Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we don't need welfare then!

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought you were an anarchist?

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, it's a question, come on.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we don't need welfare then!

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought you were an anarchist?

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, it's a question, come on.

[/ QUOTE ]
You made it sound like we need state-provided welfare.

[neverforgetlol]

no, i said that because you acted like those charities could solve all the financial needs of the people that have those disabilities.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
no, i said that because you acted like those charities could solve all the financial needs of the people that have those disabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. It wasn't me who you were responding to
2. Your post is a strawman because the poster you were responding to wasn't claiming that charity would take care of everything.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what % of the population is mentally or physically disabled?


[/ QUOTE ]
I bet they are much higher than the percentage that are disabled beyond the point at which they can be productive in society, which, I think, is what was originally being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for interjecting, my relply was going to address this point, but in a much nastier way. Furhter more its not just those that are disabled and unable to work, its those that are disabled and are forced to rely on a charitable network or the government to care for them. This doesn't include those who held disability insurance, got financial settlements from the cause of their disability and those with friends and relatives willing and able to support them.

[ianlippert]

Wow I go to the gym and theres like 7 new pages. Hopefully this hasnt been covered

[ QUOTE ]
The person with mental or physical disabilities is not on the news unless he/she is a celebrity. this person has no charity drive.


[/ QUOTE ]

In AC land those with mental disabilities will most likely be taken care of by their immediate family and volunteers, not continuous monetary charity.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

So we don't need welfare then! Great. I think if there was more money for my depressed uncle he would've gotten it, as he really needs money. Or maybe they don't give everyone with those problems enough money to live on?


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if generic drugs were legal costs would go down for treatment, perhpas if the government didn't heavily subsidise some forms of insurance it would be cheaper and easier to get what one needs, perhaps if we didn't drop 400 billion dollars in wars overseas and spend 10%+ of our gdp annually on the millitary people would have a lot more free money to spend on insruance, health benefits and charaties (not to mention the 200 billion annually on interest on the national debt alone, oops i just mentioned it). To claim that under this system with massive inefficiencies, incompetance and outright theft your uncle didn't get enough money and to extrapolate to a situation where we aren't paying for bridges to nowhere, farm subsidies paying people NOT to grow crops, corporate bailouts and regular wars and claim that with all that waste gone all those inefficiencies minimized that suddenly we are going to have more poor people andmore people who can't get help than is currently the situation is perpostereous.

[ QUOTE ]

Oh now this is good. You claim something, then can't back it up, then try to turn it on me!

[/ QUOTE ]

I no longer have those numbers off hand and wanted to see if you were worth looking them up for, apparently your not as you are willing to provide no real data of your own anyway. But off the top of my head i recall that ~ 2.5% of the US pouplation 18-65 is unable to work due to a disability. however less than 0.5% live below the poverty line and less than 0.25% cannot turn to friends and family to help. Those stats would be about 5-6 years old now and those numbers are just what i can recall at this time and i don't gaurentee their accuracy, but i would be damn suprised to find that more than 0.5% of the working population is disabled to the point of needing charity to get by.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
So we don't need welfare then! Great. I think if there was more money for my depressed uncle he would've gotten it, as he really needs money. Or maybe they don't give everyone with those problems enough money to live on?

[/ QUOTE ]

We arent talking about charity under the current system. We are talking about charity where the working class has all of their tax money back to spend how they choose to. The poster that I initially made the charity arguement agreed that the average worker would be wealthier under anarcho capitalism. If you arent going to accept this then theres no need to argue with us about charity. If you dont believe that people will be wealthier in AC, then you really have to open your eyes to the amount of government waste and corruption.

The other night I was talking to my mom, who works with Family and Children Services up here in Ontario. This government organization takes care of mentally disabled and high needs children. She basically said that because of the way the system is set up if her organization doesnt use up their whole budget it gets cut the next year. So basically you have people up in the organization who at end of year will go to 'conferences' in far away destinations and stay for several weeks, SUVs that get added onto the budget for personal use, etc. Thats money that is coming directly out of the pockets of the disabled children, its pretty sick. And because its the government there is very little that can be done about it. The second I find out a private charity is doing any shady things they can kiss my money good bye, not so with government welfare.

If you really want to help poor people government is not the solution.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no, if you don't want to take the time to read it then forget it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the attitude of mutualists when asked to explain what they're talking about, I can't see it going anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is the attitude of mutualist: Everyone must do their own share. If you're not willing to read, why should he put forth more effort to explain it?

[/ QUOTE ]
That attitude is a poor one for attracting people to your cause. You'll notice that AC didn't attract followers here by simply pointing to Human Action by Mises and saying "Get back to me when you read that."

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
To claim that under this system with massive inefficiencies, incompetance nad outright theft your uncle didn't get enough money and to extrapolate to a situation where we aren't paying for brides to nowhere, farm subsidies paying people NOT to grow crops, corporate bailouts and regular wars and claim that with all that waste gone all those inefficiencies minimized that suddenly we are going to have more poor people andmore people who can't get help than is currently the situation is perpostereous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for pointing out the rediculousness of the charitable statists position in such a clear and straightforward manner. When you put it like this it sounds so crazy, like these people are living in lala land where the government is just a tiny drag on the economy.