Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
For any libertarian free-marketeer
    #6444047 - 01/10/07 02:00 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

After wilshires strange refusal to state his position on providing welfare for people who can't work, would any other libertarian on the board care to state their position? What's this idea of abolishing taxation and welfare and leaving it all to "private charity" for example? And what happens to people who can't work if "private charity" isn't enough to provide for them?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6444456 - 01/10/07 08:01 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

My position on it is the same as wilshire's -- government should not be permitted to seize by force some people's stuff (usually money) in order to give it to other people.

People have been kept alive by the charity of others for millennia -- long before governments involved themselves in income "redistribution programs". It seems to be axiomatic to Lefties that people would be "starving in the streets" (your words) of America in the XXIst century were it not for government-run welfare programs. This is sheer speculation on their part.

Those unfortunates who are actually incapable of supporting themselves can turn to family, friends, churches, organized charities and individual do-gooders for help.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Phred]
    #6444474 - 01/10/07 08:14 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

My position on it is the same as wilshire's

wilshire has refused to state his position. There's no need to try and speak for him.

People have been kept alive by the charity of others for millennia

People have died through neglect and want for millennia too.

This is sheer speculation on their part.


It follows fairly logically tho. If you have no money, you go hungry, you suffer illness you can't afford to treat etc.

Those unfortunates who are actually incapable of supporting themselves can turn to family, friends, churches, organized charities and individual do-gooders for help.


And if none of these have sufficient funds to provide for millions of unemployed people? What happens then?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6444497 - 01/10/07 08:20 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Alex, I'd like to give my answer, but first I want you to answer two questions for me:

1) Would you, personally, like to see those who cannot work taken care of (fed, sheltered, etc.)?

2) Do you honestly believe that a majority of people feel the same way you do?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6444533 - 01/10/07 08:38 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
Alex, I'd like to give my answer, but first I want you to answer two questions for me:

1) Would you, personally, like to see those who cannot work taken care of (fed, sheltered, etc.)?

2) Do you honestly believe that a majority of people feel the same way you do?




1) Yes.

2) Yes.

If the majority of ordinary people didn't support it then there's no way it would have happened. Big buisness loathes everything about the idea of welfare and if they thought they could get away with people living in tin shacks on half a tin of rice a day, dying at the age of 40, they would be overjoyed. They could get back to the good old days of slave labour.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6444654 - 01/10/07 09:43 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The you have my answer.

If you believe that those unable to work should be taken care of, and the majority of people feel the same way you do, then a system of private charity should be more than enough to take care of them because:

a) If you truly feel that people unable to work should be taken care of, then you must be willing to finance their living

and

b) If a majority of people echo your feelings, then a majority of others must be willing to finance the living of those who cannot work.

Then end result is that private charity will inherently be "enough" if the majority of the population is willing to contribute to it. If it's ever reported that it is "not enough" then that same majority must simply be willing to give more, which shouldn't be a problem if their true feelings are that those who cannot work need to be taken care of.

The only reason you would lead to legislate "mandatory" giving to charity (which is the same thing as welfare) is if the majority is not actually willing to finance those who cannot work and need to rob the minority to make up the difference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6444696 - 01/10/07 10:09 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Why should I be forced to contribute to the livelihood of people I have never met when I could be spending that money and more to help those in need that I am acquainted with?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6444816 - 01/10/07 10:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

No kidding, we send so much foreign aid all over the planet, when people in our own countries are starving, and people are dying in hospitals because they can't afford treatment.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6445552 - 01/10/07 02:39 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I'm all for a safety net. I don't have a problem with society supporting those who truly can't work, or temporarily lending a hand to those who fall on hard times. Whether through government or charity, its fine.

Three points though:
1) Private charity, while efficient, I don't think is fully effective in providing the help that is needed.

2) Society as a whole does have an interest in maintaining stability, and helping people get back on their feet and productive again. Ignoring the moral aspects, government needs to take some minimal steps to prevent disease, crime, and other problems that arise when the bottom rung hangs too low.

3) I think 1&2 can be handled with negligable public funding. It is the fraud, abuse, dependency, and the breeding bonuses that makes the whole thing spiral out of control.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6445690 - 01/10/07 03:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

What gives your acquaintances special rights? Should monetary assistance only be available to those who have befriended the wealthy?

Personally, I would like to see a Negative Income Tax.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6445858 - 01/10/07 04:35 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

After wilshires strange refusal to state his position on providing welfare for people who can't work

:lol:

this again?

when did i refuse to state my position on providing welfare for people who can't work? you didn't even ask me about it!

you'd think once was enough...

edit - whoops... i spoke too soon. looks like you asked me about it after all.

- wilshire, 0243 EST


--------------------


Edited by wilshire (01/11/07 12:43 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6446107 - 01/10/07 05:46 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

when did i refuse to state my position on providing welfare for people who can't work? you didn't even ask me about it!




thread

he asked in the original post and you never responded.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6446717 - 01/10/07 08:21 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Personally, I would like to see a Negative Income Tax.



I would consider that the second best option as far as tax reform goes.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetwiggedoubt
twigburst
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/01
Posts: 2,387
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Silversoul]
    #6446801 - 01/10/07 08:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Why the hell should I have to give money to someone that doesn't contribute shit to society? If you want to so much, you should donate money to a private charity, and help them yourself, I on the other hand could give 2 shits less. If the people in this country care so much, private organizations will do the job fine. I don't ever see this happening, and it really wouldn't improve life very much for either side. I still don't think I owe anyone shit, especially the fact that a lot of those people probably could work.

On a side note, I don't really see how any libertarian can agree with everything the LP stands for. It really would never work, though I do agree with a lot of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Vvellum]
    #6447384 - 01/11/07 12:16 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

he asked in the original post and you never responded.

that's because it was irrelevant to the claim he made. he claimed that i said i was comfortable with people starving in the streets and had said so on this board. he did not claim to remember me saying that i was comfortable with abolishing government welfare programs. if he had claimed the latter, he would have been correct. as it was, he was putting words into my mouth.

point taken however. i did ignore his question. should have re-read exactly what was asked before making my previous post.  :blush:


--------------------


Edited by wilshire (01/11/07 12:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6447416 - 01/11/07 12:37 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

-- government should not be permitted to seize by force some people's stuff (usually money) in order to give it to other people.





