I had a debate with my friend about welfare in libertarian society. This is his argument:
Can you please help me with this debate and offer your ideas how in a libertarian society we can solve this issue of free riders?
The first is a ‘just so’ story…
The answer is this, we are not utopians. Instituting a state does not guarantee ‘as by magic’ that welfare will be meted out to every ‘needy’ individual. Just look at any existing society where the state has taken upon itself to provide for welfare, who will say that there is not a single overlooked disabled person there?
And here is a point; Would it be wrong for one of the 99 other tenants to take it upon themselves to rob the other 98 non-disabled tenants at gunpoint to provide for the disabled one, how would him wearing a uniform and the cloak of constitutional authority affect this?. Is it in dispute that the state police would lock up this ‘good samaritan’; would they be right or wrong to do so? If they are right, then state welfare is itself no more legitimate than the vigilante-welfarist, if they are wrong, then state policing (itself a form of welfare?) has much to answer for
what do you mean when you say ‘disabled person’’ if you mean a physcally disabled person, then that person can still get a job…telemarketing, or teaching… a computer job… or do you mean mentally disabled? yet they can still get jobs as well…
Asking “Who helps the disabled person?” is a solution looking for a problem. No one has prima facie responsibility for the disabled person. The way your friend uses the word “need” makes it seem like he’s defining it as “prima facie entitled”, which presumes a prima facie responsibility on the part of one or more people. Why is he using “need” that way?
Why does he assume that disabled people won’t get help at all if they don’t get government help? That sounds like a very false dilemma to me.
In cases where people were robbed or killed in the streets and no one seemed to care, it was usually because the people who witnessed it thought someone else had already called the police. Also, the witnesses were typically unarmed.
Finally, your friend sounds like a sociopath in saying that he’d only help a disabled resident of his apartment building if others did. The vast majority of people feel instinctive sympathy for others in need and thus help them voluntarily (if they’re able). On the other hand, government welfare programs have a tendency to crowd out voluntary aid.
A good argument is quick and to the point. When the person starts with a “Who’s gonna help the poor innocent…” blah blah, just respond by saying, “why don’t you help them.”
These kind of people don’t understand logic. They only understand when they are brought out as hypocrites in front of other people.
The disabled person has ample savings. BOOM - problem solved.
The disabled person is the member of some kind of mutual aid organization. BOOM.
The disabled person appeals to charities that seek to help the disabled. BOOM.
I understand this guy wanting to illustrate the collective action problem (well, maybe he didn’t, you simply identified it in there), but his conditions are ridiculous and his actual example is very bizarre. This disabled person just suddenly has no money, no contacts, no association with other disabled folks? And not only does he need a full ride, but he can only (or only thinks to) turn to his fellow apartment dwellers? There are no organizations catering to the helpless disabled? That’s just… very odd, and difficult to imagine happening in a developed libertarian society.
But, should you have to really address the free-rider problem, know that there are non-coercive ways to induce others to contribute. There is shaming, social pressure, ostracism, outreach, etc. With 100 apartments in the building, there has to be some kind of community; some inhabitants have to know one another and have relationships, making it more feasible to organize a communal program to help this disabled man.
Basicly, this is asking who will take care of those who cant take care of themselves.
The answer to this question in any society is those who care.
In todays soceity is it the disabled person who gets themselves signed up for government assistance… NO. There are people who care for them, whether it is a friend or family member. These people do it for free and voluntarially.
They are the ones who load up the disabled person and take them to the DSS office, they are the ones who fill out the paper work, they are the ones who navigate the mountains of red tape.
Not only that, they are the ones who do everything else. Does the government go the bank for you and set up a checking account into which you deposit your government money… No. It is a private individual who cares for the disabled and gives freely of thier time.
Does the government go to the grocery store and buy the food with the government money… No. It is a private individual who gives freely of thier time and does it volunatarialy.
How about washing thier ass, or getting them dressed, or buying them clothes? Government is not the one who does this. It is those who care about the disabled. Friends, family, or Hell even in many cases complete and total strangers.
The only thing government does is make it more difficult for private individuals to help those in needs. Why not stop lower taxes so that the charitable have more money to give. End welfare so that the poor could actually improve thier station in society and in turn be in a position to help others. There are many ways the government could benefit the needy more by getting out of the way than getting more involved.
YOu guys are still just saying he can beg for it. Let’s say he is disabled and living in a poor community, where the only subsistence he can get from the local community is minimal, at best.
The obvious answer, that you all fail to see (dare I say, lack of morals causes that?), is that disabilty insurance, or even disability welfare can be provided the same way it is now, voluntarily. Community orginazation programs != statism.
