Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?

Yes or no to these questions, please.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there would undoubtedly be more charity in ACism than in our society. There would be more wealth first of all (imho), and no reliance on state redistribution.

Would that amount be greater than is currently redistributed through state-funded subsidies? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really say.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he's asserting that the poor will be helped in proportion to how much people want to help them, instead of how much they can force other people to help.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an impossible question to answer. There are too many variables. For example, without states engaging in large-scale violence over vast geographic areas, there would likely be a lot fewer orphans.

More importantly, this answer, even if it were obtainable, would have no effect on the morality of forcing other people to contribute to certain politically-favored aid organizations (instead of forcing those organizations to compete for funds) and forcing those people to subsidize politically-selected methods of "helping" (regardless of the actual effect of such aid). Using the current level of tax funding as a yardstick is a huge fallacy; assuming the level of "need" to be constant is an even bigger one; believeing that there's some ratio of need-to-funding that justifies violence is the biggest.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you didn't want to get into what is and isn't moral.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?

Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable, because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

I would like to be coerced to give more because I believe that only coercion will generate a sufficient volume of contributions to actually accomplish something.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to be coerced to give more because I believe that only coercion will generate a sufficient volume of contributions to actually accomplish something.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, you could very easily sign up with a firm who would send thugs to your house to shake you down for money. If you want to be coerced, that's totally fine with me.

Now, explain how you justify coercing other people?