How is this defined due to Corporate welfare? Are the poor of this country less inclined to welfare then large corporations or businesses?


My solution to this problem, is when we pay our taxes we should be able to have 2 things. A receipt of where your tax money goes, and a form for you to designate where your tax money goes, whether it be to the military, education, or welfare. There should also be a surplus and a ceiling for programs so money can be shifted equally due to monetary containment.

This also discourages pork-barrel spending.

If i knew exactly where my tax-money was going... say if it were going to a program to make a Museum on Hammers i maybe less inclined to vote for my local congressmen.
Anyone else think this is a good idea.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6447418 - 01/11/07 12:38 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

since we've got that case of mistaken memory cleared up and we've got a new thread going...

Could you explain exactly how you would ensure the unemployed hungry/disabled were fed in your dream society?

i can't. it would be impossible for me, in any scenario, to provide for every person in need.

Presumably you would have abolished taxation and welfare?

yes, i thought that had always been clear. why the confusion?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6447604 - 01/11/07 02:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
The you have my answer.

If you believe that those unable to work should be taken care of, and the majority of people feel the same way you do, then a system of private charity should be more than enough to take care of them




Well, the majority of people feel they should be taken care of which is why there's a safety net. The best way of providing a safety net is through a regulated welfare system. Private charity simply isn't reliable enough to provide a safety net.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6447727 - 01/11/07 05:31 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Alex213 writes:

Quote:

The best way of providing a safety net is through a regulated welfare system. Private charity simply isn't reliable enough to provide a safety net.




Says who?

If the majority of people wish to help those in dire need, they will help those in need. There is no need to force them to do so -- though they may need the occasional reminder that funds for the local orphanage are running low, the same way that every now and then the local Red Cross blood bank decides it's time to run a drive for blood donors.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Phred]
    #6447888 - 01/11/07 07:52 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Alex213 writes:

Quote:

The best way of providing a safety net is through a regulated welfare system. Private charity simply isn't reliable enough to provide a safety net.




Says who?

If the majority of people wish to help those in dire need, they will help those in need. There is no need to force them to do so


Phred




There's no-one "forcing" them to do so. If everyone wanted to abandon the welfare state and go back to the Grapes of wrath days they would simply vote libertarian.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6448052 - 01/11/07 08:52 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You're ignoring Phred's point.

You stated that you believe the poor should be taken care of, and a majority agree with you. To me, that suggests that a majority would voluntarily give to the poor. You state that this is not correct because "private charity is unreliable".

Phred is asking you to prove that.

Please prove that private charity is unreliable, even though you would caim that a majority of people would support private charity financially even in the abscence of government regulation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6448394 - 01/11/07 11:01 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
You stated that you believe the poor should be taken care of, and a majority agree with you.  To me, that suggests that a majority would voluntarily give to the poor.  You state that this is not correct because "private charity is unreliable".



The problem here is that many who would share the view that the poor should be taken care of, won't always make the donations -- not out of an unwillingness, but rather because they don't think about it.

I support limited government and self-reliance. I prefer not to see the government doing anything that can be accomplished in better ways, but I also recognize that there is a legitimate need in society to provide a safety net. I think the US government does far too much, and much of what it does is wasted.

I also don't like relying on "faith-based" organizations, because I have no faith in them.  :crazy2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6449160 - 01/11/07 02:51 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

You stated that you believe the poor should be taken care of, and a majority agree with you. To me, that suggests that a majority would voluntarily give to the poor. You state that this is not correct because "private charity is unreliable".


You tell me exactly how you organise private charity to ensure any one of 60 million people gets welfare as soon as they need it.

Tell me how you prevent people putting terms and conditions on the "private charity" and taking advantage of people? Are these "individual do-gooders" allowed to invite young women to their house in order to "assess" whether they deserve "private charity" or not? How do you regulate this "private charity"?

BTW, how come private charity didn't work in the Grapes of Wrath days? Why was it necessary to introduce a welfare system in the first place?

Edited by Alex213 (01/11/07 02:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6449182 - 01/11/07 02:56 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Do you have any evidence that private charity is unreliable to back up your claim or are you just going to use hypothetical situations?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6449191 - 01/11/07 02:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Do you have any evidence that private charity is unreliable to back up your claim




Well we have the welfare state right? If private charity worked then the welfare state wouldn't exist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6449243 - 01/11/07 03:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
You tell me exactly how you organise private charity to ensure any one of 60 million people gets welfare as soon as they need it.

Tell me how you prevent people putting terms and conditions on the "private charity" and taking advantage of people? Are these "individual do-gooders" allowed to invite young women to their house in order to "assess" whether they deserve "private charity" or not? How do you regulate this "private charity"?



You have demonstrated the problem quite nicely here.

It isn't a crime, or even necessarily a bad thing, when poor people don't get "welfare as soon as they need it". You seem to view welfare as an entitlement. If someone isn't working, or they don't want to work, and they need some money, they are automatically entitled to it?

And if you're giving money to someone, what's wrong with conditions on that money? How about no breeding while on welfare? How about you have to work if you are able? What's wrong with that? The safety net should be to prevent the bottom rung of society from falling too low and to help them back up, not to create a dependent class with a sense of entitlement.

And if a woman who happens to be poor wants to better her life by entertaining a wealthier man for the evening, who are you to tell her she can't? That's one more person who doesn't need your handout anymore.

You seem to advocate a severely communist-fascist form of government. You might be able to find one that is already established that matches your ideals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6450415 - 01/11/07 08:49 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Do you have any evidence that private charity is unreliable to back up your claim or are you just going to use hypothetical situations?




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030301734.html

Quote:

Former American Red Cross chief executive Marsha J. Evans received a severance package valued at about $780,000 after she was ousted from the organization in December, according to documents released yesterday by the Red Cross.






http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/rec.charity.hearing/index.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Charities swung into action after the September 11 terrorist attacks, raising more than $1 billion. But questions are being raised about where and how and how much of that money is being distributed.

