Once again, unraveling the welfare state is not something that can ever happen in a moment in a vacuum. It would take decades, and across those decades, the private sector efforts that are widely usurped and quashed by the government today would have the opportunity to fill in.
And, if along the way, we see that the changes are making things worse rather than better, we can assess. That's how stuff gets fixed in the real world.
I've written this before, but you seem to only want to default to your "some people need this, therefore we mustn't fix it" anecdotalism, overlaying a combination of reductionist and nirvana fallacies.
I know you think the current system isn't good, but I haven't heard much about fixing it.
So, two questions for you:
How would YOU improve things?
What moral basis is there for taking money (at gun point) from taxpayers simply to hand out to others?
We take money (at gun point) for other issues we consider to be important for society such as national defense, transportation and so forth. The difference, I suppose, is whether helping the poor is also sufficiently important to justify using tax revenues. And, stuff doesn't get fixed necessarily in the real world. If there's not a financial incentive then capitalism doesn't pour resources into an area. I think that there can be reforms made and I could easily point you to several plans but if you think that there's no role for government in helping the poor then it would be pointless. Considering that private charity has never been sufficient to meet the need throughout history and that as bad as the current system is, it at least provides a better level of support than the "good old days", I think the onus is upon libertarians to detail in a practical sense what the alternative would be especially when there would be no institutional support of such an effort.
One can be justified in principle, with debates as to the mechanics.
The other is simply theft. Armed robbery, more aptly.
As for "could easily point to," please do. I've written endlessly that I'm an incrementalist.
The onus is actually on the robbers to present a moral case for the robbery, which you have not made, or afaik even attempted. Saying that "private charity" is not enough fails, for reasons I've shared in the past but that you've ignored.
Throughout history, the wealthy have helped the poor. There's biological wiring that rewards such altruism in our DNA. Can you honestly tell me that you believe the MASSIVE destruction caused by the modern welfare state - to families, to prospects, to the human psyche, and to societal wealth, is worth the price simply because there is no nirvana?
And, again, you default to a binary assertion in your last sentence. That ignores everything I've written.
Excellent point. How do people come to the conclusion that the burden is on the person being robbed to prove it isn’t necessary rather than on the robber to prove it is? That’s backwards.
As long as it's lawful to collect tax monies, then to describe it as "criminal" or "robbery" is nothing more than an expression of your belief that these funds should not be used for a particular purpose. The voters can through their representatives decide how best to spend tax monies. If you want them to reduce taxes or to cut spending then you are free to elect people who agree with you.
Really? An appeal-to-law/appeal-to-the-masses argument?
Legal does *not* mean moral, as you must certainly know. Do I need to list the grossly immoral things that were nevertheless absolutely legal, made so by the voters through their representatives?
I don't ignore what you've written. I just disagree with it. I think that the difference you suggest exists between "wealth transfer" and "fee for service" is no difference at all. For example, shut-ins receive no direct benefit from roads or the elderly from public education but we still insist that they pay for them. I may not receive any direct benefit from aiding the poor but it's hard to imagine a stable society in which the poor are dependent upon just their own resources. And, in a republic, the voters can through their representatives decide how best to spend tax monies. If you don't like how the funds are spent then you can work to elect people who agree with you.
Again, private charity at no time in history has proved sufficient. The biological wiring you refer to differs from person to person and given how human nature is deeply flawed, it's just silly to think that we can rely upon it. The current system is not perfect but compared to what we had, it's a lot better. I've lived long enough to know people who lived in the years before programs such as Social Security. Plus, I've read enough history to see how the powerful exploit the poor over and over again for their own purposes. We live in a time where "greed is good" and "looking out for number one" is our mantra.
You have not addressed the crux of this blog post, i.e. the institutionalization of poverty and dependence and the moral hazard that has done so much harm to the family structure. Nor the colossal waste and wealth destruction.
Nor have you made any moral argument justifying taking the fruit of one person's labor in order to give to someone else.
Instead, you're arguing your own assertions.
Your final paragraph is not a counterargument to this post. You've made those statements before, and I've addressed them before. What we have now is an utter disaster, making the problem worse rather than making it better, and it's unsustainable.
And, you're continuing to argue a binary yes/no.
