Social Welfare Programs?

[rational thinker]

The arguments I typically make when addressing the fact that Universal Healthcare and other social programs is wrong is that it is unfair to tax people for the mistakes or needs of a few people. People should also have to work for themselves. But what about a person born handicapped, or a man burned so badly that he cannot mobilize at all. Should the government be able to help those people out, which in turn would justify we the people being taxed?

[muh_roads]

If people were allowed to keep the money they earn, then more would be willing to donate to private organizations and charities instead of letting the government doing it for you.

Donating to a charity is noble. Letting the government take from you by force is wrong.

[bill50]

The handicapped person should look to family and voluntary charity first. If that's not available, then we can discuss government social programs. I have a feeling it won't come up in a true capitalist society unless some socialist writes some cooked up untrue story about how bad a handicapped person had it to gain public support for socialism again.

[muh_roads]

If there was no income tax people would have more money than they know what to do with. Private organizations and charities would be flooded with donations.

[Kludge]

Debilitation is always a possibility. Parents must be aware of this risk before having children. I.E. why you should wait until you are settled and stable with extra $ before having kids.

[rational thinker]

I think you guys are all assuming a society filled with kind, altruistic people. In my short experience of this life, I have come to a certain conclusion that people are really fucked up. They don't care. And besides, what if he was an orphan with nobody to help him. We cannot assume that somebody will just help him out because they have extra money. Greed would surprise you.

[Kludge]

I think you guys are all assuming a society filled with kind, altruistic people. In my short experience of this life, I have come to a certain conclusion that people are really fucked up. They don't care. And besides, what if he was an orphan with nobody to help him. We cannot assume that somebody will just help him out because they have extra money. Greed would surprise you.

Without society, the person would die anyways. Charity is a gift, not a privilege. Supporting the debilitated would be one of the few causes I'd donate to, and I'm pretty damned heartless and selfish.

[muh_roads]

I think you guys are all assuming a society filled with kind, altruistic people. In my short experience of this life, I have come to a certain conclusion that people are really fucked up. They don't care. And besides, what if he was an orphan with nobody to help him. We cannot assume that somebody will just help him out because they have extra money. Greed would surprise you.

Despite popular belief, the red cross gets most of its' funds from donations, not from federal aid.

Private charities would be much better off in a society free of federal income taxes. I imagine the outpouring of support would be so great that headlines would be changed. We'd all have to worry more about CEO's of private charities keeping too much for themselves instead of worrying about how much politicians are screwing over the citizens.

[rational thinker]

Without society, the person would die anyways. Charity is a gift, not a privilege. Supporting the debilitated would be one of the few causes I'd donate to, and I'm pretty damned heartless and selfish.
But can you see why government would be the obvious solution? I mean, that person would have no worries about being born disabled or becoming disabled later on in life.

[Kludge]

Speaking of the Red Cross, here's a nifty video comparing a private lifeguard programs vs. Red Cross lifeguard programs.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PxklFh6-D9s

[Kludge]

I mean, that person would have no worries about being born disabled or becoming disabled later on in life.

:confused:

[Acala]

I think you guys are all assuming a society filled with kind, altruistic people. In my short experience of this life, I have come to a certain conclusion that people are really fucked up. They don't care. And besides, what if he was an orphan with nobody to help him. We cannot assume that somebody will just help him out because they have extra money. Greed would surprise you.

History has shown this to be the most charitable society in the history of the planet. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's assume that nobody will voluntarily help those who cannot take care of themselves. It would be a cruel society, yes. But it would be the kind of society that WE CHOSE!!! It would be the society that exactly reflects our values. And nobody has the right to decide that their values are better and should be forced on everyone else - which is exatly what you are suggesting.

Private acts of charity are virtuous. The false philanthropy of government coercion is corrupt. And the consequences of this moral difference are clear. When a person acts charitably, they feel good about it and the recipient of the charity properly feels grateful. Everyone wins. Everyone is left feeling better off than they were. With the false philanthropy of government, the person who is funding the charity against his will feels bitter and hostile toward the recipient while the recipient, instead of feeling grateful, feels entitled. He may even protest about the stinginess and greed of the person paying for the handout. And the politician, who has paid nothing, takes the credit for the whole program. It is a perversion. As is so often the case, government takes something that is very good when handled voluntarily and twists it into something evil.

[rational thinker]

:confused:

You missed the first part of my statement. With government aid, it's a sure thing that he has no worries about society stumping over his crippled body (metaphorically, that is).

[muh_roads]

History has shown this to be the most charitable society in the history of the planet. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's assume that nobody will voluntarily help those who cannot take care of themselves. It would be a cruel society, yes. But it would be the kind of society that WE CHOSE!!! It would be the society that exactly reflects our values. And nobody has the right to decide that their values are better and should be forced on everyone else - which is exatly what you are suggesting.

