PDA

View Full Version : A question about welfare




eugenekop
12-14-2010, 02:44 PM
I had a debate with my friend about welfare in libertarian society. This is his argument:


Let's say there is no social security and there is a disabled person who lives in my building. There are 100 apartments in the building. Who helps the disabled person? The disabled person doesn't have family and he needs a constant and foreseeable sum of money every month. Who pays and how can it be arranged so that this payment will ALWAYS come and will come every month? We can't allow for a disabled person to live the rest of his life constantly begging and begging. He needs some peace and assurance that the money WILL come. How can we make it happen?

We have another problem. In modern cities there is no clear community as existed in villages or in small towns. So disabled people without government help just won't get help at all. Just look at the cases where people were being robbed or killed in the streets and no one cared, everyone thought someone else will help, and no one did. No one wants to be a sucker. If a disabled person lived in my building, I would help him only if others did. But if everyone thinks that way, no one will help at all.

Can you please help me with this debate and offer your ideas how in a libertarian society we can solve this issue of free riders?

noxagol
12-14-2010, 02:47 PM
He's a selfish dick that doesn't care about the disabled guy because of

"If a disabled person lived in my building, I would help him only if others did. "

If he really cared, he would help regardless of any else helping.

angelatc
12-14-2010, 03:12 PM
It always says so much about liberals....they believe the absolute worst of their fellow human beings.

You won't like my answer, which is: this responsibility belongs to the states, not the federal government. The needs of a disabled man living in Manhattan are not identical to the needs of the disabled man living in Mountain Home.

And then I would lead back to the statement about the big cities not having any heart. I think we can agree that most big cities are liberal - meaning that they claim to want a government to handle some level of charity. Small towns are more conservative, meaning they want to handle charity themselves. Both plans are viable alternatives. The charitable model worked perfectly fine for the first 150 years of our existence.

If welfare was handled by the states, then as a nation we'd be experimenting with 50 different systems. Some might go bankrupt,some might be wrought with fraud, and some would be popular and effective. But that's a better alternative to the "one size fits none" approach. If we're ever going to develop the perfect solution, it won't come from the entrenched vote-buying bureaucrats in Washington DC.

akforme
12-14-2010, 03:12 PM
we don't have a community because of welfare. We don't feel the sense of helping others because that's what government is for and I paid my taxes, I can't be bothered.

oyarde
12-14-2010, 04:33 PM
I have a distinct feeling my leg is being pulled here .

awake
12-14-2010, 04:39 PM
This is a bait OP - I know. Welfare abolished simply becomes charity again...There were some great charities before government bastardized them. They worked, and bodies were not piling up on the streets. In fact charity has the distinct aspect of finding ways to employ the limited abilities of working disabled. Not to mention the face to face gratitude of charitible giver and charitible reciever.

What you have now is a system that subsidized idleness and grows it by confiscatory transfer.

These what if scenarios always define no friends and family... People now simply point those in need to the government thanks to the 'programs", the money is not in their pockets to give.

MelissaWV
12-14-2010, 04:56 PM
"A question about..." threads are popping up all over, and one has to wonder why all these questions are popping up again when they've been answered so many times before, and can be re-answered via common sense.

Some good observations have already been posted. The central question to ask your "friend" is why he wouldn't help the disabled person if he was so concerned? Now, ask your friend if he would help directly (maybe give him a ride to the store, or pick up groceries, or cook for him from time to time, or just spend time talking to the guy) or if he would come up with an amount, then only give a small portion of it to the disabled person, reserving the rest for clerical and administrative costs, pork projects, and other things of that nature. If your friend gives the disabled person $100, the disabled person gets $100. If your friend has a job that the disabled person can do, that disabled person will earn money for themselves. If your friend cooks the disabled person a meal, the disabled person gets to eat an entire meal.

Now, if the Government is left in charge, the $100 you give will not be $100 by the time the disabled person gets it. In fact, a disabled person may not be the one to get it at all. With Government involved, employing the disabled person involves a lot of tricky regulations which often pretend to have the disabled person's best interests at heart. The Government frowns upon you cooking meals for the disabled, and if they caught wind of it, a number of permit questions would be raised, and your apartment might be inspected by the Health Department to ensure you're cooking "safely" enough for the Government's standards.

The idea that charity isn't good enough to take care of people is bunk. Some folks will always die in society (they do now, even with the Almighty Government giving out so much food and money). Charities, however, tend to be more careful as to how they distribute their money, and are more likely to require the person to "work it off" in some way. Many people learned trades that way, or met folks who would eventually take a chance and hire them. Government's "charity" depends upon theft and, worse yet, doesn't even help many of the people who need it. It's a handout, and often to people who are just scamming the system one way or another.

agitator
12-14-2010, 05:01 PM
"A question about..." threads are popping up all over, and one has to wonder why all these questions are popping up again when they've been answered so many times before, and can be re-answered via common sense.

Some good observations have already been posted. The central question to ask your "friend" is why he wouldn't help the disabled person if he was so concerned? Now, ask your friend if he would help directly (maybe give him a ride to the store, or pick up groceries, or cook for him from time to time, or just spend time talking to the guy) or if he would come up with an amount, then only give a small portion of it to the disabled person, reserving the rest for clerical and administrative costs, pork projects, and other things of that nature. If your friend gives the disabled person $100, the disabled person gets $100. If your friend has a job that the disabled person can do, that disabled person will earn money for themselves. If your friend cooks the disabled person a meal, the disabled person gets to eat an entire meal.

Now, if the Government is left in charge, the $100 you give will not be $100 by the time the disabled person gets it. In fact, a disabled person may not be the one to get it at all. With Government involved, employing the disabled person involves a lot of tricky regulations which often pretend to have the disabled person's best interests at heart. The Government frowns upon you cooking meals for the disabled, and if they caught wind of it, a number of permit questions would be raised, and your apartment might be inspected by the Health Department to ensure you're cooking "safely" enough for the Government's standards.

The idea that charity isn't good enough to take care of people is bunk. Some folks will always die in society (they do now, even with the Almighty Government giving out so much food and money). Charities, however, tend to be more careful as to how they distribute their money, and are more likely to require the person to "work it off" in some way. Many people learned trades that way, or met folks who would eventually take a chance and hire them. Government's "charity" depends upon theft and, worse yet, doesn't even help many of the people who need it. It's a handout, and often to people who are just scamming the system one way or another.

Spot on. +rep