|
|
#31
03-09-2007, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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] 
|
|
#32
03-09-2007, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#33
03-09-2007, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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??
|
|
#34
03-09-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!
|
|
#35
03-09-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!"
|
|
#36
03-09-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#37
03-09-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#38
03-09-2007, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#39
03-09-2007, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#40
03-09-2007, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