Private acts of charity are virtuous. The false philanthropy of government coercion is corrupt. And the consequences of this moral difference are clear. When a person acts charitably, they feel good about it and the recipient of the charity properly feels grateful. Everyone wins. Everyone is left feeling better off than they were. With the false philanthropy of government, the person who is funding the charity against his will feels bitter and hostile toward the recipient while the recipient, instead of feeling grateful, feels entitled. He may even protest about the stinginess and greed of the person paying for the handout. And the politician, who has paid nothing, takes the credit for the whole program. It is a perversion. As is so often the case, government takes something that is very good when handled voluntarily and twists it into something evil.

**clapping emoticon**

+1

[Kludge]

You missed the first part of my statement. With government aid, it's a sure thing that he has no worries about society stumping over his crippled body (metaphorically, that is).

It's also a sure thing that property will be stolen to do so.


If the person is truly crippled, the charity "market" will probably put him in a home where he is taken care of... However, I won't paint a pretty picture. It's impossible to determine what a free market would do. They could be taken care of and have a great life.... Or, they could be put in a run-down home with one nurse/100 residents and substandard living conditions. There's no way to tell what people are capable of. Again though... Charity is not a right.

[youngbuck]

History has shown this to be the most charitable society in the history of the planet. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are right. Let's assume that nobody will voluntarily help those who cannot take care of themselves. It would be a cruel society, yes. But it would be the kind of society that WE CHOSE!!! It would be the society that exactly reflects our values. And nobody has the right to decide that their values are better and should be forced on everyone else - which is exatly what you are suggesting.

Private acts of charity are virtuous. The false philanthropy of government coercion is corrupt. And the consequences of this moral difference are clear. When a person acts charitably, they feel good about it and the recipient of the charity properly feels grateful. Everyone wins. Everyone is left feeling better off than they were. With the false philanthropy of government, the person who is funding the charity against his will feels bitter and hostile toward the recipient while the recipient, instead of feeling grateful, feels entitled. He may even protest about the stinginess and greed of the person paying for the handout. And the politician, who has paid nothing, takes the credit for the whole program. It is a perversion. As is so often the case, government takes something that is very good when handled voluntarily and twists it into something evil.

And there you have it...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The arguments I typically make when addressing the fact that Universal Healthcare and other social programs is wrong is that it is unfair to tax people for the mistakes or needs of a few people. People should also have to work for themselves. But what about a person born handicapped, or a man burned so badly that he cannot mobilize at all. Should the government be able to help those people out, which in turn would justify we the people being taxed?

Government should do a whole lot of nothing. Shit happens.

[pdavis]

I think you guys are all assuming a society filled with kind, altruistic people. In my short experience of this life, I have come to a certain conclusion that people are really fucked up. They don't care. And besides, what if he was an orphan with nobody to help him. We cannot assume that somebody will just help him out because they have extra money. Greed would surprise you.

If people are fucked up, why would you advocate the government solve this problem? The government is nothing more than a group of individuals (whom are voted in by the fucked up people) with a monopoly on force.

[EgwaTlvdatsi]

I think that if our government spent money more wisely, and if the hospitals spent their money more wisely, then our tax dolars wouldn't be needed to help...

If taxes were able to be kept low, and hospitals didn't squander the money gained, they could keep health care costs down.
How much money is spent on piano's, trees, etc, etc for inside the hospitals? How much is spent on 'upgrades' that are quite unecessary? But then again, this is my oppinion...I'd rather have a hospital that's for healing and not one that looks 'pretty'.

I'm not sure if all that made any sense...But I guess to sum it up...If taxes were spent more wisely in such a way that we wouldn't have to pay so much in taxes, then there would probably be more money for those who need to go to the hospital...


Here's something that I've always wondered about...When me and my wife purchased this house, her boss payed for the house and we put money into an account that recieves interest. Has any companies, or even the government ever thought of something like that? Lets say I don't have much money, so I send in what I can a month, lets say there are hundreds to thousands of people who do this. We put in as much money as we can. That way, even though we do not have much money, at least there is something that can be used to pay for the health care costs, and we don't feel as if we are begging too much...I am certain that it still would not be enough. But with something like donations, etc, that should be better shoulnd't it?

I don't know for sure...I am not well versed in this, but I figured I ought to just mention it...I do understand that donations are made to something like red cross, and perhaps if more poor people made donations to red cross, as much as they probably could afford, then perhaps the Red Cross would have enough to maintain the sheer numbers, or at least enough to help a larger number of people...

[Kludge]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=145217

[Zolah]

But can you see why government would be the obvious solution? I mean, that person would have no worries about being born disabled or becoming disabled later on in life.

That says more about the track society and government has led the developed world down.