Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts made in an AC society, I haven't seen ACists address the following consideration:

It would seem to me that there is a sizeable portion of the population who, with respect to a large range of the chartable/welfare programs x, would agree with both of the following statements:

1.) I would prefer not to give $z to support x.
2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.

Now, I understand than in AC, a group of people could contract with each other to commit to provide funding of x with some enforcement mechanism. But some people might want to only fund the program if all people were also forced to fund it, include those people who would never willingly commit to funding on their own. That is, they only want to provide a fair share, not a disproportionate one.

I think a lot of charitable/welfare programs would lose most of their funding because of this. They would not only lose the support of people who were not being involuntarily coerced to give, but also of many people who voluntarily voted for coercion, but would not give on their own. I think the level of charitable giving (including current government welfare programs) would collapse.

In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society, or what would replace them.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

Why don't you tell me about a few of these welfare programs that currently exist and why the are so good.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]


1.) I would prefer not to give $z to support x.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key point. Actions speak louder than words and resources are scarce. If people's wishes, intentions and rhetoric made things happen in the world then it wouldn't matter what system we had in fact I'd go for one of those benevolent dictatorships they seem like a lot less work.

[ QUOTE ]

In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's absolutely none of their business and I have massive suspicion of anyone who says that they believe that X is worthy of support but won't support it unless Y and Z criteria are met. If you think everyone should have a free pony lead by example and start breeding ponies otherwise you're just spouting pleasantries. In fact you're making things much much worse because you are convincing people that if we all just wish and hope that little bit more that all their problems will magically be solved, instead of getting down to it and working hard to solve problems.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is the key point. Actions speak louder than words and resources are scarce. If people's wishes, intentions and rhetoric made things happen in the world then it wouldn't matter what system we had in fact I'd go for one of those benevolent dictatorships they seem like a lot less work.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


It's absolutely none of their business and I have massive suspicion of anyone who says that they believe that X is worthy of support but won't support it unless Y and Z criteria are met. If you think everyone should have a free pony lead by example and start breeding ponies otherwise you're just spouting pleasantries. In fact you're making things much much worse because you are convincing people that if we all just wish and hope that little bit more that all their problems will magically be solved, instead of getting down to it and working hard to solve problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's completely indefensible to simply leave off 2) and respond like this. The participation of others as a necessary and sufficient condition for my participation in no way makes that participation similiar to your lame pony example.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]

In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts

[/ QUOTE ]

When you can quantify this and get agreement from everyone as to what this actually entails concretely let me know.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is the key point. Actions speak louder than words and resources are scarce. If people's wishes, intentions and rhetoric made things happen in the world then it wouldn't matter what system we had in fact I'd go for one of those benevolent dictatorships they seem like a lot less work.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


It's absolutely none of their business and I have massive suspicion of anyone who says that they believe that X is worthy of support but won't support it unless Y and Z criteria are met. If you think everyone should have a free pony lead by example and start breeding ponies otherwise you're just spouting pleasantries. In fact you're making things much much worse because you are convincing people that if we all just wish and hope that little bit more that all their problems will magically be solved, instead of getting down to it and working hard to solve problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's completely indefensible to simply leave off 2) and respond like this. The participation of others as a necessary and sufficient condition for my participation in no way makes that participation similiar to your lame pony example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Instead of breeding ponies you should be out there convincing people.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
2.) I would vote for a law forcing a very wealthy minority to give $z to support x.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be fair. I think that's much more illustrative of liberalism.

ACists don't want these programs to exist. That's the whole point. It's like asking how we'd operate a drug war in an ACist society; you wouldn't. Subsidies reward unproductivity and punish productivity. We consider this to be economically detrimental. That's a big part of our position.

If individuals are not willing to give enough of their own money voluntarily to help the poor, then that is prima facie evidence that the poor are not worth much to society.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2.) I would vote for a law forcing a very wealthy minority to give $z to support x.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be fair. I think that's much more illustrative of liberalism.

ACists don't want these programs to exist. That's the whole point. It's like asking how we'd operate a drug war in an ACist society; you wouldn't. Subsidies reward unproductivity and punish productivity. We consider this to be economically detrimental. That's a big part of our position.

