It doesn’t always. For a person with an IQ of 100+ who doesn’t have rich parents, for example, poverty is a transient state. For somebody south of 90, they are always going to have a fungible skill set.
Wages always lag behind inflation. People in the $10/hr range, to my observation, are never really able to get ahead of their living expenses. They are one major illness or job loss away from being financially ruined for life.
Inflation is the most efficient mechanism the Government has to steal money from the citizenry and especially from the poor. The poor have the least in terms of assets whose prices rise with inflation and get most of their money through salary that typically increases under the rate of inflation. They also spend the highest percentage of their money of any group on those two things most sensitive to currency devaluation (Real Inflation), those being food and energy.
Why does the Government ignore food and energy when it computes the CPI? (I call it the CPLie.) That is to so they can keep their banking cabal stealing their way to prosperity. How many of the “Benefits” the poor receives keep up with inflation? What about benefits the Rich receive? Those military contracts keep pace with inflation. Those welfare, medicare and food stamps hardly keep up with inflation. What about Anti-Social In-Security? I bet that keeps up with the CPLie and not the real increases in the supply of money.
If low wage earners had stable currency value then they would not need the government to force employeers at gun point to pay a minimum wage.
We help the poor the most by minimizing government. Government, through its inefficiencies and misallocations decreases the productivity of all labor in society. While those that are very productive can survive even in a world with government, those who have only basic skills suffer the most, because the penalty they recieve because of government inefficiency is much larger in relation to their productivity than those who have high productivity.
Fear of the unknown, is what I find ultimatley drives many with a critical mind & capable of questioning the government’s existience, into falling back & reluctantly supporting the state. The lack of access to education, or the economical ignorance causing them to focus more on getting things paid & getting things done, does not help either.
More locally, I think to a certain point, personal relationships may put speaking up against friend’s opinions a tough thing to do, if one is afraid of alienating their friendship.
As much as I can be cynical about the progress of educating the Statist Citizen who votes for The Red Team or The Blue Team think outside of the Statist Box, I am also hopeful in a weird sense.
That’s why I think the best tool for a change is to distribute a book on economics through high-schools – something coupled with business to spice things up.
By the way, John Stossel’s Greed documentary shows how a teacher made students from a poor area excited by teaching them business. It goes on to show 3 of those students that turned entrepeuners.
Great points Black Sheep!
I recently met with a former client who was housed by the department of human services for 4 months. He is recovering from a bad arm injury. He is extremely motivated to find work. He does not suffer from a serious mental health issue. They placed him in a very unstable community living environment. Within 4 months he will need to get employment or he will not be able to stay in his housing.
His case worker told him that she will be “checking on him periodically” to inspect his room and make sure he is not under the influence of alcohol. If the case worker determines that he is under the influence of alcohol he will have the choice of either going into inpatient substance use treatment or lose his housing right away.
This is a good example of the nanny state putting a strangle hold on a man’s existence. The department of human services uses antiquated clinical theories in their application of social work practice; which are run by under skilled governmental social service workers.
Your post makes excellent sense.
It sounds like a truly free market has the potential to raise the level of creative approaches in business as well in the social service realm (While being supported by caring people who give because they care - not because they are forced to by a dictatorial government).
What do you think everyone…
What I wrote (which is a genuine expression of my beliefs on this issue) would be considered completely radical thinking among many of my colleagues in this field. Why is that?
OK, does anyone have some ideas, articles to recommend, ect., on the subject of why the use of private charities (strictly supported by voluntary contributions) could work better than our present system to help those who are severely disabled (mentally and/or physically). Referring only to the benefits of a free market in relation to small business success will not convince too many social workers (who regularly work with those who suffer from psychotic thought disorders or dibilitating medical conditions) of the positives of pro libertarian ways of viewing the world (We are, of course, talking about individuals with some exterme pro collectivist beliefs). Nevertheless, I would appreciate some feedback on ways of helping colleagues to at least recognize that there is another philpsophy that is ultimately more compassionate and dignified for all human beings.
RT, in your position, and given your interest, you may want to pick up this book as read ASAP:
From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967
There is also this excellent article from The Freeman available online:
Friendly Societies: Voluntary Social Security And More
Point being: we do not need to imagine how the poor would be helped if Big Gov got out of the way - we have centuries of history upon which to draw. Interesting how few people - especially in social work (my gf is a professor in that field) - not only are unaware of this history, but reject the very notion of it when I present it to them. Many are so conditioned that they cannot imagine social work without government.
Thank you! I just read the article…very interesting!
I think in general people look for government to provide security, because they see liberalization as chaotic and jungle rule. Progress is associated with more central government, not less. When you have people that are paid by government, it just turns matters worse.
