Im a current poli sci major at my college. My views seem very fluid, changing a lot. I like the monetary policy of those like Ron Paul (Whom I voted for.) But, when it comes to social policy I just dont get it.
How is a free market better for people than taxing and providing basic needs for them (somewhat like Europe or even Canada)? I mean, people cant hardly make it now and we dont have social programs like people want. It seems to me, when I think of it, universal healthcare and social programs (welfare, unemployment, etc) are better than the free market when it comes to providing for the people.
I believe that the federal reserve and the manipulation of the dollar is a greater danger than using taxes to provide for people.
Is it better for people to make their own choices or to have choices made for them? Suppose that people could choose between having the money spent on them for basic needs or directly providing them basic needs, do you think they wouldn’t choose the money?
I would argue it wouldnt, seeing as instead of receiving underperforming programs from the State you can choose which Program better suits your own needs based on your own experience
The best thing is for the people to be free to make the decisions which they deem necesary to make
Ever consider that people can’t hardly make it now because of the social programs we already have? And that more “programs” means they will be worse off?
Medicine is a crap shoot. So is everything else. In an unpredictable world various, competing approaches are essential. No single entity can track constantly varying and infinitely diverse needs and preferences. No single entity can determine, without error, which medicine is fit for consumption and which is not. No government is omniscient, and no government is free of corruption - yet the decisions of a government affect everyone. Those of a company affect only its patrons, who, along with the patrons of other companies, will readily consider the other options available in an quickly adapting market.
You think people are so stupid you have to take some of their money and force them to meet their basic needs, or their needs wouldn’t be met?
But you don’t actually know much about which would be better economically, do you? You just have your own almost completely uninformed opinion. Why should that be forced on everybody else?
Like some people want.
And even if people do want to steal from some people to pay for others, does that make it right?
And even if people want these programs, does that PROVE that these programs will meet the needs they are designed to meet?
I hate to tell you this, but when you start studying economics, you’ll learn that for the most part these programs make the problems they are designed to solve WORSE.
The reason quality of life is decreasing is because wealth is being confiscated and destroyed by the government and opportunities to create wealth are also being destroyed by the government.
Every program, every law, every regulation is a destruction of many millions of potential voluntary exchanges which free people would make. Every single one of those voluntary exchanges would have created wealth. That wealth would have raised the standard of living for everyone. It would have increased the supply and quality of health care, roads, contract dispute adjudicators, private security companies, insurance companies, and every other need you can think of which you would like to provide for by a program.
Eliminate these laws, regulations, and programs, and you’ll find the price of these services well within reach of far, far more people than they are today.
The best way to make sure people can get these services that you want them to have is the free market: eliminate the wealth-destroying, opportunity-destroying interventions of government.
Please start reading some of the basic economics books on this site to find out if what I am saying is true.
The Soviet Union had all sorts of social programs. The state provided as much as a state could provide. Same thing with communist China.
As you trend towards more social programs, and more state control, where are the models of success? We have clear models of failure, as is shown by the contrast between South and North Korea.
People cannot make it now, because the state disincentivizes people making it on their own, and increases the incentive for more dependence. If you get free stuff why would you work? If there is a safety net, why drive yourself to avoid falling into it? It’s the classic misunderstanding of marxism, that man will evolve to be his brother’s keeper, that he will not use the safety net unless he has to, instead working to fulfill some moral ideal without placing any moral value on himself.
We’re not setup to be good people because it is good to be good. We’re incentivized to be good because it is profitable to do so. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can start seriously pursuing peace and prosperity.
I really encourage you to listen to/watch this. I think it is perfect for people fresh to free market thinking and even advanced free marketers who might not have considered markets and morals in this manner.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin - What is morally right about economic freedom
Why? Why do universal healthcare or any social programs provide better for the people then say food for example, which is provided by the free market (relatively free, for now) It seems that food is the most vital necessity to human survival, yet this service is being taken for granted in the semi-capitalistic society. It never was taken for granted until say the past century or so. It still isn’t taken for granted by half the population of the world. To ask this question is to already answer it.
One of the worst fallacies in my opinion is that some how the laws of economics discriminate between different types of goods and services. It’s as if it was claimed that the law of gravity doesn’t apply to all objects in the same way.
How is forcefully taking money from you and then spending it on your behalf, going to provide for you better then if you would have been allowed to keep your money and spend it yourself?
Define basic? And how much of each “good” to produce.