Bearing the brunt Tuesday during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was outgoing Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy.


http://www.answers.com/topic/american-red-cross


Quote:

In March 2006, investigations of allegations of fraud and theft by volunteers within the American Red Cross Katrina operations were launched by the Louisiana Attorney-General and the FBI [13] [14]. In April 2006, an unnamed former American Red Cross official leaked reports made by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the British Red Cross. These reports were particularly critical of American Red Cross operations in Hurricane Katrina affected regions.




Edited by The_Red_Crayon (01/11/07 08:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6450979 - 01/12/07 01:15 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Do you have any evidence that private charity is unreliable to back up your claim or are you just going to use hypothetical situations?




The problem with your argument here is that the entire libertarian argument that private charity is sufficient to provide for those in need is itself a completely hypothetical situation. Many libertarian assertions are conjectures that can't be proved or disproved unless they are tried out.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: gluke bastid]
    #6451308 - 01/12/07 06:06 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

gluke bastid said:
The problem with your argument here is that the entire libertarian argument that private charity is sufficient to provide for those in need is itself a completely hypothetical situation. Many libertarian assertions are conjectures that can't be proved or disproved unless they are tried out.



On the contrary, Libertarians have historical evidence backing up claims about the strength of private charity.

The Great Depression began when the stock market crashed in 1929, and there is significant consensus that conditions began to improve by 1932, when unemployment, the GDP, and the stock market all began their rebound.

But, Roosevelt's relief acts didn't come into existance until 1933. The first food stamp program wouldn't come about until 1939. Yet we have no record of "massive widespread starvation" during the three years between 1929 and 1932, when there was unquestionably no federal safety net available for Americans. We have anecdotal evidence that some starved (the infamous stories of eating weeds and garbage), but when you look at the actual numbers (limited as they are, I was still able to find some journal articles: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/52/3/457 this one isn't too bad) personal food consumption simply wasn't that low.

Comparably, we know from present day data in countries like Zimbabwe that 1 year of massive unemployment is more than enough to crash life-expectancy and send starvation through the roof. Yet here we have 3 years in the US where unemployment crashed, there was no safety net, and we did not see massive deaths from starvation.

What's the answer?

Simple: private charity. The "Soup Kitchens" of the 1930s that got America through the Great Depression were all run by private charity. Hence private charity can and did work historically.

As for Red Crayon's articles, I don't see the relevance. I can point to many, many more instances of corruption in the Federal Government, which is the current provider of welfare. The major difference is that when the Red Cross is corrupt, people are less likely to give to them and more likely to give to their competitors, eventually ecouraging austere charity. When the Federal Government is corrupt and wasteful, well, they take my tax money again next year anyway, or I go to jail.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6451794 - 01/12/07 10:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

On the contrary, Libertarians have historical evidence backing up claims about the strength of private charity.


You surely arn't claiming conditions people experienced during the Great Depression are something we should aspire to? Is that the best private charity can do? We should all try and aim for the conditions described in The Grapes of Wrath?

I can point to many, many more instances of corruption in the Federal Government, which is the current provider of welfare.

There's a fundamental difference. The federal government isn't going to run off to South America with everyone's charity money. Individuals are.

The major difference is that when the Red Cross is corrupt, people are less likely to give to them and more likely to give to their competitors

Maybe, or maybe they'd just see private charity as fundamentally corrupt and not give anything.

Competitors? Are you thinking that these private charities are going to be run on a profit basis? So if I give a private charity 50 bucks for the hungry, the executive directors could keep 40 bucks for themselves?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6451819 - 01/12/07 10:49 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So what you are saying is that the government should regulate the private charity industry instead of operating a welfare program. :thumbup:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: fireworks_god]
    #6452662 - 01/12/07 03:33 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.pursuingholiness.com/2007/01/04/soup-nazis-in-franc

"While it’s a safe bet that Solidarity of the French (SDF) selected the menu deliberately, so what? "

This can go either way here. I'm going out. I'll check back later.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Silversoul]
    #6452874 - 01/12/07 04:30 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Personally, I would like to see a Negative Income Tax.



I would consider that the second best option as far as tax reform goes.




What is the best option?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6453403 - 01/12/07 07:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Personally, I would like to see a Negative Income Tax.



I would consider that the second best option as far as tax reform goes.




What is the best option?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6454585 - 01/13/07 03:28 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
So what you are saying is that the government should regulate the private charity industry instead of operating a welfare program. :thumbup:




No, what I'm saying is the idea of replacing welfare with private charity is lunacy of the highest order  :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6454744 - 01/13/07 06:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
What gives your acquaintances special rights? Should monetary assistance only be available to those who have befriended the wealthy?

Personally, I would like to see a Negative Income Tax.



Ever heard of the "Earned Income Credit"?

A bullshit name if there ever was one.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6454750 - 01/13/07 06:59 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
No, what I'm saying is the idea of replacing welfare with private charity is lunacy of the highest order  :thumbup:




Why is that?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6455095 - 01/13/07 10:30 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

Alex213 said:
No, what I'm saying is the idea of replacing welfare with private charity is lunacy of the highest order  :thumbup:




Why is that?




Because it wouldn't work.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6455132 - 01/13/07 10:40 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Why wouldn't it?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6459141 - 01/14/07 03:35 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
You surely arn't claiming conditions people experienced during the Great Depression are something we should aspire to? Is that the best private charity can do? We should all try and aim for the conditions described in The Grapes of Wrath?



At what point did I say we should aspire to this? This is an obvious straw man. I merely pointed out that private charity can, and did, take care of the millions of Americans in need during the Great Depression. This refutes your claim that private charity cannot work, and insofar as I can tell you have no fact-based answer to this.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
There's a fundamental difference. The federal government isn't going to run off to South America with everyone's charity money. Individuals are.



What are you talking about? You're the one always on here complaining about how Bush & Co. are robbing everyone blind. Which is it: either the Federal Government isn't corrupt, OR Bush & Co. are hopelessly corrupt. Making both claims is hyprocritical.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Maybe, or maybe they'd just see private charity as fundamentally corrupt and not give anything.



