How should i properly rebuttal when a statist claims that working mothers need economic help, and that people have to sometimes work 3 jobs. I can come up with somethings but I was wondering if there were any good knock out punches so to speak to show how government creates this. thanks
Eric:How should i properly rebuttal when a statist claims that working mothers need economic help, and that people have to sometimes work 3 jobs.
Agree that it would be good if the woman was helped, after all, it is not an easy life. However, show how there is no free lunch. Indeed, the statist can point out that this person is helped by economic policy X. Explain that in the field of economics, it is important to look at everyone who is benefited and harmed, and it is fallicious to say that economic policy X is good because it helps that person, without looking at who is harmed. Also, this is an ethical issue, is it ethical for someone to force somebody else to give them money? Is it ethical for them to force others to follow laws which they do not agree with?
Schools are labour camps.
Poverty is a problem that's hard to solve even by free market standard, but economic regulations are sure to solve none.
These regulations are rarely beign due to special interest groups that control them or have disasterous consequences that are often unforseen by supporters.
For examples, the miniumun wage law actually destory the minority's ability to leverage. Without this sort of leverage, business can just hire people based on superfical quality such as the color of their skins. Without minimum wage laws, they would suffer the consequences of hiring people who demand more money than they are worth but are of the right skin color. Thus the law hurt the very people it tries to help.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Eric:How should i properly rebuttal when a statist claims that working mothers need economic help, and that people have to sometimes work 3 jobs. I can come up with somethings but I was wondering if there were any good knock out punches so to speak to show how government creates this. thanks
I think that wages would be higher under a free market, because there would be more competition among employers. Without taxes and inflation stealing large portions of people's earnings, they could save large nest eggs and start their own businesses. Hence, more competition among employers.
I would also point out lower rents in a free market for the same reason: more homeowners, more competition among landlords. Under the current system, people have to mortgage almost all of the cost of their homes. That money is just printed by the banks. Under a free market with a stable currency, their wouldn't be as much money to bid up the price of homes. Lower home prices, more homeowners, more competition among landlords.
Hope that makes sense.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Single motherhood will not be a popular choice in freed markets, because unless the mother earns a substantial salary (or has only a few kids to care for), she will be responsible for the entirety of their upbringing. Unless she has extended family or can make use of something like a friendly or mutual society or charity, she's on her own. What that suggests is that many women will have to rethink their lifestyle choices. Yes, there will be more competition in a free market, and yes there will be no onerous, idiotic, elitist "legislation" to get in people's way, but to a large extent there will also have to be a cultural upheaval. If a woman can't afford to raise a child, selling custodial rights to it might be an option...
To darkness I condemn you...
If a woman can't afford to raise a child, selling custodial rights to it might be an option...When I last proposed this to a progressive friend, I was called a "misanthrope" and "disgusting". So I recommend being careful with using this point in a public debate.
Obviously, but there's no right to have a child understood as an obligation of others to provide for it. It's just common sense: if you cannot afford many children, abstain from having them.
I often take the angle of how private charities are crowded out by government, and donors are less wealthy from a tax system that takes half of their income. If and when they still insist that private charities won't do enough, I point out how there are very few lower end private schools as a result of the crowding out effect, yet they would do a better job at a lower price. Then ask, "how is it that you progressives think that no one would privately support a system that the majority of Americans support through compulsion?"
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
As freewheeler explained, charities such as this are "crowded out" by the government.
Being a Christian, I believe that the church has large responsibilities regarding charity. For whatever reason, though, many of these responsibilities aren't met by the church today. Be it the church no longer offers the help, or people simply don't go to the church for help, it's sad to see that this great responsibility of the church is fading away to many. I believe that if churches would regroup, reorganize and work to meet their responsibilities listed in the Bible, and if we were to create a completely free market society in which single mothers do not receive ANY monetary help from the government, very, very few if any mothers would go without what they need. And even without the church, if there is a need for the charity, it is sure to arise, is it not?
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
When addressing these statist questions, I try to cover 5 points: Morality, utility, the nature of man, the status quo, and realism.
Morality: When someone is trying to take the moral high road i.e. What about the pregnant poor old crippled minority women? They should be reminded that it isn’t moral to force charity at the point of a gun.
Utility: Anyone making a claim of government being more cost effective or efficient than private organizations is joking. We all could cite numerous examples of constantly falling prices and improving quality from the market and the opposite from the state. Also remember the broken window fallacy.
The nature of man: Do you think man is basically good or evil? If man is good then we will help each other voluntarily, no government needed. If man is basically evil then the last thing we should do is allow some of us to rule over others, because those rulers will be evil.
The status quo: So you want the government to help the poor working mothers? How’s that working out for us so far?
Realism: These types of questions are always about some small percentage of the population and presented as an either or case. Either you support the state solving problem X or you support problem X. I don’t think this even warrants further explanation.
a good point was made about the damage of laws like minimum wage. yet more can be said for how unions distort the labour market favouring skilled over unskilled workers. yet more for the taxes on business and capital (that lead to capital accumulation being retarded and cause productivity pf labour not to increase as fast as it could).we could say yet more about welfare state crowding out private charity
working 3 jobs at low pay could easily be getter than working no jobs on low welfare as at least on the job you can develop work skills and a reputation for being a competent worker that brings profit to a highering employer. so it is a means of improvement. this is often called 'opportunity' . statism is against real opportunity of this kind.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
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