Here’s the fact of the matter, when you reduce the cost of any good below the market price scarce resources will be poorly allocated. Now, imagine when the cost of that “good” is pushed to zero. Being sick is a state of mind, and people will avoid being sick if the opportunity cost of doing so is high. When the opportunity cost of being sick is next to nothing people will be sick, the nations productivity will decline and the poor will only be made worse off. Without profit and loss in the state industry they simply will not be able to produce the goods that people wish them too, if there is no market for the capital goods required to make a hospital, or even if the capital goods prices have been distorted they will not know what to put on their balance sheet, so whether or not they’re providing a good that people want, in the way they want is beyond them. If that wasn’t enough, free health care is a moral hazard, if people can rely on free healthcare when they get sick they will live less healthy life styles. What about the taxes required to produce these “goods”? Well, they’ll be taken from producers (in a progressive tax code, this is especially true) and given to those who are less likely to producers, this continues in a cycle, since it lowers the incentive for people to become producers and more importantly it raises the time preference rate of those individuals who are currently producers, meaning less saving and capital consumption. The best doctors are also more likely to emigrate to a country with a private healthcare system that is better able to pay those highly qualified doctors, and with the return on investment of the years of medical school decreased, there will be less doctors.
As for Canada, if you want to get treated for a sickness, you’d better hope you’re an animal, or that your nearest vet is willing to do an operation on people for a nice sum of money. Since the privatised vet system is far more efficient, with lower waiting times and greater efficiency animals get treated far quicker than people.
In Europe if you want to get treated you’re going to have to wait quite a while.
Of course! Only some busybody who wants to run everyone’s life thinks it isn’t. Why? Because refusing to believe that individuals can make the proper choices for their own lives means the person believes s/he has the right decisions for everyone’s life. It logically follows.
Someone will redistribute wealth to the poor needy, right? So the question is WHO is most skilled at doing this:
The government which uses force against everyone who creates or owns or trades something, in order to steal a large part of that, according to some broad rules once laid down by parliament and enforced by a vast beauracracy.
Anyone, like you and me, when we choose to spend a part of what we have created ourselves to help someone with whom we feel compassion individual to individual.
And in a democracy, why do we need to go through the corrupt middle men of politicians and beaurocrats in order to have the money which you and I want to donate to whatever charity we feel for? How does all this beaurocratic middle man stuff improve the efficiency of our aid to the needy?
These are all interesting replies, thank you for your help.
I see people who are poor now, they can’t afford food, they cant afford healthcare, etc
There is no help for these folks? Save the little bit of money you have a wish for luck?
What about a poor person who needs surgery? I find it hard to believe a totally private system would benefit those at the very bottom.
This whole idea that having these programs is an incentive not to work seems like just an opinion. That doesnt happen in Europe does it? Many of those folks sitll go to college, get jobs, etc There isnt a “race to the bottom.”
They can’t get jobs because minimum wage distorts the labour market.
They can’t afford healthcare because the government subsidizes healthcare, and everything subsidized like healthcare, medicine, education goes up in cost.
Sure there is help. Go help them. But don’t stick a gun in my face and force me to help them. When you’re working 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, living in a cell, working like a slave to help your fellow man out of trouble, then come see me for my share. Until then, I don’t want to be threatened or coerced into paying for something you will not and do not pay for.
You have no right, in a civilized society, christian or otherwise, to threaten anyone with violence to help someone else. It violates the most basic premise of “do no harm”.
Charity.
You mean, compared to the kickass job the government is doing right now? lol
Did you read the articles that Wombatron posted? Read the one by Roderick Long.
You ever heard of France? (just kidding frenchies, i love your freedom fries!)
Sure there is a race to the bottom. Why do you think people in Europe are rioting? The banks are getting their loot! How dare the oligarchs bail out the banks when there are people on welfare who need more money for booze and cigarettes?
If less money was stolen directly and indirectly, we would be able to help others more through direct and indirect means.
First, the government steals from everyone directly, be it with an income tax or a sales tax. If these were gone, goods would become less expensive (raise in everyone’s real wages).
Second, they cause prices to rise indirectly through things like regulation or licensing. Getting rid of these again will lower prices of goods, which will allow people to have more money to spend how THEY think it would be best spent.
Having less money stolen by the government means more money which can be donated (directly helping the poor), or indirectly (investing in a business which then creates jobs).
Also, one quick question I want to ask you is, do you know what the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) is?
There are very very few people in the US who are really starving. Compare that with the countries that have very little economic freedom.
There would be even less people starving today, if the “do gooders” wouldn’t be so busy in destroying wealth and capital accumulation, in order to finance their welfare state schemes.
Well, let’s see now. I can work really hard and get a job for $7 dollars/hour, vs sit at home and get $4/hour of welfare compensation. So wait a minute, I’m actually working for $3/hour. Maybe I’ll just stay at home and think about it more to see if it’s really worth it. Or I can make some cash on the side anyway here and there. I’ll double dip! As long as some middle class hard working guy making $60,000/year with a wife and 2 kids subsidize my $4/hour, I’m good here. He shouldn’t spoil his kids anyway!