I’ve been thinking of writing about this topic for a while now, but while scanning through Molyneux’s Practical Anarchy, I noticed a good summary of my idea. I will present my idea first:
Whenever people get in a discussion about AnCap with me, they usually bring up things like taking care of the poor. Most of the mainstream, whether left or right, does not want welfare completely removed. Hence, they are deeply concerned when I say that I don’t think there should be any welfare programs run by the state. Literally almost everyone does that. “But who will take care of the poor?”
And so from this constant repetition, I’ve been able to distil a new argument:
Argument by Argument
What does that mean? It means that by the very fact that every single person debating anarchy is so concerned about the poor, then goddamn it seems like the poor have a lot of people who care about them.
Hence, by the very fact that issue A is seen by a big problem by most people who discuss anarchy (Who will take care of all the Bs in society?), it seems like a whole big portion of society cares about all those Bs, and so issue A is resolved.
Molyneux states it more succinctly:
“Since everybody is concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.”
Agree with you but to play statist’s advocate, look at how badly the poor are doing despite all the care and welfare money we throw at them. And you want to take even that away from them?! They were right - libertarians really are heartless.
Well, look at the drug war and all other regulatory hurdles
Plus, the current paradigm is that it is the duty of government to provide for the welfare of people, so people do not really bother to be as actively involved in forming a social safety net and taking precautions against unemployment, etc.
I’m just feeling super deflated lately when it comes to changing people’s minds. I have a new housemate whose a total statist. He is a public school teacher and his head almost exploded when I tried to get him to see the major difference between private and public schools. To get him to see practically any social issue like I do would take days of intense conversation and open mindedness that I don’t see much evidence of. So I just shrug and let him think what he wants I guess.
I’m imagining his response to the welfare question. They need more and they deserve more, probably.
To which, a not-totally-inappropriate response (keeping the argument by argument in mind) would be, “Well, you need to give more, and you deserve to give more.”
The people who make these assumptions don’t see their own fallacy (unless they actually believe it). You have the arguement, as you stated, that’s generally more so emotionally driven of “What about the poor (insert drawn out scenario here) etc.?”
Well, it does appear a lot of people care, like yourself to bring this up, but what will really happen?
People on their own time and financial ability help those who cannot help themselves at the time because we are concerned, thus we wouldn’t bring it up as people.
We said “to hell with 'em” and will never donate a dime, because we all know no one donates money to help the poor, and people are so bad and corrupt we need other people to take our money to make sure the job is done. Like when that earthquake hit Haiti? No individual really donated, it was all just the government.
Or how about this:
Person A: We can just … (insert obvious long drawn out arguement) … and then people would have more money in the short and long run as well as more money to freely choose what they wish to do with it, such as donating and funding organizations.
Person B: Well, what about the poor? Should we just rely on what people might do?
Person A: Well, if you are so concerned, do you donate and fund organizations to help the poor?
Person B: Ah, well, uh, I just spent $200 on new art supplies and I gotta make rent for my apartment because the rest is tied up in an avant garde short film I’m working on, and then I gotta take a trip up to Williamsburg for some projects I’m working on. You expect me to do all this on a minimum wage job?! Someone should really do something.
Person A: Yeah, someone should, like yourself, who should shut the fuck up.
That’s probably how that conversation goes on a regular basis.
The elimination of the welfare state would be followed by a precipitous decline in concern for the poor et al, because it is much easier to demand that the State help the poor than to write a check yourself. I suspect most of those persons now loudly calling for others (via the redistributionist State) to help the poor would be reluctant to do so themselves. Fortunately, in the absence of the welfare state, the demand for altruism should be much less than it is currently, and the supply should suffice.
Kind of a self-righteous comment coming from someone who wants to force me to pay for public run protection of our property rights, MINARCHIST. “If the state didn’t do it, no one would! Our property rights would be gone!”
Kind of a self-righteous comment coming from someone who wants to force me to pay for public run protection of our property rights, MINARCHIST. “If the state didn’t do it, no one would! Our property rights would be gone!”
Whoa there, tiger, do you expect him to pay for his own police-force or something? Everyone knows there would be no police or security without the state, because noone would want to pay for it!
