Dead Beat Dad's-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn't so bad

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love when moorobot comes to battle the AC onslaught. It's like watching Propertarian shift into Super Saiyan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You just outted yourself as a anime watcher. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So did you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love when moorobot comes to battle the AC onslaught. It's like watching Propertarian shift into Super Saiyan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You just outted yourself as a anime watcher. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So did you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
DAMMIT! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[valenzuela]

I will have to support jackbooted thuggery on this one, the reason its very simple.
Like Ive said before some libertarians ideas cant work on their own, in this case its really clear why.
The state doesnt allow a baby free market, so many women are forced to keep their child and feed them.
Since the state is forcing the women to keep their kids, the state should also provide food for them and help them out. Its really unfair to force someone to keep their kid while not helping them at all, the true libertarian solution is to let women sell their babies on the freemarket.
To simply take away some benefits they dont have a right to but keeping them with responsibilities they shouldnt have doesnt make things any better, in fact it probably makes them worse.

Since I know the baby free market thing sounds a bit awful Im posting a link.Go to footnote 12

[Propertarian]

From a utilitarian perspective:

It depends on what the taxation system is. If this is a tax on a bunch of poor people, it is just about pointless. If it is based off of progressive taxation, diminishing marginal utility makes it a good idea. Poor, overworked single parents and their children are extremely unhappy on average, and quite predictably so. And not getting that third expensive car really isn't going to make or break someone's life, especially if they don't expect to be able to buy it because they don't expect to have that money in the first place (they know it is not part of take home pay because the tax exists).

However, people go after the dad, even though it costs so much, because of notions of fairness. Ultimately, I think these notions of fairness were built (by the "Blind Watchmaker", as Dawkins says) to increase our well-being, and don't really do a good job of it in this situation.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not assuming away anything. I'm saying it's wrong to force someone else's subjective values on another.

[/ QUOTE ] That's what all rules are if values are subjective (although I believe in objective values): in AC, in the workplace, in a household, etc. SO you are saying all rules are wrong.

That's the whole point of rules. It's not "tyranny". It's called "getting things done" and "being organized when cooperating" and "solving conflicts without individuals resorting to force".

Also, putting one in a situation in which they cannot force their subjective values on another is forcing ones subjective values on another. Like all relativist viewpoints, this claim is self-defeating, because if values are subjective, it is just your subjective vialuation that Joe Blow shouldn' force his views on other people, and it is not actually really wrong for him to do so.

So, if you don't want to force your values on other people, don't do it. But don't force me not to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you and like minded individuals can get together and fund it. When I'm done being a poor college student I'll most Iikely join you in that effort.

[/ QUOTE ] As Propertarian likes to say, people are more generous in the ballot box than they are in the market place.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what all rules are if values are subjective (although I believe in objective values): in AC, in the workplace, in a household, etc. SO you are saying all rules are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a difference in axioms. I abide by one rule individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others, being that I own my body, mind and labor, which is where my property came from. From their I logically am against anyone forcing their values on me.

Sure there are rules. On my property I set the rules. On your land you set the rules. At McDonalds they set the rules.
[ QUOTE ]
That's the whole point of rules. It's not "tyranny". It's called "getting things done"

[/ QUOTE ]
Statism doesn't "get things done". Witness the war in Iraq, the war on drugs or prohibition. It can afford, with theft, to dump outrageous sums of money into illconcieved projects based on popularity and how it feels good rather then actual being effective.
[ QUOTE ]
and "being organized when cooperating"

[/ QUOTE ]
This is something of a strawman. The orginazation and effieciency of the free market dwarfs the monopolistic buearucracy of the state.
[ QUOTE ]
and "solving conflicts without individuals resorting to force".


[/ QUOTE ]
The state DEFINITELY doesn't provide this.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, putting one in a situation in which they cannot force their subjective values on another is forcing ones subjective values on another. Like all relativist viewpoints, this claim is self-defeating, because if values are subjective, it is just your subjective vialuation that Joe Blow shouldn' force his views on other people, and it is not actually really wrong for him to do so.

So, if you don't want to force your values on other people, don't do it. But don't force me not to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not stopping anyone from forcing there opinion on anyone. I'm just explaining why it's wrong. Also, my right not to have subjective values forced on me are being violated.
[ QUOTE ]
As Propertarian likes to say, people are more generous in the ballot box than they are in the market place.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because they can use other people's money rather then just their own, so it's not really generous at all.

edit: To turn on PMs:
My home > Main configuration > Personal info etc > edit > see "Accept private messages from other users?" at the bottom of the page, and select yes. You'll also have to put in your current password on the same screen.

Or at your discreation I can post my response to your PM, however I wouldn't do so without it.

[moorobot]

I turned PMs on...Thanks.

Anyway, it is hard for us to find common ground because I think the state is necessary to keep the market functioning in all large societies, and that without the government, the market would collapse into individual theft and violence. So the good things that you are saying about the market actually require the government.

We want a monopoly on the use of force.

Also, in my judgement the government gives the majority of voters what they want most of the time (even in the U.S.-and it gives people things they can't get in the market, like cooperation that isn't performed without compulsion well or at all, and things they can't buy or the market won't produce because it isn't profitable to produce), just like the market gives most participants what they want most of the time.

You don't want what the gov't is providing, but most voters do.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want what the gov't is providing, but the most voters do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true because what most nonvoters want isn't offered, hence their nonvoting.

Regardless, the majority wanting something doesn't justify oppression and tyranny.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only true because what most nonvoters want isn't offered, hence their nonvoting.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is. And they don't take it. Their are dozens of political parties, and you can write in whoever you want. However, I do strongly favor proportional representation; the libertarian or classical liberal party would probably be the third or fourth biggest party in the U.S if we had it (probably with over 10% of the seats). If I could change one thing about the U.S. political system it would be this.

[TomCollins]

You are overlooking something. If they never went after anyone for child support, more people wouldn't pay. When you track someone down and make them pay, you are making an example of them and gaining the benefit of everyone who pays because of this.

If you own a store, and someone shoplifts something very cheap from you, it would cost you more money to chase them, call the police, etc... However, if word got out you had this policy, you would be repeatedly ripped off since each person who steals from you knows it will cost you more to chase them down than the item they are stealing. However, if you chase down the first person who does it, it may cost you more up front, but people will be less likely to steal from you.

In basic game theory, you can look at it like this:
Store Owner:
Cost of chasing down a robber -$5
Cost of letting robber go -$3
No robber: $0

Shoplifter:
Steal small item & get caught -$10
Steal small item & get away $3
Don't steal anyhing $0

If this is a one time game, the store owner will let the shoplifter get away, and the shoplifter will steal the item.

Once this game is repeated, the if the shoplifter knows (or thinks that the store owner will chase him down) he will not rob the store. The store owner gains $3 from this belief.