Welfare, is it necessary? the social safety net.

[Stephen_Forde]

@ the OP

I just finished Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market yesterday, and Rothbard has this beautiful section on this issue.

@Rothbard

The appeal to “charity” is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect.

Furthermore, since the State is always inefficient, the amount and direction of the giving will be much different from what it would be if people were left free to act on their own. If the State decides from whom to take and to whom to give, the power residing in the State’s hands is enormous. It is obvious that political unfortunates will be the ones whose property is confiscated, and political favorites the ones subsidized. And in the meantime the State erects a bureaucracy whose living is acquired by feeding off the confiscation of one group and the encouraged mendicancy of another.

Other consequences follow from a regime of compulsory “charity.” For one thing, “the poor”-or the “deserving” poor-have been exalted as a privileged caste, with an enforceable claim to the production of the more able. This is a far cry from a request for charity. Instead, the able are penalized and enslaved by the State, and the unable are placed on a moral pedestal. Certainly, this is a peculiar sort of moral program. The further consequence will be to discourage the able, to reduce production and saving in all of society, and beyond this, to subsidize the creation of a caste of poor. Not only will the poor be subsidized by right, but their ranks will be encouraged to multiply, both through reproduction and through their moral exaltation and subsidization. The able will be correspondingly hampered and repressed.

Whereas the opportunity for voluntary charity acts as a spur to production by the able, coerced charity acts as a drain and a burden upon production. In fact, in the long run, the greatest “charity” is precisely not what we know by that name, but rather simple, “selfish” capital investment and the search for technological innovations. Poverty has been tamed by the enterprise and the capital investment of our ancestors, most of which was undoubtedly done for “selfish” motives. This is a fundamental illustration of the truth enunciated by Adam Smith that we generally help others most in those very activities in which we help ourselves.

Statists, in fact, are really opposed to charity. They often argue that charity is demeaning and degrading to the recipient, and that he should therefore be taught that the money is rightly his, to be given to him by the government as his due. But this oft-felt degradation stems, as Isabel Paterson pointed out, from the fact that the recipient of charity is not self-supporting on the market and that he is out of the production circuit and no longer providing a service in exchange for one received. However, granting him the moral and legal right to mulct his fellows increases his moral degradation instead of ending it, for the beneficiary is now further removed from the production line than ever. An act of charity, when given voluntarily, is generally considered temporary and offered with the object of helping a man to help himself. But when the dole is ladled out by the State, it becomes permanent and perpetually degrading, keeping the recipients in a state of subservience. We are not attempting to argue at this point that to be subservient in this way is degrading; we simply say that anyone who considers private charity degrading must logically conclude that State charity is far more so. Mises, furthermore, points out that free-market exchange-always condemned by statists for being impersonal and “unfeeling”-is precisely the relation that avoids all degradation and subservience.

[Stephen_Forde]

@Conagain

no, people WILL NOT get the help they get today (or else they’d be getting it today)

BUT, why should they? Helping losers is an abomination of nature and hinderence to social progress.

We don’t prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?

@Conagain

not only that, they shouldn’t be better off, supporting the poor is encouraging laziness and failure

I think we all need to accept the fact that society would just be better off if we got rid of the undesirables.

[Brainpolice]

@Conagain

no, people WILL NOT get the help they get today (or else they’d be getting it today)

BUT, why should they? Helping losers is an abomination of nature and hinderence to social progress.

We don’t prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?

That’s pretty vulgar - why assume that the only reason why someone is poor or in bad conditions is simply because they are lazy or losers? That’s quite oversimplistic. “Bad people” is stretching it.

[liberty_student]

That troll is no longer with us.

[whipitgood]

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

That’s why charity exists.

This is probably poor forum etiquette, but I’m going to be “that guy” and resurrect this thread for a day or so in the hopes that someone can answer my question. I figured this was better than starting a whole new thread.