But, according to you, they care and want to do something about the poor. Thus they would still give their money to help the poor, even if they viewed some charities as corrupt. They would only stop giving if they changed their mind about whether or not the poor need help. They might search out new charities, or even found new ones, but they would not stop giving.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Competitors? Are you thinking that these private charities are going to be run on a profit basis? So if I give a private charity 50 bucks for the hungry, the executive directors could keep 40 bucks for themselves?



Which would you give to: A charity that could feed 10 people for $10 or one that could only feed 5 people for $10? Clearly the charity that did the most good would recieve the most donations, hence competition.

Your claim about the directors doesn't make sense because it would result in fewer donations and that charity would cease being competitive.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6459221 - 01/14/07 04:09 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I guess I'll count myself among the few capitalism fans who is relatively pleased with the tax situation in America. While I think economic stratification is culprit #1 for the success of our great country, it does no good to have people starve to death because they've fallen on hard times.

It's true that, in the past, non-government charities have greatly assisted those in need. However, in Western culture, these charities almost always take orders from our precious lord and savior. I'm sure I might be in the minority here too, but I'd rather have an occasionally honest government take my money than a compulsory dishonest clergy.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6461071 - 01/15/07 02:50 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

At what point did I say we should aspire to this? This is an obvious straw man. I merely pointed out that private charity can, and did, take care of the millions of Americans in need during the Great Depression.

No it didn't. It provided soup kitchens that kept people barely alive. As I said, if people living in tin shacks eating a bowl of soup a day is all you aspire to then perhaps private charity would "work".

What are you talking about? You're the one always on here complaining about how Bush & Co. are robbing everyone blind. Which is it: either the Federal Government isn't corrupt, OR Bush & Co. are hopelessly corrupt. Making both claims is hyprocritical.


Nonsense. Bush has never run off to South America with the welfare budget. He can't. He can spend tax money invading Iraq, he can cut welfare to the bone, but he can't run off to South America with it. Private individuals can.

Thus they would still give their money to help the poor, even if they viewed some charities as corrupt

Nonsense. You only give money if you know it's going to go to the poor. No-one in their right mind is going to give any money to boost executive salaries or so the director can run off with all the money.

Which would you give to: A charity that could feed 10 people for $10 or one that could only feed 5 people for $10?

The only charity I'd give to is a non-profit one. I'm not giving my money to boost rich executives salaries.

Clearly the charity that did the most good would recieve the most donations, hence competition.


Define "does the most good". How do you judge this? Do you believe statistics some corporate manager cooks up to show he's "doing the most good"?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6461081 - 01/15/07 02:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Why wouldn't it?




--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6461085 - 01/15/07 02:59 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Read the thread again. Several obvious reasons have been listed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6461093 - 01/15/07 03:04 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

None that back your own claims. Why wouldn't it work? If there was a majority of individuals who wanted to help the poor, as you have claimed, then they would no doubt either give to non-profit charities who do, or personally distribute charity on their own.

One would have to assume that, if private charity is not able to benefit the poor enough to ensure that there was no real poverty, then either not enough people are interested or that they do not donate enough funds.

If one were truly interested in assisting others, then they would do so.

Now, why doesn't private charity solve the poverty opportunity?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6461110 - 01/15/07 03:16 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

How many private charity owners would need to run off with the money before people stopped giving to private charity?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6461124 - 01/15/07 03:27 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Well, like I asked you earlier, it sounds like you are promoting limited government regulation of private charity, which would be more effective than welfare as a solution to the problem, if the majority of individuals are interested in donating to charity, as you have claimed.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6461186 - 01/15/07 04:46 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Well, like I asked you earlier, it sounds like you are promoting limited government regulation of private charity




Not sure where you got that from. I'm not promoting that at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6461203 - 01/15/07 04:59 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

If you were a reasonable individual, you would be. You state that the reason private charity is ineffective at addressing poverty is not because the majority isn't interested in helping the poor, but that they don't because the private charity industry is corrupt.

If this is so, then clearly it would be more appropriate for the government to regulate the private charity industry so that it could not be corrupt, as this would be more cost-effective than creating a new government bureaucracy.

Would that not be more effective than welfare? If not, then why?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6461627 - 01/15/07 09:36 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
How many private charity owners would need to run off with the money before people stopped giving to private charity?




When has this happened?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6462760 - 01/15/07 03:47 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Why wouldn't it?




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?

If the government was not corrupt and poorly run then we probably would have no need for private charity and we could pay less taxes and provide a far better welfare system.

I also find it funny that some people on this board are so opposed to funds being seized to help people but have no problem with funds being seized to fund the killing of innocent people in far off lands.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleArp
roving mycophagist
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/98
Posts: 2,191
Loc: in a van by the river
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6462779 - 01/15/07 03:52 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I think most people are to lazy getting personaly involved in charity to make it an viable option.

Considering that the US is the largest economy it's foreign aid is very low compared to many other countries. Even including private charity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6462814 - 01/15/07 04:02 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

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?

yeah i've been a little confused by that as well. i doubt that the boost the private sector would get from reduced taxes would be enough to leave those who are now receiving welfare benefits any better off than they are now.

i'm also a little baffled as to why the libertarian types on the board even feel the need to defend the idea in the first place. voluntary charity is preferable to forced redistribution of wealth because it doesn't rely on government coercion, not because it can provide better.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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]
    #6463120 - 01/15/07 05:12 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So you would syupport the abolition of the welfate state even though you would expect this to have an adverse affect on a large number of people?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6463250 - 01/15/07 05:46 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So you would syupport the abolition of the welfate state even though you would expect this to have an adverse affect on a large number of people?

yes, i would. but i am more opposed to taxation as it is now used than on the welfare programs it's used on. i see no problem with a sort of land value tax, or any other tax that is essentially levied on the use of free (and communally 'owned') gifts of nature. after paying for essential government services, some of the surplus could be used to help support those who can't support themselves. the problem is the tax, not the welfare program. we spend a lot more money on far less worthy programs, but welfare always gets a bad rap because it is (falsely) seen as benefiting only those who get the checks.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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]
    #6463314 - 01/15/07 06:03 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
Quote:

Alex213 said:
How many private charity owners would need to run off with the money before people stopped giving to private charity?




When has this happened?




"There's a growing sense of outrage this weekend in the Bronx and it's not just about the performance of the post- season Yankees. Instead, the anger and disbelief relates to the sorry outcome of the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls scandal.

