NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, if the majority of you believe that welfare shouldn't be paid for in taxes, and instead come only from voluntary charity yet most of you also believe that the struggling in society are simply lazy, not as hard working as you, and therefore don't deserve your money in the first place, how does that hold together? To me at least, it seems pretty contradictory. I think this is a perfect example on why libertarian-capitalism wouldn't work out, as the belief that people are only poor because they are lazy doesn't seem to come from people willing to give charity. So prove me wrong on this one.

I'm betting in advance that several people think it's OK for the struggling to starve for "not working hard enough".

I'd try to explain this, but I do believe they deserve charity. I just think that private charity will be far more efficient than a government-run welfare system.

Most libertarians I know don't fall into the "they don't deserve it" type of thought, anyway.

On the other hand, why do many Democrats seem to believe that government welfare is needed? Are you not willing to donate to private charity voluntarily?

I'd try to explain this, but I do believe they deserve charity. I just think that private charity will be far more efficient than a government-run welfare system.

Of course this assumes a plethora of funding that just isn't there, nor is it going to magically appear.

Most libertarians I know don't fall into the "they don't deserve it" type of thought, anyway.

Funny, every libertarian I have spoken to has stated this very clearly.

Of course, personally, I think *everyone* deserves a second chance when hard times hit them.

On the other hand, why do many Democrats seem to believe that government welfare is needed? Are you not willing to donate to private charity voluntarily?

If every person who wants to give to charity gave some, it still would not be enough.

Of course. But not everyone is, and those opposing welfare are the ones least likely to commit to it. I'm not talking charity on a $2 a week basis. Thousands of dollars per-capita are necessary, and most people wouldn't give that much- and each one that doesn't foot the fair share means that the bill goes up for those that do.

Who says that private charity would even need as much money as a government welfare system does to function well? Government agencies are typically full of bureaucracy and bullshit, and money is wasted on the overly large administration of it all. I'd expect a private charity to be able to do more with less money.

Funny, every libertarian I have spoken to has stated this very clearly.

Of course, personally, I think *everyone* deserves a second chance when hard times hit them.

I don't know if you count this forum as "speaking to" me but I'm a libertarian who does indeed think that people deserve a second chance.

Who says that private charity would even need as much money as a government welfare system does to function well? Government agencies are typically full of bureaucracy and bullshit, and money is wasted on the overly large administration of it all. I'd expect a private charity to be able to do more with less money.

It still would require *huge* amounts of funding, bureaucracy aside. And the truth of the matter is, most people are *incredibly* selfish. Without government funding, there will *never* be enough for those who truly need it and, without much of the bureaucracy, even more who *don't* need it will receive it.

I don't know if you count this forum as "speaking to" me but I'm a libertarian who does indeed think that people deserve a second chance.

Sure, I'll count it.

YAY! A compassionate libertarian! =)

It still would require *huge* amounts of funding, bureaucracy aside. And the truth of the matter is, most people are *incredibly* selfish. Without government funding, there will *never* be enough for those who truly need it and, without much of the bureaucracy, even more who *don't* need it will receive it.

Yup. The only way a system of private charity and welfare would work is if society could be shifted from an emphasis and prime value of wealth to a more compassionate model...but then we wouldn't need economic libertarianism, would we?

Now, if the majority of you believe that welfare shouldn't be paid for in taxes, and instead come only from voluntary charity yet most of you also believe that the struggling in society are simply lazy, not as hard working as you, and therefore don't deserve your money in the first place, how does that hold together? To me at least, it seems pretty contradictory. I think this is a perfect example on why libertarian-capitalism wouldn't work out, as the belief that people are only poor because they are lazy doesn't seem to come from people willing to give charity. So prove me wrong on this one.

I'm betting in advance that several people think it's OK for the struggling to starve for "not working hard enough".

Well I can't speak for all rightists, but for me, there's no contradiction, allow me to elaborate.

Public social welfare doesn't make a distinction between a guy who needs money because of factors not-his fault, and someone who fucked over their own life. Private charities can discriminate on that basis.

See people often throw around the term "less-fortunate". Yes some people truly are poor and in bad situations because of misfortunate, and those people I would gladly donate my money to help (if I had the money to spare). However, people too often call people "less-fortunate" when really it has nothing to do with fortune, but really the person is stupid/lazy/imcompetant/whatever else.

If I were to donate to a private charity, I can choose one that I know will mostly be focusing on helping those who are truly less fortunate, rather than the incompetants. On the other hand, if I give the money to the government in the form of taxes, the government is going to be giving that money to support those lazy and incompetant people (if you don't believe this just look at the social welfare system today... at least in Canada, I'm not too familiar with the American)

It still would require *huge* amounts of funding, bureaucracy aside. And the truth of the matter is, most people are *incredibly* selfish. Without government funding, there will *never* be enough for those who truly need it and, without much of the bureaucracy, even more who *don't* need it will receive it.

It seems to me that many welfare recipients are already those undeserving of it, even with the bureaucracy in place. I would think that private charities - including families or even just neighbors of those in need, as well as churches and actual private charity organizations - would often be more effective in allocating money to those who are truly in need.

In addition, perhaps the relaxation of taxes that go into government welfare programs would allow businesses to expand, providing more jobs, which, although not directly welfare, would certainly help to lessen the load somewhat.


