Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that we need a government to help the poor is one of most persistant myths we perpetuate as a society, to the detriment of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO if the government disappeared, so would the poor, because the demographics that are poverty vectors would literally become extinct. As in: dead.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO if the government disappeared, so would the poor

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you are being serious but you would need to expand on this. If the government which integrates certain democratic elements were to be replaced by private tyrannies as in ACism the poor would increase, nevermind disappear. However, the argument that poverty will always exist under state power (and is a consequence thereof) is a valid one imo.

[Subfallen]

I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference. Schedule A drugs alone, if cheaply and safely available, would catalyze the self-destruction of huge sectors of society. Social darwinism FTW. (Obviously drug dealers would be the fastest beneficiaries of AC.)

Basically I think the government is allowing poor people to survive and reproduce at levels that would be nonviable otherwise.

[tame_deuces]

I would assume the profit margins on drug-sales would drop rapidly though, so I don't know if drug dealers would benefit so much.

[Subfallen]

Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make was that the only reason the government takes care of poor people is because the majority of people care about poor people and vote in social programs. Without a government people are still going to care about poor people and can take care of the poor better by eliminating the middle man. The worst possible scenario for the poor is to have an institution that claims to help the poor when it really does a half assed job of it. People think the poor are being taken care of and so wont take care of the poor themselves as "thats the governments job".

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference. Schedule A drugs alone, if cheaply and safely available, would catalyze the self-destruction of huge sectors of society. Social darwinism FTW. (Obviously drug dealers would be the fastest beneficiaries of AC.)

Basically I think the government is allowing poor people to survive and reproduce at levels that would be nonviable otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The war on drugs is probably one of the biggest wastes of money. Money that could be spent on helping those with addiction and those that are in poverty. We need to hurt the poor to help the poor? Doesnt make too much sense.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make was that the only reason the government takes care of poor people is because the majority of people care about poor people and vote in social programs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a government people are still going to care about poor people and can take care of the poor better by eliminating the middle man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people, definitely. But most people would have nothing to do with charity if the government wasn't here to coerce us into funding social programs with our tax dollars.

At least IMO.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?