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?

How could simply repaying some of the loot, in addition to a small fine, possibly be enough for a swindle that hurt so many inner- city children and elderly people?"

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/10/gloria-wise-new-york-post-bronx.html

It happens. Probably not as often as a bureaucrat or politician, but it does happen


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6464119 - 01/15/07 09:36 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6464773 - 01/16/07 03:26 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
So you would syupport the abolition of the welfate state even though you would expect this to have an adverse affect on a large number of people?

yes, i would.




And how "adverse" would you be willing to see conditions get for them? Starving in the streets?  :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6464888 - 01/16/07 05:14 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

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?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6464901 - 01/16/07 05:19 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Don't forget about my reply, Alex213. If you were wrong on a specific point or two you can feel free to admit it. :tongue:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6466951 - 01/16/07 05:59 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

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.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
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.  :blush: (Feel free to enlighten me.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
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  :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

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?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
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'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6472712 - 01/18/07 09:09 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So if the policies you follow resulted in starvation what would you do to prevent starvation?

feed hungry people what i could, when i could. i already do that now actually.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6472759 - 01/18/07 09:37 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

There's quite a large difference between not caring for something and hating it. You wouldn't be using sensational language just to make your point sound better, would you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6472876 - 01/18/07 10:36 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
So if the policies you follow resulted in starvation what would you do to prevent starvation?

feed hungry people what i could, when i could. i already do that now actually.




Big deal. I'd rather stick with welfare and ensure they got fed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6472887 - 01/18/07 10:39 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

cool. i wouldn't.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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]
    #6472895 - 01/18/07 10:41 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So defending an intangible philosophy really is more important to you than people experiencing unnessecary discomfort? Get out of your head dude!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6472897 - 01/18/07 10:41 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
There's quite a large difference between not caring for something and hating it. You wouldn't be using sensational language just to make your point sound better, would you?




It's more to do with trying to connect libertarians with the reality of their fantastic theories. It's too easy to read books about "private charity" and divorce yourself from the agony and suffering such "policies" would result in.

So let me get this straight...you "don't care" whether someone is reduced to starvation by your economic policies but you "don't hate them". Is that right?

Just out of curiosity what would you do to the people you hate? :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6472906 - 01/18/07 10:44 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So defending an intangible philosophy really is more important to you than people experiencing unnessecary discomfort? Get out of your head dude!

i doubt you disagree with me in principle. are you opposed to taking unwilling person's organs from them to save people in need of transplants?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6472919 - 01/18/07 10:48 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
So defending an intangible philosophy really is more important to you than people experiencing unnessecary discomfort? Get out of your head dude!

i doubt you disagree with me in principle. are you opposed to taking unwilling person's organs from them to save people in need of transplants?




Are you seriously comparing tax with stealing peoples organs? Surely not...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6472922 - 01/18/07 10:49 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Are you seriously comparing tax with stealing peoples organs? Surely not...

how about explaining the fundamental differences.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6472951 - 01/18/07 10:58 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
Are you seriously comparing tax with stealing peoples organs? Surely not...

how about explaining the fundamental differences.




How about explaining the similarities first?

Most countries on earth have taxation, I've yet to hear of one with a policy of forcible removal of organs from living people. Clearly very few people on earth see a similarity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6472965 - 01/18/07 11:02 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

How about explaining the similarities first?

they both involve forcing some people to provide for others against their will. they are different in degree, but not principle.

do you support harvesting organs from some unwilling people to give to others in need of transplants? if not, why not?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6472986 - 01/18/07 11:06 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

they both involve forcing some people to provide for others against their will

You'll need to expand on this. Whatever tax people pay goes on many things. Like roads, healthcare, police, fire services etc. Do these people being "forced" to pay tax explicitly refuse to use any of these services?

I don't see the benefit people get from having their organs forcibly removed. There are countless very obvious benefits they recieve from paying tax.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6473012 - 01/18/07 11:13 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

so you don't support harvesting organs from some unwilling people to give to others in need of transplants? and the reason is that it doesn't benefit those they are removed from? is that right?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6473192 - 01/18/07 12:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

No need to posit something as extreme as organ "donations". Sooner or later someone will point out that one cannot grow another kidney, but one can earn another ten thousand dollars. Why not pose the same question about blood donations? One can replenish a liter of one's own blood with a lot less effort than one can replenish ten thousand dollars. It is done automatically, in fact.

So let's ask those who support government seizure of money from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient money if they also support government seizure of blood from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient blood.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleArp
roving mycophagist
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/98
Posts: 2,191
Loc: in a van by the river
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Phred]
    #6474181 - 01/18/07 05:45 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I think you are more likely to have an excessive amount of dough than blood.

The blood you have is the blood you use, even if it's regenerative. People tend to have equal amounts of it, and it's mostly not the case with money :smile:

Watch up for Mammon if you find these two equal! :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Phred]
    #6474949 - 01/18/07 09:50 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
So let's ask those who support government seizure of money from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient money if they also support government seizure of blood from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient blood.




I don't really see what the problem would be. I give blood on occasion. It hurts less than spending money. If a country had health care run by the government, a lax constitution and a majority in favor of such a bizarre thing, sure, what the hell.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Gijith]
    #6475040 - 01/18/07 10:20 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

While we're sorta on the topic, here's a man who stood by his beliefs:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244759,00.html


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6475440 - 01/19/07 01:32 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
so you don't support harvesting organs from some unwilling people to give to others in need of transplants? and the reason is that it doesn't benefit those they are removed from? is that right?




You sound like you have some profound punchline to all of this, can we skip the drama and just get to it?

You're going to tell me that forcibly removing organs from someone is exactly the same as paying tax in some way right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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]
    #6475620 - 01/19/07 06:00 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

i doubt you disagree with me in principle. are you opposed to taking unwilling person's organs from them to save people in need of transplants?




Utter Sophistry. Im sure you can do better than that.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Phred]
    #6475635 - 01/19/07 06:11 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

So let's ask those who support government seizure of money from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient money




Why dont you ever complain about the seizure of money to fund illegal, profiteering wars?