If individuals are not willing to give enough of their own money voluntarily to help the poor, then that is prima facie evidence that the poor are not worth much to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society? It seemed like in the other threads on charity in AC, ACists were claiming that there would be a greater degree of charity available to the helpless in AC society than there is now. I'm just trying to point out a gap in their reasoning that I think makes this untrue. I am not trying to get into a discussion of the justice of either system based on any axiomatic assumption about rights...my thread is only concerned with results.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]


2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.

Now, I understand than in AC, a group of people could contract with each other to commit to provide funding of x with some enforcement mechanism. But some people might want to only fund the program if all people were also forced to fund it, include those people who would never willingly commit to funding on their own. That is, they only want to provide a fair share, not a disproportionate one.

I think a lot of charitable/welfare programs would lose most of their funding because of this. They would not only lose the support of people who were not being involuntarily coerced to give, but also of many people who voluntarily voted for coercion, but would not give on their own. I think the level of charitable giving (including current government welfare programs) would collapse.

In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society, or what would replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically,

* I want X.
* I don't want to pay for X myself, or at least, value it at less than what it would actually cost to obtain.
* I would love to make people who don't want X pay for X so I can get my reduced rate.
* I will call this reduced rate that I'm willing to pay "my fair share" of the expense in order to appeal to emotion.
* Most importantly, I don't want to hear any BS about the moral issues of forcing other people to subsidize the stuff I want, just STFU and pay for it.

When are you going to send me my check for your fair share of my hooker and blow expenses? If I don't get my check, I won't get my hookers and blow because I don't want to pay the going market rate for them. I don't care if you don't want to pay for my hookers and blow, I don't want to hear any whining about it, I just want to know how I'm going to get that money (or what will replace my hookers and blow).

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts

[/ QUOTE ]

When you can quantify this and get agreement from everyone as to what this actually entails concretely let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's define "sufficient" as "equal to the total of private charity and public welfare now available to the helpless (e.g. orphans and the disabled) in an industrialized democracy". I'm trying to get a straight answer on whether this would be greater or less in an AC society.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?

Yes or no to these questions, please.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]

So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society? It seemed like in the other threads on charity in AC, ACists were claiming that there would be a greater degree of charity available to the helpless in AC society than there is now. I'm just trying to point out a gap in their reasoning that I think makes this untrue. I am not trying to get into a discussion of the justice of either system based on any axiomatic assumption about rights...my thread is only concerned with results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there would undoubtedly be more charity in ACism than in our society. There would be more wealth first of all (imho), and no reliance on state redistribution.

Would that amount be greater than is currently redistributed through state-funded subsidies? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really say.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.

Now, I understand than in AC, a group of people could contract with each other to commit to provide funding of x with some enforcement mechanism. But some people might want to only fund the program if all people were also forced to fund it, include those people who would never willingly commit to funding on their own. That is, they only want to provide a fair share, not a disproportionate one.

I think a lot of charitable/welfare programs would lose most of their funding because of this. They would not only lose the support of people who were not being involuntarily coerced to give, but also of many people who voluntarily voted for coercion, but would not give on their own. I think the level of charitable giving (including current government welfare programs) would collapse.

In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society, or what would replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically,

* I want X.
* I don't want to pay for X myself, or at least, value it at less than what it would actually cost to obtain.
* I would love to make people who don't want X pay for X so I can get my reduced rate.
* I will call this reduced rate that I'm willing to pay "my fair share" of the expense in order to appeal to emotion.
* Most importantly, I don't want to hear any BS about the moral issues of forcing other people to subsidize the stuff I want, just STFU and pay for it.

When are you going to send me my check for your fair share of my hooker and blow expenses? If I don't get my check, I won't get my hookers and blow because I don't want to pay the going market rate for them. I don't care if you don't want to pay for my hookers and blow, I don't want to hear any whining about it, I just want to know how I'm going to get that money (or what will replace my hookers and blow).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]

So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's asserting that the poor will be helped in proportion to how much people want to help them, instead of how much they can force other people to help.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In trying to deal with the whether there would be sufficient charitable efforts

[/ QUOTE ]

When you can quantify this and get agreement from everyone as to what this actually entails concretely let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's define "sufficient" as "equal to the total of private charity and public welfare now available to the helpless (e.g. orphans and the disabled) in an industrialized democracy". I'm trying to get a straight answer on whether this would be greater or less in an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an impossible question to answer. There are too many variables. For example, without states engaging in large-scale violence over vast geographic areas, there would likely be a lot fewer orphans.