As for "looking out for number one," Thomas Sowell pointed out how welfare *enabled* and *encouraged* that attitude in recipients, breaking the social pressure on baby daddies to take care of their kids. On the other side, I addressed that as well, as did David Woods a couple days ago.
I reiterate, no matter that it's legal, taking the fruit of my labor without compensation (as in fee-for-service) is as immoral as slavery.
Poverty has been insitutionalized as far back as we can see in recorded history. As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. The question is what should we do if anything to help them. Your answer is private charity. We've already tried that for millenia and it didn't work. Have you never talked to anyone who lived prior to programs like Social Security and what it meant to them? Have you never read accounts of what poverty was like prior to these programs? I recommended Bettmann's book to you.
As to the moral argument, we expect members of the military including draftees to lay down their lives if necessary even though there is no possible compensation that would be adequate. We do the same with police officers and fire fighters. Is that immoral? Taxes, as has been said, are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. We take the fruit of one's labor to make for a better society - one in which old age or the inability to work isn't a death sentence and one in which kids don't experience malnutrition due to lack of money. If you don't think those are good things which we should pursue as a society then we will have to agree to disagree.
Broken families are a concern but the baby "daddies" weren't taking care of the kids they fathered back in the good old days either. And, thanks to enhancing shareholder value, good jobs got eliminated or sent overseas which in turn pulled up the ladder that once made it possible for the lower class to move into the middle class. I remember when you could have a good life with only one breadwinner leaving the other spouse to take care of the kids. You don't think that economics has played a big part in family issues?
Can the current programs be reformed and are there problems with them? Yes but going back to the good old days is only a solution for those who don't think they ever have to worry about being poor themselves. I like Sowell but he ignores how conservative economic values clash with and triumph over family values particularly when Friedmanism reigns supreme.
“America has spent over twenty-five TRILLION dollars on welfare since LBJ's Great Society began. The War on Poverty, costing multiple times what America has spent on all the actual wars she's ever fought, has not made a dent in that poverty.”
Please outline a practical alternative to helping the poor that is more than just eliminating government welfare programs.
Aaaaand... we are back to this.
Once again, unraveling the welfare state is not something that can ever happen in a moment in a vacuum. It would take decades, and across those decades, the private sector efforts that are widely usurped and quashed by the government today would have the opportunity to fill in.
And, if along the way, we see that the changes are making things worse rather than better, we can assess. That's how stuff gets fixed in the real world.
I've written this before, but you seem to only want to default to your "some people need this, therefore we mustn't fix it" anecdotalism, overlaying a combination of reductionist and nirvana fallacies.
I know you think the current system isn't good, but I haven't heard much about fixing it.
So, two questions for you:
How would YOU improve things?
What moral basis is there for taking money (at gun point) from taxpayers simply to hand out to others?
We take money (at gun point) for other issues we consider to be important for society such as national defense, transportation and so forth. The difference, I suppose, is whether helping the poor is also sufficiently important to justify using tax revenues. And, stuff doesn't get fixed necessarily in the real world. If there's not a financial incentive then capitalism doesn't pour resources into an area. I think that there can be reforms made and I could easily point you to several plans but if you think that there's no role for government in helping the poor then it would be pointless. Considering that private charity has never been sufficient to meet the need throughout history and that as bad as the current system is, it at least provides a better level of support than the "good old days", I think the onus is upon libertarians to detail in a practical sense what the alternative would be especially when there would be no institutional support of such an effort.
I've covered the difference between "fee-for-service" taxation (which includes national defense) and redistributive taxation here:
https://therootsofliberty.substack.com/p/two-types-of
One can be justified in principle, with debates as to the mechanics.
The other is simply theft. Armed robbery, more aptly.
As for "could easily point to," please do. I've written endlessly that I'm an incrementalist.
The onus is actually on the robbers to present a moral case for the robbery, which you have not made, or afaik even attempted. Saying that "private charity" is not enough fails, for reasons I've shared in the past but that you've ignored.
Throughout history, the wealthy have helped the poor. There's biological wiring that rewards such altruism in our DNA. Can you honestly tell me that you believe the MASSIVE destruction caused by the modern welfare state - to families, to prospects, to the human psyche, and to societal wealth, is worth the price simply because there is no nirvana?
And, again, you default to a binary assertion in your last sentence. That ignores everything I've written.