Anyway, lets explain this one more time:

1) If you dont like paying taxes you can leave a country. If you decide to work/live in a certain country that decision entails you will abide by the rules. i.e You will pay taxes. So thats the old "Forcible Seizure" arguement in the bin. I will say that I definitely 100% do not agree with my countries level of taxation or the way my tax pounds are spent but as I have the option to leave the country I do not feel they are being forcibly seized.

2)The way our economies currently work there will always be an underclass who cannot make an average living. i.e they are below the breadline. This is a function of our economy not a result of laziness on the part of the people who need welfare. Of course there are lazy, welching bastards who claim when they shouldn't but to then extrapolate that this means all people claiming wefare are lazy, welching bastards is just an example of pretty shoddy thinking.

3) So if the people who need welfare are a necessary result of the economic system which the rest of us use to further our own lifestyles surely we have no choice but to contribute towards their welfare?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: wilshire]
    #6475680 - 01/19/07 07:02 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

The reality of the situation goes well beyond health care. Health care is merely the central partisan war horse of taxation politics.

Modern societies need order and established rule of law, which only a government, complete with a military, civil police force and judicial system can provide. This costs money, which the populace will HAVE to distribute if they want to have a country that isn't ruled by factions and militias.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a socialist and I believe government should only tax what is absolutely needed - and encourage the charity drive in the country. I'm simply a realist. The era of total, absolutist economic privatization is in my opinion outdated. It was integral to the age of colonial rule. In the 21st century, taxation is required for a society to function.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Basilides]
    #6475783 - 01/19/07 08:44 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The era of total, absolutist economic privatization is in my opinion outdated.




Give that man a cigar! :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6475796 - 01/19/07 08:51 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Utter Sophistry. Im sure you can do better than that.

calling it that doesn't make it so. can you explain why?

If you dont like paying taxes you can leave a country. If you decide to work/live in a certain country that decision entails you will abide by the rules. i.e You will pay taxes. So thats the old "Forcible Seizure" arguement in the bin.

you can justify any public policy on those grounds.

The way our economies currently work there will always be an underclass who cannot make an average living.

why? how is that so?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6475820 - 01/19/07 09:05 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
It's more to do with trying to connect libertarians with the reality of their fantastic theories. It's too easy to read books about "private charity" and divorce yourself from the agony and suffering such "policies" would result in.



"Fantasy" and "theories" eh?

Look through this thread. I cannot find any evidence that has been provided showing that private charity would result in less aid for the poor than public welfare. Infact, I seem to be the only one who has cited evidence, that being the unemployment and starvation rates during the Great Depression, and that proved that private charity does infact work.

Please provide some evidence, otherwise it's a little hard to tell who's really living in a fantasy world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6475851 - 01/19/07 09:19 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Look through this thread. I cannot find any evidence that has been provided showing that private charity would result in less aid for the poor than public welfare. Infact, I seem to be the only one who has cited evidence, that being the unemployment and starvation rates during the Great Depression, and that proved that private charity does infact work.


As has been pointed many times in the thread before, if all you aspire to is people living in tin-shacks eating a bowl of soup a day at soup kitchens then private charity may "work".

Can you find examples of unemployed people from the great depression singing the praises of the conditions they experienced then? If everyone had thought private charity worked then why was the welfare system introduced shortly afterwards?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6475932 - 01/19/07 09:52 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Can you find examples of unemployed people from the great depression singing the praises of the conditions they experienced then? If everyone had thought private charity worked then why was the welfare system introduced shortly afterwards?



Alex, I am not doing research for you.

Very clearly you cannot find any evidence that private charity will inevitably face a shortfall, otherwise you would have posted it by now.

I am thus forced to conclude that your ideas on this matter are no less "fantasies" and "theories" than those of any Libertarian.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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]
    #6475949 - 01/19/07 09:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


calling it that doesn't make it so. can you explain why?




No I havent got the time.

Quote:

you can justify any public policy on those grounds.




True. But if the option to leave if you dont like something exists then my arguement still stands.

Quote:

why? how is that so?




My guess is that because so much of the collective wealth is distributed through such a small minority you will always end up with the opposite condition at the other end of the scale.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6476070 - 01/19/07 10:46 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


1) If you dont like paying taxes you can leave a country. If you decide to work/live in a certain country that decision entails you will abide by the rules. i.e You will pay taxes. So thats the old "Forcible Seizure" arguement in the bin. I will say that I definitely 100% do not agree with my countries level of taxation or the way my tax pounds are spent but as I have the option to leave the country I do not feel they are being forcibly seized.




You don't like the drug policy in your country? Tough luck. I guess you just have to move somewhere else. :shrug:

Does that principle apply to this scenario as well?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6476600 - 01/19/07 01:31 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

[quote
Very clearly you cannot find any evidence that private charity will inevitably face a shortfall, otherwise you would have posted it by now.

I am thus forced to conclude that your ideas on this matter are no less "fantasies" and "theories" than those of any Libertarian.




I'm not sure what you're talking about. The evidence consists of the Great Depression and the fact that the welfare system was introduced shortly afterwards. Why would such a system be introduced if everyone was happy with private charity?

Are you seriously saying conditions during the Great Depression were adequate for the unemployed and that they were conditions we should aspire to today?

If you can find a single example of private charity providing anything but tinshacks and soup kitchens then ok but until then we can only go on what actually happened.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6476606 - 01/19/07 01:33 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

I guess you just have to move somewhere else.

And be a victim of American foreign policy? :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: Alex213]
    #6477218 - 01/19/07 04:00 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
I guess you just have to move somewhere else.

And be a victim of American foreign policy? :laugh:




If you're lucky you can choose to be a beneficiary.  I sincerely doubt that you would pass the test, though.  Oh well, tough shit for you, ever relegated to victim status.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: GazzBut]
    #6477274 - 01/19/07 04:13 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Quote:

So let's ask those who support government seizure of money from the general populace to give to those who lack sufficient money




Why dont you ever complain about the seizure of money to fund illegal, profiteering wars?