More importantly, this answer, even if it were obtainable, would have no effect on the morality of forcing other people to contribute to certain politically-favored aid organizations (instead of forcing those organizations to compete for funds) and forcing those people to subsidize politically-selected methods of "helping" (regardless of the actual effect of such aid). Using the current level of tax funding as a yardstick is a huge fallacy; assuming the level of "need" to be constant is an even bigger one; believeing that there's some ratio of need-to-funding that justifies violence is the biggest.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you didn't want to get into what is and isn't moral.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


2.) I would vote for a law forcing all people to give $z to support x.

That is, they believe that the the charitable effort is worthwhile is given the sufficient funding that forcing everyone to contribute would provide. They are happy to be forced to provide this funding if everyone else is forced to. But given the opportunity to be a free-rider, they would do so.

Now, I understand than in AC, a group of people could contract with each other to commit to provide funding of x with some enforcement mechanism. But some people might want to only fund the program if all people were also forced to fund it, include those people who would never willingly commit to funding on their own. That is, they only want to provide a fair share, not a disproportionate one.

I think a lot of charitable/welfare programs would lose most of their funding because of this. They would not only lose the support of people who were not being involuntarily coerced to give, but also of many people who voluntarily voted for coercion, but would not give on their own. I think the level of charitable giving (including current government welfare programs) would collapse.

In short, I think there are lot of programs than many people believe are worthy of support, but only if the burden of support it borne by all, even those who don't want to support it. These programs may be funded by the state, but will disappear in an AC world.

BTW, I'm really uninterested in any sort of "taxation is theft" discussion. I'm just interested in knowing how these programs would exist in AC society, or what would replace them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically,

* I want X.
* I don't want to pay for X myself, or at least, value it at less than what it would actually cost to obtain.
* I would love to make people who don't want X pay for X so I can get my reduced rate.
* I will call this reduced rate that I'm willing to pay "my fair share" of the expense in order to appeal to emotion.
* Most importantly, I don't want to hear any BS about the moral issues of forcing other people to subsidize the stuff I want, just STFU and pay for it.

When are you going to send me my check for your fair share of my hooker and blow expenses? If I don't get my check, I won't get my hookers and blow because I don't want to pay the going market rate for them. I don't care if you don't want to pay for my hookers and blow, I don't want to hear any whining about it, I just want to know how I'm going to get that money (or what will replace my hookers and blow).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?

Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable, because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

I would like to be coerced to give more because I believe that only coercion will generate a sufficient volume of contributions to actually accomplish something.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to be coerced to give more because I believe that only coercion will generate a sufficient volume of contributions to actually accomplish something.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, you could very easily sign up with a firm who would send thugs to your house to shake you down for money. If you want to be coerced, that's totally fine with me.

Now, explain how you justify coercing other people?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're going to send me my check.

[ QUOTE ]
If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this inherent moral distinction, please. BTW, I'm not interested in any "forcing me to pay for your hookers and blow is theft" arguments, I just want to know who's going to pay for my hookers and blow. I'm really jonesing here.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow".

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been doing that for the past year and it's been working pretty well here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ACists are kind of in a "you can't please everyone" situation here. Most people are more persuaded by appeals to emotion and authority than by logic (look at any successful government campaign), so in theory that's what we should be doing. However, when we do that the more intelligent persons on the forum look at this like it's dogmatic nonsense and dismiss it.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if 51% of the voting population wanted to give PVN free hookers and blow you'd have no problem with forcing people to pay for it?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are so wildly popular, then those people who support them should easily be capable of funding them themselves.

Coke is supported by more people than Pepsi. Should Pepsi be outlawed and Coke consumption made mandatory?

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can convince a lot of other people to support those things, then those people who you convince can pay for it.

What magically happens when you get "a consensus of society" (please define this) that gives you license to start violently coercing other people to go along with you? Might makes right?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]


So if 51% of the voting population wanted to give PVN free hookers and blow you'd have no problem with forcing people to pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, our laws are not made by referendum, so I don't think something should necessarily be government policy simply because it is supported by a majority. We have a constitutional process of checks and balances designed to shield us from ephemeral trends in public opinion.

Second, if such a policy were approved through our policital process, of course I would have a problem with it. And I would try to use the political process to convince people that this was poor use of resources. But I wouldn't refuse to pay.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

First of all when speaking of charitable giving, and including welfare in it is ridiculous. Charititable money is given from the earner. Welfare money is taken from the earner by force.(stolen) so to speak of the two as if they are the same is stupid.

