses around. Businesses seem to have a hard time in areas where people don't have the money to buy their products and the people can't get enough money because they have no place to work. I'd like to see the government subsidize businesses in these communities until they're able to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, since I'm not an economist, I'm not sure if this would actually work. (Feel free to enlighten me.)
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
#6468473 - 01/17/07 02:42 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: And how "adverse" would you be willing to see conditions get for them? Starving in the streets?
yes, and the fact that i am opposed to forcing some people to provide for other people means i don't care about them? the fact that you are not means that you do?
So you would be fine seeing people starving in the streets? Why were you so anxious to deny this a few days ago?
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6468475 - 01/17/07 02:48 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Donators who are already carrying a tax burden are less willing and less able to donate towards private institutions (some don't have anything to spare, others think the government is doing "enough"). However, if the tax burden was done away with, more money would be free to donate towards private organizations, which would tend to use it more efficiently.
Nah, I don't buy that. If that was the case rich executives with tax havens (to whom the tax burden is meaningless) would put more money in the homeless guys hat than me. They don't. As one rich guy famously put it "The homeless are those people you trip over on your way out of the theater".
This idea that free-market libertarians who loathe the unemployed will suddenly get home and say "Wow, I've got $2000 more in my wage packet this month because there's no tax, now shall I give to spongers who don't work or put it towards buying my new Porsche?".
If you want to bet on i - I'll bet they'd buy the new Porsche
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6468496 - 01/17/07 03:42 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Actually this highlights another massive and fundamental flaw in the idea of "private charity". You claim that if "the people" want welfare they will give money and everything will be fine. This assumes the wealth in the country is evenly distributed. It isn't. Wealth is massively concentrated in the hands of people who have a direct self-interest in making welfare as little as possible. Business owners, executives who need cheap labour. It's no use having people able to feed themselves on welfare when you need them to slave their guts out to maximise your profits. Obviously these people will give nothing to private welfare charities. Neither will their companies.
Where do you make up this shortfall?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6468541 - 01/17/07 04:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The problem is that the scenario of the truly beneficial "welfare state" doesn't actually exist anywhere because of a total lack of accountability.
I agree completely. But the level of accountability would drop even further if the welfare state was entirely replaced by private charity.
The point I was discussing with Wilshire was "Currently we have a mixture of private charity and state welfare yet people still struggle to afford medical care etc etc. How would this situation improve by removing state welfare and relying solely on private charity?"
He agreed that it is unlikely the shortfall would be made up if the Welfare State was abolished. Do you agree?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
#6468549 - 01/17/07 05:14 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Adding to this dilemma is the fact that the administrators of Program B have learned to manipulate the votes of Group C to keep them perpertually in administrative positions. This is a fairly accurate description of the modern welfare state, not just in America, but also in Europe.
Lol!! Are you telling me that Group C, i.e the underpivileged, are the main reason that the US has a republican government and also the main reason the UK had a conservative government for 20 years??????
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
#6468674 - 01/17/07 07:48 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So you would be fine seeing people starving in the streets? Why were you so anxious to deny this a few days ago?
how does it follow from the fact that i am not willing to force some people to feed others that i don't care about their hunger? can you explain that?
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 30 days
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
#6468854 - 01/17/07 09:32 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This idea that free-market libertarians who loathe the unemployed...
Since when do libertarians hate the unemployed?
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
#6469651 - 01/17/07 01:44 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said: This idea that free-market libertarians who loathe the unemployed
Don't forget that we also like to kick puppies and lynch black people.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: pokermush]
#6469672 - 01/17/07 01:53 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
And libertarian's fingers are attached to thier foreheads.
Edited by MushmanTheManic (01/17/07 02:05 PM)
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
#6469702 - 01/17/07 02:03 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
This idea that free-market libertarians who loathe the unemployed...
Since when do libertarians hate the unemployed?
I'd actually like to see a survey on that one.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Gijith]
#6469791 - 01/17/07 02:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Something like this:
For Free-Market libertarians:
How much do you hate unemployed people? Check all that apply: - Just a little
- Lots
- They should be whipped and jailed, but not killed
- They should be rounded up and executed
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
#6472255 - 01/18/07 01:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: So you would be fine seeing people starving in the streets? Why were you so anxious to deny this a few days ago?
how does it follow from the fact that i am not willing to force some people to feed others that i don't care about their hunger? can you explain that?
So if the policies you follow resulted in starvation what would you do to prevent starvation?
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
#6472269 - 01/18/07 01:43 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
This idea that free-market libertarians who loathe the unemployed...
Since when do libertarians hate the unemployed?
You certainly don't seem to have too much concern whether "private charity" results in them having enough to eat or not. I assumed if you didn't care whether someone had enough food to live you didn't care for them.
|
|