Blah blah blah, bullshit. Now that that's done let's move on to the other junk
Quote:



Anyway, lets explain this one more time:



Oh, please do my guru




1) If you dont like paying taxes you can leave a country. If you decide to work/live in a certain country that decision entails you will abide by the rules. i.e You will pay taxes. So thats the old "Forcible Seizure" arguement in the bin. I will say that I definitely 100% do not agree with my countries level of taxation or the way my tax pounds are spent but as I have the option to leave the country I do not feel they are being forcibly seized.




"America, love it or leave it." Sometimes it's best to let you speak because you will invariably step on your own dick
Quote:



2)The way our economies currently work there will always be an underclass who cannot make an average living. i.e they are below the breadline. This is a function of our economy not a result of laziness on the part of the people who need welfare. Of course there are lazy, welching bastards who claim when they shouldn't but to then extrapolate that this means all people claiming wefare are lazy, welching bastards is just an example of pretty shoddy thinking.




Depending on how you select your average, mean, median or mode, yes there will always be those who fail to make the "average living". We can't all be above average, no matter how many gold stars for wiping you got in Kindergarten. This is just such a ridiculous example of the whole "Everyone is a star" notion of PC bullshit. Face it. Many, many of you just suck and will be failures and that is that. Hopefully you won't be too much of a burden on the rest of us and will pretty much be able to feed, clothe and house yourself. The Devo song "Mongoloid" might be appropriately illustrative of the hope that even the less gifted can have.
Quote:



3) So if the people who need welfare are a necessary result of the economic system which the rest of us use to further our own lifestyles surely we have no choice but to contribute towards their welfare?




If you create welfare recipients, you will have welfare recipients. Mostly, they are created by babies.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6478617 - 01/19/07 10:51 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Taxes are needed for society to function. Without taxation, you have anarchy.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6479127 - 01/20/07 03:50 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Thanks for joinig the debate Zappa. Having a bad day/life or something?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6479130 - 01/20/07 03:53 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


You don't like the drug policy in your country? Tough luck. I guess you just have to move somewhere else.

Does that principle apply to this scenario as well?
D4D0C8




Yes. Next question.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: GazzBut]
    #6479295 - 01/20/07 08:09 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Thanks for joinig the debate Zappa. Having a bad day/life or something?




Slapping you around is one of my great joys


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6479306 - 01/20/07 08:19 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

True. But if the option to leave if you dont like something exists then my arguement still stands.

you seem to be implying that the state may do whatever it wants (as long as it is democratically justified[?]). aside from the right to flee your homeland and become a refugee/exile, are there any inalienable rights that should be preserved no matter what prevailing opinion is?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6479469 - 01/20/07 10:18 AM (17 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The evidence consists of the Great Depression and the fact that the welfare system was introduced shortly afterwards. Why would such a system be introduced if everyone was happy with private charity?



So, your argument is, because the government took certain action following an event, then that action must have been justified?

But I thought you were against the Iraq war? And how about Reaganomics following stagflation? Are you now saying that was justified too? Both fit your model of government taking specific action following an event.

Personally, I believe that FDR was a "Progressivist" who was looking for an excuse to institute policies dating back to to his 1911 New York Senate and 1920 VP Campaigns. In both cases he supported a Wilson-esque Progressive agenda but experienced heavy opposition (first from Tamany Hall, then from President Harding who defeated FDR's ticket).

I believe even better evidence of this comes from FDR's 1928 gubernatorial campaign in New York where he proposed instituting social programs a year before the stock market even crashed! Unemployment was at an all time low and the economy was booming in 1928, yet Roosevelt was saying New York State needed welfare.

FDR had an agenda and was looking for any excuse to forward it.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
If you can find a single example of private charity providing anything but tinshacks and soup kitchens then ok but until then we can only go on what actually happened.



That's what I've been trying to go on about. You keep insisting that people will be "starving on the street" in the abscence of welfare, but by your own admission, during a period of time without welfare people were able to get by on "soup kitchens" and "tinshacks" that people provided for them.

You have no proof of widespread starvation or death. You can argue that soup kitchens "aren't enough" but they very clearly were enough to prevent your initial claim of "starving on the street".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6479741 - 01/20/07 12:01 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So, your argument is, because the government took certain action following an event, then that action must have been justified?


Not always, but sometimes.

That's what I've been trying to go on about. You keep insisting that people will be "starving on the street" in the abscence of welfare, but by your own admission, during a period of time without welfare people were able to get by on "soup kitchens" and "tinshacks" that people provided for them.


But remember welfare was introduced shortly after the Great Depression. Whether you would have been able to stave off starvation with soup kitchens in the long term is another question.

In addition the Great Depression was a national emergency and a unique set of circumstances. Whether you'd see people creating soup kitchens for the unemployed today is another question.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6479858 - 01/20/07 01:05 PM (17 years, 2 months ago)

So your beliefs are based on no less speculation than any libertarian's?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6481578 - 01/21/07 01:50 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

No my beliefs are based on the idea that soup kitchens and people living in tinshacks are not something we should aspire to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: Alex213]
    #6481874 - 01/21/07 08:31 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

But government cheese is, I suppose.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6481940 - 01/21/07 09:24 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

If you aspire to soup kitchens and tin shacks that's fine.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6481984 - 01/21/07 09:46 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
If you aspire to soup kitchens and tin shacks that's fine.



But what happens when the government welfare systems fail their people?

Like when all those people in France believed that their socialist healthcare system would always be there for them. Then 15,000 of them died because it got a little too hot, and almost all of the doctors were on vacation at the same time in 2003.

Is this what we should aspire to? A world where thousands die needlessly because the government's beuracracy can't even keep track of how many people are on vacation at a given time?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6482086 - 01/21/07 10:50 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
No my beliefs are based on the idea that soup kitchens and people living in tinshacks are not something we should aspire to.




But of course not. We should all aspire to have our money taken away so welfare recipients can live the good life of trailer parks and public housing. :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Redstorm]
    #6484464 - 01/22/07 01:54 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

A bus might plow into you tomorrow and you end up one of those welfare recipients. If you fancy trying to make it in your wheelchair to the soup kitchen 50 miles away every day for your bowl of turnip soup then ok, but I think most people would prefer being able to cook something at home :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
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: Alex213]
    #6486297 - 01/22/07 03:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
A bus might plow into you tomorrow and you end up one of those welfare recipients. If you fancy trying to make it in your wheelchair to the soup kitchen 50 miles away every day for your bowl of turnip soup then ok, but I think most people would prefer being able to cook something at home :laugh:


:rofl2:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Alex213]
    #6490321 - 01/23/07 06:55 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
If you fancy trying to make it in your wheelchair to the soup kitchen 50 miles away every day for your bowl of turnip soup then ok, but I think most people would prefer being able to cook something at home



Like how I would prefer to pay money for a private doctor rather than have the universal healthcare system kill me during a heatwave?

