I'm talking about Section 8, WiC, food stamps and public assistance.
I hate to say, but I don't see charitable donations outdoing the food stamps then what is provided by the state. Its hard to debate this with people, because liberals will often use these Government programs as a necessity for helping people
Would people get as effective help without these welfare programs? There's obviously a lot of problems with privatizing them, so I really don't see what to say.
We also have high standards of living with a population of 300 million.
We have to look at why these people need welfare to begin with:
1. Government taxes curve investment, which takes a toll on productivity.
2. Minimum wage disallows everybody from finding a job. Unemployment welfare makes the unemployed stayed unemployed for longer (less rush to find a job that meets the person's reservation wage).
3. At a certain point, people drop moral responsibility, because the State will take on that responsibility (by forcing it on those "who can afford it").
Welfare creates or excacerbates the problems it is supposed to help with. In a free society there wouldn't be nearly the same amount of charity required to support those who cannot make a living. And, it would be hard to imagine somebody who could not make a living, unless they had something physically impeding them (even illness) or because they genuinely refused to work.
Economic Thought (Latest Post): Don't Be Fooled by GDP
no, people WILL NOT get the help they get today (or else they'd be getting it today)
BUT, why should they? Helping losers is an abomination of nature and hinderence to social progress.
We don't prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?
I've always found it slightly odd that people are most concerned about the poor, when the poor have never been better off before in history.
Scott Jefferies: I've always found it slightly odd that people are most concerned about the poor, when the poor have never been better off before in history.
not only that, they shouldn't be better off, supporting the poor is encouraging laziness and failure
Private charity and mutual aid networks have been mostly stamped out by the state, for various reasons, including the fact that forcing people to rely on them for well-being leads to a general attitude of subservience. Absent the state, then, one would expect to see a vast increase in the amount of private charity, and things like fraternal societies that will help out everyone involved.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Democracy for Breakfast:Would people get as effective help without these welfare programs?
Question the premise that welfare programs are even helpful: Thomas Woods on Welfare Programs and the Great Society (40 min. audio file)
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Only non-specific and unconditional charity promotes lousy behaviour. I'm opposed to that regardless of whether it is private or not.
I would also question the effectiveness of such programs in "helping" people. In my home county almost 40% of the residents live below the poverty line and the unemployment level has been around 10% for years (the number without work who arent looking must be much higher). Go to www.fedstats.gov and look up Allendale, South Carolina to see for yourself.
For these reasons I left, but I didnt have to go far to find opportunity. I only had to move an hour and a half away to the coast where the economy was booming and had been for 30 years. I took a job in construction and was floored when I saw how much of the work was done by hispanics. Some how thousands of these fellas were able to save up the huge sum of money to pay their way across the boarder, find out where the work was, get transportation to the work, find a place to live, and get a job. They did this without much education and without speaking english!
It is sad what we have done to our society, an hour away there are thousands of american citizens who didnt take the opportunity to improve their lot in life. But "illegals" did and they did so with all the cards stacked against them. I have a feeling if the nations south of the border had the government assistance we do here, we wouldnt have an "immigration problem". They would sit at home on the government dime too. It seems as though the government dole ultimately helps no one, however it does seem to corrupt all it touches.
I wonder why immigrants are called "illegals".
Conagain:We don't prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?
Well, that is what "we" do. Part of a bigger problem
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: We have to look at why these people need welfare to begin with: 1. Government taxes curve investment, which takes a toll on productivity. 2. Minimum wage disallows everybody from finding a job. Unemployment welfare makes the unemployed stayed unemployed for longer (less rush to find a job that meets the person's reservation wage). 3. At a certain point, people drop moral responsibility, because the State will take on that responsibility (by forcing it on those "who can afford it"). Welfare creates or excacerbates the problems it is supposed to help with. In a free society there wouldn't be nearly the same amount of charity required to support those who cannot make a living. And, it would be hard to imagine somebody who could not make a living, unless they had something physically impeding them (even illness) or because they genuinely refused to work.
However, what if someone can't make a living because they go bankrupt to pay for health care?
Democracy for Breakfast:However, what if someone can't make a living because they go bankrupt to pay for health care?
Bankruptcy doesn't mean you can't make a living.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
In fact, I know people who I work with that have gone bankrupt... and, alas, they are still alive and still surviving. Why should I be forced to pay for other people's bad decisions? I think, morally, the better option would be for that person to accept the responsibility of their poor decision, and get themselves out of the rut they've carved. OTOH, there is no objection towards voluntary aid, or charity.
Burton Folsom Jr., in his book New Deal or Raw Deal?, makes the interesting observation that many charities were hurt by Roosevelt's administration, given that charities generally were better at helping the poor than government wealth redistribution policies. Government pretty much crowded charity out of the market, in a sense.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: In fact, I know people who I work with that have gone bankrupt... and, alas, they are still alive and still surviving. Why should I be forced to pay for other people's bad decisions? I think, morally, the better option would be for that person to accept the responsibility of their poor decision, and get themselves out of the rut they've carved. OTOH, there is no objection towards voluntary aid, or charity. Burton Folsom Jr., in his book New Deal or Raw Deal?, makes the interesting observation that many charities were hurt by Roosevelt's administration, given that charities generally were better at helping the poor than government wealth redistribution policies. Government pretty much crowded charity out of the market, in a sense.
But that would be so cruel and heartless to not care about people. "A society is judged by how they treat their lower citizens".
/End liberal argument.
Thats the rhetoric my Social Studies teacher from High School used.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap