Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[NickMPK]

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.

[bkholdem]

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

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[xorbie]

[ 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.

[bkholdem]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[NickMPK]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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).

[NickMPK]

[ 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.