First of all -- let me describe a situation I'm sure you're all very familiar with:
Near my hometown (in the UK) is a mid-sized community where the majority of residents are claiming state benefits, addicted to drugs and alcohol, and engage in criminal activities. This town was built for one purpose: to house the workers of the steel plant next door. Of course, the steel plant is no longer there, and at the time of its closing down there were no employment opportunities in the area.
I should add that I am not implying any wrongdoing by anybody -- that means both the steel plant and the workers (although, as we all know, the government is never exempt from such accusations) -- and I ask that those of you who reply to adhere to strict impartiality. That said; I am interested to find out your answer to a very broad and general 'what if?' question.
Anarchists/minarchists/libertarians: what if this had occurred in your prescribed society? If you wish, you could also address the following subjects in relation to this hypothetical situation: welfare, drug laws and crime.
Finally, I am not a troll looking for an argument by telling a boo-hoo story. This is a serious question - please treat it as such.
Dearie me, how WOULD people act when they're not paid with other people's money to be lazy and violent? It's a mystery, a conundrum, a puzzlement. It's probably best such difficult questions be left to the professionals in government and university.
Byzantine: Dearie me, how WOULD people act when they're not paid with other people's money to be lazy and violent? It's a mystery, a conundrum, a puzzlement. It's probably best such difficult questions be left to the professionals in government and university.
I have been studying Austrian economics for the past few months and I absolutely love what I have understood. However, there are still many different things that I have not yet able to fully understand.
You are a rude, snobbish, sarcastic, condescending know-it-all, and I hope that you reap the full -- invariably negative -- consequences of your disgusting manner.
There, there.
Moderators -- please lock/delete this thread. Thank you.
I think you're taking this way too personally. The OP does not clearly convey what your question is. I can have the thread closed, but if you want to take the opportunity to re-phrase your question more clearly so that it may elicit more helpful answers, why not do that?
I don't understand what the problem is. When a location is no longer economically viable, it should be abandoned.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Considering that there would be no welfare in a libertarian society, the people in this industrial township would have to find some alternate means to survive. They'd either have to move somewhere there are jobs, start their own businesses, or make the township some kind of communal society that lives off the land. There are actually plenty of cases where ex-convicts and the like band together into communities and help each other in a commune-like society. Libertarianism itself isn't against collective society, it's against collectivism being imposed on those who don't want it.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Inquisitor: I think you're taking this way too personally. The OP does not clearly convey what your question is. I can have the thread closed, but if you want to take the opportunity to re-phrase your question more clearly so that it may elicit more helpful answers, why not do that?
I am entitled to take being ridiculed personally.
You may be right about my post. However, I hope you are not implying that I somehow provolked this kind of attitude. As if, had I not goaded this creature out of its hovel, I would have not been met with unpleasantness. Is this your implication?
You can leave the thread open -- please excuse my reaction to this imbecile -- I simply get very angry when spoken down to by anyone. Not sure why.
Stranger: I don't understand what the problem is. When a location is no longer economically viable, it should be abandoned.
I like this answer. Do you think that it is precisely welfare programmes that caused communities such as this one not to relocate?
Mr Jones: I like this answer. Do you think that it is precisely welfare programmes that caused communities such as this one not to relocate?
Welfare income would certainly make it economically viable to live there.
krazy kaju: Considering that there would be no welfare in a libertarian society
Considering that there would be no welfare in a libertarian society
Perhaps if the government did not have a monopoly on welfare, companies would feel compelled to provide an optional or compulsary welfare scheme for their employees?
Mr Jones: krazy kaju: Considering that there would be no welfare in a libertarian society Perhaps if the government did not have a monopoly on welfare, companies would feel compelled to provide an optional or compulsary welfare scheme for their employees?
Would employees accept diminished salaries in exchange for having welfare benefits?
Most likely the town would simply be abandoned, and the people who moved into such towns would build only short-term structures expecting them to be risky assets.
Stranger: Would employees accept diminished salaries in exchange for having welfare benefits?
Who can say?
But if you are asking me personally, then I can provide you with an answer. Given the industrial township situation, I would certainly accept a diminished salary in exchange for having welfare (is this not the same as what I already do? albeit begrudgingly). I would consider it insurance -- a safety net just incase the steel plant shuts down and I have insufficient savings for relocation.
Mr Jones: Perhaps if the government did not have a monopoly on welfare, companies would feel compelled to provide an optional or compulsary welfare scheme for their employees?
Churches, self-help groups, and the like would probably provide some form of welfare. As I already stated, there are numerous organizations for those who cannot find jobs (i.e. ex-cons, ex-addicts) that allows them to form a community and support each other. Now imagine how many more jobs there would be without minimum wages, unions, regulations, and taxation. There certainly would be some kind of minimal private welfare, but it would not be needed.
Mr Jones: Stranger: Would employees accept diminished salaries in exchange for having welfare benefits? Who can say? But if you are asking me personally, then I can provide you with an answer. Given the industrial township situation, I would certainly accept a diminished salary in exchange for having welfare (is this not the same as what I already do? albeit begrudgingly). I would consider it insurance -- a safety net just incase the steel plant shuts down and I have insufficient savings for relocation.
You're reintroducing socialism through corporations. Now maybe you wouldn't mind having welfare insurance from your employer, but every other employee must also want that or else the company cannot make it work.
And your choice also doesn't make any sense. You claim that you might not have enough savings and this is why you need the insurance, but if instead you accepted a higher salary you could build up your savings and thus have no need for insurance.
Unemployment insurance agencies might form in response to demand. The extent of the insurance could depend on how much you pay, the stability of your job and job market, etc.
krazy kaju: Unemployment insurance agencies might form in response to demand. The extent of the insurance could depend on how much you pay, the stability of your job and job market, etc.
That is not possible. You cannot insure against an event that you determine.
Let this thread be a reminder to everyone never to venture on the Information Superhighway without helmet, elbow pads, life jacket, ear muffs, woolen mittens, and distress whistle.
Stranger:That is not possible. You cannot insure against an event that you determine.
Are you saying that no business can ever go bankrupt or move to another location in a free market?
krazy kaju: Stranger:That is not possible. You cannot insure against an event that you determine. Are you saying that no business can ever go bankrupt or move to another location in a free market?
Sure it can, but your actions determine that.
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