Americans donate more to charity than any other country by far, so to think that will all stop if we end taxes to support welfare programs is stupid. If anything charitable donations will go up because generous people will have more to give.

The war on poverty has gone on for decades now and the % of people living below the poverty line is the same as when the war on poverty started. What does this tell you? A certain % of the people will always lack the desire to work and suceed. The liberal answer to this is we need to take more from the rich to help the poor. How Stupid!

Every government program I can think of has been underestimated in cost and far overspent on. Soc. Sec. ...total joke, could do better on my own....medicare medicaid....about a trillion over cost estimates, welfare payments have not decreased poverty, food stamps... some places are advertising to get more recipients to sign up!

This is a joke, govt agencies want to spend all of the annual budget every year cause they know they will get a 3-5 percent increase the following year. If they dont spend it they will find a way to, or make it look like they did and the funds disappear into someones pockets. Americans have been getting ripped off by the morons they have elected in both parties, but the lefties are more responsible for this farce. Repubs are guilty of not having the backbone to oppose this crap, cause the dems have been successful in the class warfare, repubs are mean, hate the poor etc lingo. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all when speaking of charitable giving, and including welfare in it is ridiculous. Charititable money is given from the earner. Welfare money is taken from the earner by force.(stolen) so to speak of the two as if they are the same is stupid.

Americans donate more to charity than any other country by far, so to think that will all stop if we end taxes to support welfare programs is stupid. If anything charitable donations will go up because generous people will have more to give.


[/ QUOTE ]

When the orphan is looking for some to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate him, I don't think he is distinguishing between private charity and public welfare.

The amount of private charity probably would go up in AC society. But private charity is dwarfed in magnitude in our society by public assistance. It is the total amount of assistance available that I am concerned about.

Think about all the assistance we give to educate children whose parent could never pay for the cost of their schooling. Do you really think all these children would get an education if all that was available to them was private charity?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the only thing stopping you is that you couldn't get away with it? And you have the gall to call AC immoral??

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet, why not just find 99 like-minded individuals and agree to all pay $100 to charity. Seems like it'd be an easy task and you don't have to stick a gun in anyone's face! Everyone wins!

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the only thing stopping you is that you couldn't get away with it? And you have the gall to call AC immoral??

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke? I believe a basis of economic analysis, Austrian or otherwise, is that people act rationally to satisfy their preferences (maybe Austrian economics sees it the other way around). Obviously, I would rationally prefer to be a free rider. I think we need to have a better way to resolve free rider problems than just saying "free riders are evil!"

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the only thing stopping you is that you couldn't get away with it? And you have the gall to call AC immoral??

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke? I believe a basis of economic analysis, Austrian or otherwise, is that people act rationally to satisfy their preferences (maybe Austrian economics sees it the other way around). Obviously, I would rationally prefer to be a free rider. I think we need to have a better way to resolve free rider problems than just saying "free riders are evil!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't welfare programs pay people to be professional free riders?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]

Don't welfare programs pay people to be professional free riders?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point of welfare is to provide assistance to people who are incapable of providing for themselves. This includes impoverished children, the elderly, and the disabled. For the most part, you can't get welfare if you are able-bodied and have no dependents.

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't welfare programs pay people to be professional free riders?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point of welfare is to provide assistance to people who are incapable of providing for themselves. This includes impoverished children, the elderly, and the disabled. For the most part, you can't get welfare if you are able-bodied and have no dependents.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your estimation it incentivizes helplessness and/or dependency but does not actually incentivize being a freerider on society?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you *did* have the power to do that, you would?

You're in a room with an old lady. She has some number of gold Krugerrands in her pocket. You're given a baseball bat and total immunity for the next three minutes. Do you beat her up and take the money?

Re: Question for ACists about charity/welfare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't welfare programs pay people to be professional free riders?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point of welfare is to provide assistance to people who are incapable of providing for themselves. This includes impoverished children, the elderly, and the disabled. For the most part, you can't get welfare if you are able-bodied and have no dependents.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your estimation it incentivizes helplessness and/or dependency but does not actually incentivize being a freerider on society?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by definition you can't "incentivize helplessness". If helpless people has a choice about whether to be helpless or not, they would no longer count as helpless.