I totally agree about welfare insofar as it means forced redistribution of money to the poor, but I have a difficult time believing that private charity could help the mentally disabled, who require a lot of money to care for. Is there a better argument than ‘why should I have to pay for it?’ I understand that line of reasoning, and I’m inclined to agree that it’s wrong to take from one and give to another by force, but is there a viable non-state alternative to government benefits to people who physically cannot work to support themselves? Do you think that they would likely be taken care of, and if yes, how might that work?

Not trolling, it’s a sincere question.

[Wraith]

@Conagain

no, people WILL NOT get the help they get today (or else they’d be getting it today)

BUT, why should they? Helping losers is an abomination of nature and hinderence to social progress.

We don’t prop up banks and bad business, why should we prop up bad people?

Sometimes people just have bad luck

I understand the contradiction in helping some people by robing other people but if you put it like that you are just handing out the moral high ground to the socialists.

[DD5]

@whipitgood

but I have a difficult time believing that private charity could help the mentally disabled, who require a lot of money to care for.

What is “a lot of money”? What is the sufficient adequate sum that you have in mind? How is it calculated and by what sort of objective standard do you determine what is sufficient?

If you cannot precisely answer the above questions, then your belief is mythical in nature. Your objection to charity is unreasonable.

@whipitgood

I understand that line of reasoning, and I’m inclined to agree that it’s wrong to take from one and give to another by force, but is there a viable non-state alternative to government benefits to people who physically cannot work to support themselves?

If you support the principle of government intervention whenever you personally don’t deem the outcome of private voluntary initiative satisfactory, then you support tyranny. Clearly, the government in all such cases is not acting on behalf of the people, but on behalf of dictatorial aspirations.

This is not unique to welfare, but to all forms of regulations and intervention in the economy.

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

What the hell do you say to people who think we need a dependence on the Government? I often get this mainstream statement from statists

“We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper”.

Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

[nirgrahamUK]

understanding capitalism, means understanding that self interest , in a capitalist system, leads people to benefit others.since to benefit themselves they must. (the invisible hand . consumer sovereignty)

capitalism, or in other words, civilized society, is precisely the system of people voluntarily doing ‘good deeds’ for each other( even without needing to know each other intimately)

[Stranger]

@Novus Zarathustra

What the hell do you say to people who think we need a dependence on the Government? I often get this mainstream statement from statists

“We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper”.

Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

Tell them that there is a market for welfare just like everything else, and just like everything else on the market welfare should not be free. If someone is truly in need and has truly experienced misfortune, then others will come to his aid (make sure to ask if the person debating you would help someone in need). However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself. Especially if he is in trouble because of a self-destructive lifestyle, he will not obtain aid without reforming his lifestyle.

The problem with government welfare socialism is the same problem as with all socialism, it gives welfare away for free. Because it does this, it drives out of the market all forms of private welfare.

[Torsten]

@Novus Zarathustra

“We should lookout for each other, Capitalism seems to reject the idea of being my brothers keeper”.
Problem is, statements like this have no logical backing, but they are accepted since its a mainstream statement.

… If the state is “looking after everyone”, the idea of looking after each other gets weakened.

Capitalism is not only about competition, but also about cooperation. Try to get anywhere without cooperating and you’ll see what I mean.

[whipitgood]

@Stranger

However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the ‘it’s immoral to force another person to give them financial aid’ objection, and that’s all well and good, but if you don’t have a real solution, then you’re never going to convince those who don’t already accept libertarian ethics. You’re asking them to abandon their concern for those who can’t fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

[Stranger]

@whipitgood

@Stranger

However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the ‘it’s immoral to force another person to give them financial aid’ objection, and that’s all well and good, but if you don’t have a real solution, then you’re never going to convince those who don’t already accept libertarian ethics. You’re asking them to abandon their concern for those who can’t fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It is exactly the same.

[whipitgood]

@Stranger

@whipitgood

@Stranger

However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the ‘it’s immoral to force another person to give them financial aid’ objection, and that’s all well and good, but if you don’t have a real solution, then you’re never going to convince those who don’t already accept libertarian ethics. You’re asking them to abandon their concern for those who can’t fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It is exactly the same.

