voluntary subsidies, charities and etc.

i know that austrians are fierce opponents of govt measures that distort markets like corporate and non-corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts and etc. however ive seen some hit the nail on the head on the other issue with such measures. the fact that even in voluntary form there are still “bad ideas”. here i quote mises

“being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will. . . . A man’s efficiency is not merely a result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. . . . The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accident and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident. . . . To feel healthy is quite different from being healthy in the medical sense. . . . By weakening or completely destroying the will to be well and able to work, social insurance creates illness and inability to work; it produces the habit of complaining—which is in itself a neurosis—and neuroses of other kinds. . . . As a social institution it makes a people sick bodily and mentally or at least helps to multiply, lengthen, and intensify disease. . . . Social insurance has thus made the neurosis of the insured a dangerous public disease. Should the institution be extended and developed the disease will spread. No reform can be of any assistance. We cannot weaken or destroy the will to health without producing illness.4

art caden has a similar articles of how gas coupons send false signals in the marketplace. now i understand that state enforced handouts are far more dangerious, namely because they are coersive. but wouldnt one say that if a community voluntarily sets up a goods hoarding facility and then hands out goods at a below market price during shortages is in a way distortive towards the market?

It isn’t distortive towards the market because it is the market.

Correct, but I think he may have just chosen his words poorly.

The question might be asked, should individuals set “up a goods hoarding facility and then hands out goods at a below market price during shortages?” Austrian economics has something to say on this.

To use a different example, in a depression private individuals could make voluntarily efforts to prop up prices. The legality of this is undeniable, but the result would be economic destruction. The saving grace of the market is that individual actors are much more limited in the abilities to actually achieve that goal than is government.

What if your “community” is a single person: he “hoards” stuff (food, fuel, whatever) when it’s widely available, and then “hands it out” (to himself) at a below market price (i.e., zero) when it’s not - is that disruptive? Of course not: that’s a good thing…

So how is the situation changed if there’s more than one person involved?

okidok. your example is clear