When someone is arguing in favor of a welfare state, I simply answer:
This answer silences even the most horrible socialists and interventionists.
thats similiar to what i say to anarchists that hate capitalism…
they say something like, ’ why do you hate anarcho-commi or anarcho-socialism’ and my respose is something like, I hate it becuse i know its unproductive for a society but under a stateless society, you are free to create your little communities, and you are free to trade with me, but dont force me into your community…
I imagine their answer would be something like as a member of society, you’re obliged to contribute to the social (government) fund. You don’t get to tell us to move. You can leave society, or be a member of it. No picking and choosing which aspects of society you’d like to be a part of.
it depends on why he thinks a certain welfare program should be implemented - whether because it is more efficient than the free-market or moraly superior to the free market.
if it is the first you must have knowledge in economics.
if it is the second you must have knowledge in ethics.
Actually the usual answer is: hmm… that’s a weird idea, sounds like anarchy, hmm… let’s move to something else, this is all too impractical.
Yeah, but the point is that you don’t even have to prove anything, just tell him to join his own welfare co-op and let you be free.
I know that you can tell him that you respect him and his opinion and desire to help the poor, and ask from him whether he respects your lack of desire to do the same, which would mean that you let him do what he wants to do with his income as long as he does not violate someones rights, and you expect from him not to coerce you into giving away some of your income. yeah but he may tell you that you can only be free after he has taken x percent of your income to feed the poor, because it is morally right to do so. that is when you have to use the moral argument to show him that he is wrong.
Actually my arguemnt would be
“that’s fine. Just stay off our roads, and don’t expect the protection of our courts. Social contract means just that, a contract.”
Not that yours isn’t a half-decent and not too imperfect argument, but that’s what we need to understand about the difference between a government and a state.
If a government owns a pond, and tells you that you can’t swim on it, it’s perfectly consistent with liberal principles, because if a private owner owned a pond, he could just as well make the exact same rules. Where that government starts becoming a state is where it demands that you only use specified legal tender for any transaction, never carry foreign currency, only do certain transactions through checkable deposits in banks, or orders your goods for inspection every time it crosses borders.
Roads and the rules for them are understandable, because the government behaves like a proprietor of the roads. But whatever side of the political spectrum it is to which you belong, roads and road rules have absolutely nothing to do with the debate over the welfare state, and you will hear the same from any progressive who is intelligent and does not post on Huffington Post (or isn’t that other progressive on Mises.Org forums).
Contractarian views are stupid. Contractarians since Locke and down till Rawls use a method of reasoning, where they disregard all facts and invent a fictional situation. And the conclusions towards which they arrive must contradict all common sense. Nobody chose where it was that he is to be born, and nobody chose arbitrary rules like maintaining unfunded liabilities paid out from a common treasury. Choice has absolutely nothing to do with state establishments and social contracts were never written by newborn babies.
There is no such thing as an argument against welfare, and it becomes all the more futile to argue against it, as it is intellectually fashionable. All one can do is try to materially tie people to the consequences of their intellectualism.
Subsidizing aristocrats is out of vogue, subsidizing the poor is in. Subsidizing religion is out of vogue, subsidizing education is in. Zeitgeists are funny like that.
“that’s fine. Just stay off our roads, and don’t expect the protection of our courts. Social contract means just that, a contract.”
Why are you being such a ‘protectionist?’ If they are willing to give you the fee for passing on the roads, If there is a toll booth, let them… If they are willing to pay for court service, let them… why limit your profits?