So someone who is on welfare because they don’t want to work is the same as someone who is mentally disabled and physically can’t work?

[Stranger]

@whipitgood

So someone who is on welfare because they don’t want to work

There is no such thing in a free market.

[bobbyveech]

@whipitgood

I understand the ‘it’s immoral to force another person to give them financial aid’ objection, and that’s all well and good, but if you don’t have a real solution, then you’re never going to convince those who don’t already accept libertarian ethics. You’re asking them to abandon their concern for those who can’t fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

It seems to me that there isn’t any specific market solution for this situation (if the appeal to charity isn’t enough) in the same way that a socialist country that decided to privatize bread production could not predict how many loaves of bread would be baked one year from now. I don’t think there’s any way to “guarantee” that, absent government welfare, all those who are disabled and hence unable to work would receive $____ million dollars, or whatever else might convince a proponent of the welfare state.

I think the best path to take is to stress the underlying coercion of the government welfare system. Just keep pointing out the gun in the room. I’ve had several extended conversations with a friend of mine who can agree that taxation is theft, but still can’t get the possibility that some people might slip through the cracks with voluntary charity.

[Torsten]

@Stranger

There is no such thing in a free market.

Is there such a thing like a free market? I also doubt that there will be no leeches in a free market society would it exist.

Just that private welfare institutions, might be looking a bit closer on the guys that ask for welfare (then in a state were some armchair-marxist in the welfare office does deal out tax money) or so I imagine.

[Southern]

@whipitgood

@Stranger

However, in return for this aid, the unfortunate will be required to adjust his lifestyle in such a way that in the future aid will not be needed and he will be able to support himself.

To bring this back around to the reason why I resurrected this thread, what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The mentally disabled, for instance, who cannot simply make lifestyle changes. I understand the ‘it’s immoral to force another person to give them financial aid’ objection, and that’s all well and good, but if you don’t have a real solution, then you’re never going to convince those who don’t already accept libertarian ethics. You’re asking them to abandon their concern for those who can’t fend for themselves, instead of showing them how the market would handle the problem.

What do you think?

Of the 40 million or so who recieve public assistance, how many do you think meet your criteria for being completely helpless. (I looked briefly but could not find any numbers, but I believe it is safe to say that there are only a handfull) That raises another question.

If this small group of people is unable to care for themselves, how do they negotiate the tangle of paperwork and regulation neccessary to recieve their entitlements? If you think about it for a minute you will answer your own concerns.

It is people who care and freely give of thier time and money, take them down to the DSS office, fill out the neccessary paperwork, they open a savings account where the money is deposited, they go to the grocery store and buy food, they dress them in the mornings, so forth and so on.

So lets take the resources we give the 39 million or so that are capable and give it back to those who earned it. A portion of that money will go straight back into the hands of people who care, who will then be more capable of caring for and protecting the helpless.

The system is set up now so that those trully in need have to compete for resource with people who are not in need. This because those doing the giving are completely removed from the situation. Its not their time or money. Need is determined by some arbitrary set of income figures, set by a political process.

A free market system where assistance is given on a personal level will ensure that the resource go to the ones who need it, because those giving will be neck deep and personally invested.

[EternalSanction]

@Southern

Of the 40 million or so who recieve public assistance, how many do you think meet your criteria for being completely helpless. (I looked briefly but could not find any numbers, but I believe it is safe to say that there are only a handfull) That raises another question.

If this small group of people is unable to care for themselves, how do they negotiate the tangle of paperwork and regulation neccessary to recieve their entitlements? If you think about it for a minute you will answer your own concerns.

It is people who care and freely give of thier time and money, take them down to the DSS office, fill out the neccessary paperwork, they open a savings account where the money is deposited, they go to the grocery store and buy food, they dress them in the mornings, so forth and so on.

Excellent point. I’ll have to remember this.