Oh yeah, also, interesting note...the current socialist regimes won't bring me food from 50 miles away either...

But private organization Meals on Wheels will.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
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]
    #6491706 - 01/24/07 05:09 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Like when all those people in France believed that their socialist healthcare system would always be there for them. Then 15,000 of them died because it got a little too hot, and almost all of the doctors were on vacation at the same time in 2003.

Is this what we should aspire to? A world where thousands die needlessly because the government's beuracracy can't even keep track of how many people are on vacation at a given time?




The fact that a majority of doctors were on holiday is due to the fact that the majority of French people holiday during August. Some of the bodies of the elderly people who died were not claimed for several weeks for the same reason. So the disaster highlighted a flaw in staffing levels in their health care system but it cannot be used as an example of why welfare is a bad idea, not even close.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: Economist]
    #6491784 - 01/24/07 06:59 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
Quote:

Alex213 said:
If you fancy trying to make it in your wheelchair to the soup kitchen 50 miles away every day for your bowl of turnip soup then ok, but I think most people would prefer being able to cook something at home



Like how I would prefer to pay money for a private doctor rather than have the universal healthcare system kill me during a heatwave?

Oh yeah, also, interesting note...the current socialist regimes won't bring me food from 50 miles away either...

But private organization Meals on Wheels will.




But socialists (like George Bush?) will send you a cheque so you can afford to eat at home rather than pushing yourself 50 miles through the snow to reach the nearest soup kitchen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: For any libertarian free-marketeer [Re: GazzBut]
    #6492087 - 01/24/07 10:06 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
The fact that a majority of doctors were on holiday is due to the fact that the majority of French people holiday during August. Some of the bodies of the elderly people who died were not claimed for several weeks for the same reason. So the disaster highlighted a flaw in staffing levels in their health care system but it cannot be used as an example of why welfare is a bad idea, not even close.



Relevant staffing levels at government-run hospitals are, by definition, determined by the government.

The government thought that the hospitals could be run with WAAAAY too few doctors, and they were wrong. Thousands died. What guarantee do we have that similar mistakes will not be made in the future? Perhaps staffing levels will be fine, by vaccine or blood stocks won't be. Who knows?

The difference between a private charity making a mistake and the government making a mistake is that no one was forced to pay for the private charity's mistake. If they felt the private charity wasn't doing enough they could always give to another charity. You don't have this luxury when the government takes from you forcibly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
! [Re: Economist]
    #6494726 - 01/25/07 01:21 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

So they made a mistake! I take it you are still a student? When you join the real world you will realise that mistakes happen. Its how you deal with them that is really important and Im sure you will find the French will not make the same mistake again.

Its fairly obvious that you could find countless cases of low income families who have had members of their families saved by life saving operations which may have crippled them financially for years if all health care was privatised.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: ! [Re: GazzBut]
    #6495587 - 01/25/07 11:31 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
I take it you are still a student? When you join the real world...




:rofl:  Maybe when you join the real world you won't have inbred royalty. And you'll realize that almost everything you have is due to the limited amount of capitalism your country still allows, not due to the socialism that has infected it.

My sister-in-law and her family are welfare leeches from England. Her mother has been on the dole her entire life, never worked a day. They expect everything to be handed to them. They constantly complain about how much more money they got in England, blah blah blah, and are always looking for ways to get a few dollars without working.

They are the most selfish, lazy, unappreciative people I have ever known. Yeah, your welfare state produced some real winners.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
Re: ! [Re: pokermush]
    #6495955 - 01/25/07 01:36 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Too moronic to bother with a proper reply.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: ! [Re: GazzBut]
    #6497126 - 01/25/07 07:06 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Too spot on for a riposte, eh?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: ! [Re: pokermush]
    #6498809 - 01/26/07 11:05 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

My sister-in-law and her family are welfare leeches from England. Her mother has been on the dole her entire life, never worked a day.

Sounds very unlikely. What form of welfare were they receiving in England?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: ! [Re: GazzBut]
    #6499212 - 01/26/07 01:01 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
So they made a mistake! I take it you are still a student? When you join the real world you will realise that mistakes happen. Its how you deal with them that is really important and Im sure you will find the French will not make the same mistake again.



I'm curious about which of us is actually living in the real world when you don't seem to want to attach consequences to poorly made decisions.

The French have a universal healthcare system. This system made a very serious mistake and thousands died. In my book, this means that alternatives should be made available to the system for those who don't wish to pay into a future mistake.

Unfortunately, government-forced welfare payments don't afford citizens this flexibility. If you do not pay into the system, you go to jail. If the system makes a mistake, well, that's okay because they keep getting your money anyway. You just have to trust that people in mostly non-elected positions won't make that mistake again.

In a system of private charity there are very real consequences for such a mistake. Once a charity is shown to be detrimental or unscrupulous, people will rarely donate to them again. Their funding is cut off, and more efficient charities recieve it instead.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Is the free market "natural" somebodyelse 557 3 06/20/03 02:50 PM
by somebodyelse
* Free market harms the poor
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,414 23 05/21/03 09:15 PM
by iglou
* If libertarians/conservatives believe govt welfare leads to dependency
( 1 2 3 all )
Tao 4,289 52 12/09/04 08:56 PM
by nycomyco
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,491 3 04/10/04 05:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Libertarianism and my .sig
( 1 2 3 all )
unbeliever 3,888 41 10/05/04 04:58 PM
by Ancalagon
* Libertarians & Greens to Debate in Miami
( 1 2 3 all )
Ancalagon 4,453 49 10/03/04 10:12 PM
by Gijith
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A few "welfare" myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Xlea321 12,398 177 07/30/03 05:19 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,998 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.079 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 14 queries.