Excellent point. How do people come to the conclusion that the burden is on the person being robbed to prove it isn’t necessary rather than on the robber to prove it is? That’s backwards.
As long as it's lawful to collect tax monies, then to describe it as "criminal" or "robbery" is nothing more than an expression of your belief that these funds should not be used for a particular purpose. The voters can through their representatives decide how best to spend tax monies. If you want them to reduce taxes or to cut spending then you are free to elect people who agree with you.
Really? An appeal-to-law/appeal-to-the-masses argument?
Legal does *not* mean moral, as you must certainly know. Do I need to list the grossly immoral things that were nevertheless absolutely legal, made so by the voters through their representatives?
I don't ignore what you've written. I just disagree with it. I think that the difference you suggest exists between "wealth transfer" and "fee for service" is no difference at all. For example, shut-ins receive no direct benefit from roads or the elderly from public education but we still insist that they pay for them. I may not receive any direct benefit from aiding the poor but it's hard to imagine a stable society in which the poor are dependent upon just their own resources. And, in a republic, the voters can through their representatives decide how best to spend tax monies. If you don't like how the funds are spent then you can work to elect people who agree with you.
Again, private charity at no time in history has proved sufficient. The biological wiring you refer to differs from person to person and given how human nature is deeply flawed, it's just silly to think that we can rely upon it. The current system is not perfect but compared to what we had, it's a lot better. I've lived long enough to know people who lived in the years before programs such as Social Security. Plus, I've read enough history to see how the powerful exploit the poor over and over again for their own purposes. We live in a time where "greed is good" and "looking out for number one" is our mantra.
You have not addressed the crux of this blog post, i.e. the institutionalization of poverty and dependence and the moral hazard that has done so much harm to the family structure. Nor the colossal waste and wealth destruction.
Nor have you made any moral argument justifying taking the fruit of one person's labor in order to give to someone else.
Instead, you're arguing your own assertions.
Your final paragraph is not a counterargument to this post. You've made those statements before, and I've addressed them before. What we have now is an utter disaster, making the problem worse rather than making it better, and it's unsustainable.
And, you're continuing to argue a binary yes/no.
As for "looking out for number one," Thomas Sowell pointed out how welfare *enabled* and *encouraged* that attitude in recipients, breaking the social pressure on baby daddies to take care of their kids. On the other side, I addressed that as well, as did David Woods a couple days ago.
I reiterate, no matter that it's legal, taking the fruit of my labor without compensation (as in fee-for-service) is as immoral as slavery.
Poverty has been insitutionalized as far back as we can see in recorded history. As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. The question is what should we do if anything to help them. Your answer is private charity. We've already tried that for millenia and it didn't work. Have you never talked to anyone who lived prior to programs like Social Security and what it meant to them? Have you never read accounts of what poverty was like prior to these programs? I recommended Bettmann's book to you.
As to the moral argument, we expect members of the military including draftees to lay down their lives if necessary even though there is no possible compensation that would be adequate. We do the same with police officers and fire fighters. Is that immoral? Taxes, as has been said, are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. We take the fruit of one's labor to make for a better society - one in which old age or the inability to work isn't a death sentence and one in which kids don't experience malnutrition due to lack of money. If you don't think those are good things which we should pursue as a society then we will have to agree to disagree.
Broken families are a concern but the baby "daddies" weren't taking care of the kids they fathered back in the good old days either. And, thanks to enhancing shareholder value, good jobs got eliminated or sent overseas which in turn pulled up the ladder that once made it possible for the lower class to move into the middle class. I remember when you could have a good life with only one breadwinner leaving the other spouse to take care of the kids. You don't think that economics has played a big part in family issues?
Can the current programs be reformed and are there problems with them? Yes but going back to the good old days is only a solution for those who don't think they ever have to worry about being poor themselves. I like Sowell but he ignores how conservative economic values clash with and triumph over family values particularly when Friedmanism reigns supreme.
“America has spent over twenty-five TRILLION dollars on welfare since LBJ's Great Society began. The War on Poverty, costing multiple times what America has spent on all the actual wars she's ever fought, has not made a dent in that poverty.”
David Graf: "private charity at no time in history has proved sufficient."
But, at no time in history has governmental wealth redistribution proven effective.
At EVERY point in history, minimal government and maximum individual liberty has increased the standard of living for all.