Hey now. The point of my post (I can’t speak for others) was not to outline potential solutions, but to refute the assertions that seem to be implicit in Eugene’s friend’s objections. One of those assertions, for example, seems to be that the disabled person is prima facie entitled to a certain level of monetary or other assistance.
With that said, I actually wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions of voluntary disability insurance and welfare. In fact, I see no reason why this couldn’t or wouldn’t arise in an actual free-market society.
Hope that clears things up.
YOu guys are still just saying he can beg for it.
There is a difference between begging, demanding help and asking for help.
In my veiw many people on the welfare (corporate included) rolls today are beggers demanding money. They are capable of taking care of themselves but choose not to.
I would prefer people asking for help.
It is precisely voluntary action by the community that everyone is advocating here. Yet you are so anti-private property, or whatever you claim you are against, that you continue to make absolutely no sense.
BOOM!
I’m not sure what morals has to do with advocating mutual insurance organizations. Such groups emerge out of classic self-interest on the part of the members. And as DD5 said, everyone here has said this man has options other than begging for a hand-out; only Southern and I have said anything about charity, and only in passing.
Let those parasites die! HAHAHAHAH
I don’t understand why leftists (right wingers too) tend to think that you need guns and force to help someone in need, or to run society. It makes no sense, considering the fact that much of a society runs and helps those in need WITHOUT guns and force.
Ok, thank you for your answers guys.
The point of my post (I can’t speak for others) was not to outline potential solutions, but to refute the assertions that seem to be implicit in Eugene’s friend’s objections. One of those assertions, for example, seems to be that the disabled person is prima facie entitled to a certain level of monetary or other assistance
The problem is that, in the modern age, many people (myself included) do believe the disabled to be prima facie entitled to assistance. And merely suggesting that the disabled should have had a trust fund, or some friends to help him out, does not cut it. If a disabled person dies because he/she could not get assistance, I feel personally responsible.
Taxes do not have to be involuntary (tho you probably wouldn’t still call them taxes), and there is nothing wrong with a community investment program provided in such a manner
That’s all well and good. I was responding to Eugene’s friend’s argument as stated in the OP. It seemed to me like Eugene’s friend does believe that the disabled are prima facie entitled to assistance, as that was what his argument seemed to imply. If I’m wrong, that’s fine too – but I imagine Eugene is the only person who can point that out.
I didn’t suggest merely that. In fact, as I’ve already mentioned, I made no suggestions whatsoever. But I do agree (did I say this before as well?) that having a trust fund or friends to help may very well not cut it.
I would certainly feel bad after I found out about it. Would I feel responsible for that person’s death? No. In other words, I wouldn’t feel like I had killed him/her.
If you mean something else by “responsible”, please let me know.
No, I wouldn’t call them “taxes” if they were voluntary. By “community investment program”, do you mean charity programs and the like? Also, what do you mean by “community”? I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’d like to know your meanings for those terms first.
I would certainly feel bad after I found out about it. Would I feel responsible for that person’s death? No. In other words, I wouldn’t feel like I had killed him/her.
I, personally, would feel responsible, much as if there were someone getting mugged in front of me and I did nothing.
No, I wouldn’t call them “taxes” if they were voluntary. By “community investment program”, do you mean charity programs and the like? Also, what do you mean by “community”? I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’d like to know your meanings for those terms first.
I mean like a community fund that everyone is supposed to pitch in for varous general community upkeep. Charity is close, but not necessarily tied to a specific community.
Like, a volunteer fire department is a “community investment program.”
I think there’s the issue of causality to take into account. Doing nothing as someone was getting mugged in front of you in no way means you’ve caused the mugging in the first place.
Your implied definition of “community”, as much as I can infer, sounds rather political in nature. Can you elaborate?
I think there’s the issue of causality to take into account. Doing nothing as someone was getting mugged in front of you in no way means you’ve caused the mugging in the first place.
Yes, but responsiblity is a subjective phenomenon. Some people don’t feel responsible for negative externalities caused by them. Some do.
I may not have caused the mugging, but, imo, I am partially responsible for it, if I had the chance to stop it.
Your implied definition of “community”, as much as I can infer, sounds rather political in nature. Can you elaborate?
It could be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as a country. It could even include the “world community.” It’s very arbitary in nature, as one can be a part of multiple communities at once.
Fair enough. So you wouldn’t consider yourself causally responsible for it, then. You agree that failure or refusal to stop a mugging isn’t as wrong as causing a mugging in the first place.
Are these communities voluntary? How are they formed? And where does the supposition of giving for welfare come from, exactly?