I would try more mild opinions – if you talk of completely doing away with public schools people will look at you as if you’re crazy, but if you talk of school vouchers, it sounds very reasonable and it’ll be easy to get people into your side. With regard to individual welfare, I would suggest for government to reduce its involvement as much as possible to the role of simply financing these social enterprises, which they already do to some extent. Maybe let people in public housing decide who should get the contract to maintain the thing: give it to another organization if those don’t do a good job. Let voters better express how they feel their money should be spent.
Things like gifts in kind, such as food stamps, may be more efficient to just provide people with money. Instead of government providing accommodations itself for homeless, maybe give them vouchers they can spent in dinners, and hostels that are in the program, and organizations that would be born to cater for them in such a system… For immigrants, maybe government could provide assistance for families that volunteer into integrating them. …
I would think more in terms of reducing government’s direct involvement, and improving its efficiency, maybe promoting some community spirit and be more friendly to NGOs… Advocating the end of the road solution of just doing away with government presence here will not change things. Promoting less radical solution may have more radical results than promoting more radical ones because people will actually find them reasonable and start to think outside the box…
The funding from the government is actually not a choice of Yunus’s. I read his book and most of the Tucker’s article seemed to misrepresent Yunus. I recall that Yunus wanted full private ownership of the bank but the politics of Bangaladesh wouldn’t allow it. His freemarket sentiments were sacrificed by his realpolitik diplomacy.
Tucker’s article has the attitude that “it wasn’t done before (by market forces), so it must not be right.” As if Yunus is somehow separate from the market and Grameen is not a market reaction in itself. The idea is the important thing: that credit should be a basic human right. Grameen was perfect for the economic condition of Yunus’s home country. It is easily translated to the inner cities of America. Note: I’m defending Yunus and his idea not necessarily the whole shebang.
As for how the market can help the severly disabled..well some places hire them… I really don’t know.
Frankly, I think there is a very simple explanation. The vast majority of Americans, hell the vast majority of humanity for that matter, quite simply mistakes the nature of the State. A moderately well informed, semi-broad knowledge of history,coupled with solid analytical, or critical thinking skills, partnered with a willingness and intent to question inculcated assumptions, funnelled into an effort to analyze all of this information together, would invariably lead one to the obvious truth: that the State is a malevolent, anti-social institution explicitly designed to serve, as Nock put it, as “a machine for the distribution of economic advantage…an arbiter of exploitation”.
Lacking utterly both the grasp of history and the thinking skills (government indocrination camps - err, sorry, public schools, certainly play a role here, as do most private) most willingly buy into a myth: that government’s proper role is to ‘help’ people - either the poor, or businesses, or some other group (generally at the expense of some other, vilified, group, like ‘the rich’, and always at the expense of the taxpayer). They believe that the government is a socially beneficent entity, perhaps overly ineffecient and bumbling at times, perhaps dangerous when in the ‘wrong’ hands, but all in all, it is a big, plush but powerful teddy bear with a magic wand which can do just about anything that is asked of it (given sufficient funding, of course), rather than, more accurately, as a grizzly bear whose only abilities lie in murder, subjugation, intimidation, extortion, expropriation and coercion.
Excellent - I read through some of the links. A very different outcome from that of ‘N&D’- imagine that. 
I’ve spent several hours since I saw this post readnig through several of his blogs - this guy is absolutely terrific. His articulate, thoughtful and thunderous exposes of the police state in action are terrifying and make one’s blood boil at the same time. A few I found particularly alarming:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/07/banditti-in-blue.html
http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/obey-the-sequel/
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/02/torture-states-domestic-face.html
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/nanny-state-goes-nazi.html
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/11/pistol-packing-positivists-our-enemy-in.html
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/06/homeland-security-state-boyz-with.html
Awesome blog - thanks so much for the pointer.
YES! That is one reason my father rejects my views; he does not know if the poor will be helped, and thinks that the rich will take over without the State.
I spoke up against my immediate family, some teachers, and a person who said he was a liberterian, but supported a liberterian green monarchist state, with 5 branches of government. I guess I am a bit too zealous with my views, but I hate it when people say things like:
“The Great Depression was caused by overproduction.”
“World War II ended the Great Depression.” (Can someone tell me why an economics professor with a PHD would believe in the broken window fallacy.)
“Government spending ends recessions.”
Which of course begs the question: what exactly does he think is going on right now? Are the rich not taking over? It always amazes me when people reject some proposal for change for fear that ‘X will happen’ - when X is already happening outside on the streets. And good luck getting them to see that it’s the State - not whose hands it happens to be in this 4 years - that is the cause.
Excellent comment Ozzie..
Ok, this all brings me to the question for everyone…
As a libertarian, how can one make the “most” difference in influencing society in any fashion to move away from collectivist ways of thinking? The act of writing and discussing these ideas is a start..no doubt.
But can anyone share any other ideas on this subject… Sure, I can vote for the libertarian candidate Bob Barr. But didn’t Barr (who often seems like a libertarian imposter to me), say that he wants to restore everyone’s faith in the government? I want to see the government abolished…not work to raise it to some higher level of “goodness.”