YAY! A compassionate libertarian! =)

Yeah, there are a few of us out there. ^_^ We're not ALL insanely right capitalizts (no matter what my nation says).

Alas, most charity groups are religious, and have this nasty tendancy of preaching to people while helping them. From what I've seen, all that will lead to is more votes for the religious right (or the poor-loving left), which means more homeless people, which means more need for charity...

I'd rather Bob and Bella suffer and die NOW than be brought up voting to make sure Stan, Stella, George, and Bella Jr. end up suffering and dying later.

Alas, most charity groups are religious, and have this nasty tendancy of preaching to people while helping them. From what I've seen, all that will lead to is more votes for the religious right (or the poor-loving left), which means more homeless people, which means more need for charity...

I'm afraid I'm not quite certain what you mean.

Public social welfare doesn't make a distinction between a guy who needs money because of factors not-his fault, and someone who fucked over their own life. Private charities can discriminate on that basis.

I personally believe everyone deserves a second chance. I don't think you can say "sorry, you don't get anything because you fucked up." If people need welfare, that's all there is to it.

However, people too often call people "less-fortunate" when really it has nothing to do with fortune, but really the person is stupid/lazy/imcompetant/whatever else.

Not really. Of course there are those who spoil things with drugs/whatever for example, but most people who are poor are that way because they were born poor.


In addition, perhaps the relaxation of taxes that go into government welfare programs would allow businesses to expand, providing more jobs, which, although not directly welfare, would certainly help to lessen the load somewhat.

But public sector jobs will be lost, and you'd end up with just as many unemployed.

I'm afraid I'm not quite certain what you mean.

The religious right has no interest in helping poorer people become middle class. They generally just aim for votes. An educated, well-off populace will be less likely to be religious, and thus less likely to vote for the church's desires.

The far left, which is represented by some of your creepily nice churches (Like that one that's New Testament only), also logically wants to keep people poor, because, again, votes.

Either way, faith-based organizations are bad choices for charity unless you personally believe in their goals. I don't. I'm not going to make it -easier- for them by paying them money.

I do, however, try to toss a bit of money towards animal shelters, which are less corruptable (I'm sure they're corrupt too, but puppies rarely vote). Even if they -were- religious, they're not going to be trying to screw with my life via feeding puppies. If I come across a secular group with decent credentials, I might donate towards them, but I'd have to look in to their methods.

The religious right has no interest in helping poorer people become middle class. They generally just aim for votes. An educated, well-off populace will be less likely to be religious, and thus less likely to vote for the church's desires.

Oh, i'd disagree somewhat. There are plenty of wealthy religious extremists.

The far left, which is represented by some of your creepily nice churches (Like that one that's New Testament only), also logically wants to keep people poor, because, again, votes.

The far-left are religious now? News to me. (And no, I don't want to keep people poor.)

Does it really make sense to have hundreds of charities needlessly duplicating administrative services when this could be done centrally, by government?

I find people who claim to prefer that private charities handle things like welfare highly suspect. It frankly reeks of self-interest, as I'm sure each and every one of you who make this claim has little or no interest in actually rendering assistance to those less fortunate, and a great interest in finding yet another way to write off X number of dollars more off your taxes.

And there's also the question of the multidinuous, varying agendas of each of these private charities. Welfare money tied in with...what? Faith groups? Doesn't that notion set off alarm bells for anybody? Like the Christian missionaries who beg for money to help children in other countries - who insist on converting the locals before giving them a cup of rice?

I've seen a lot of real-life examples where neocons managed to persuade the population at large that government was incapable of handling government business, and government responded by privatizing services, because business is so much better suited to handling government business. It's a crock. It's always resulted in poorer service - or in outlying regions no service - needless duplication of administration, and in short order, a higher cost to taxpayers.

Don't believe me? If you'd lived in Mike Harris' Ontario, you'd know precisely what I'm talking about.

What should be kept in mind is that much of the problem is that people are either:

1) Mentally unfit. Fricking Reagan's legacy of dropping people out on the streets so long as they weren't -criminally- insane.

2) Hooked. Drug culture, gang culture, and all the like can screw people up. But, given the chance, I'd like to help them 'get a real job!'. Some of these people are even exceptional, but just had a serious lack of wisdom in their youth.

3) Jackasses. Some people are just too stupid or lazy or cruel to live. People who have kids just so they can get child support, people who go for twinkies and booze on their food stamps instead of bread and milk, should just be loaded up in a space shuttle test engine, especially since they often make it hell for the other people on the same system. My aunt is on this list, and I despise her for it. She suckles on dissability which is solely due to her being a bloody walrus.

4) People who's pride or fear is bigger than their brains. I'm sorry if being poor hurts your dignity or makes you worried. You're poor. Deal with it. Suck it up and go to the soup kitchen until you can get back in to the swing of things. Especially if you have kids.

As is, in many areas, there -are- programs to help people survive. They work. But people too often avoid them, and the ones that don't work can be -nasty-.

Now, if the majority of you believe that welfare shouldn't be paid for in taxes, and instead come only from voluntary charity yet most of you also believe that the struggling in society are simply lazy, not as hard working as you, and therefore don't deserve your money in the first place, how does that hold together? To me at least, it seems pretty contradictory. I think this is a perfect example on why libertarian-capitalism wouldn't work out, as the belief that people are only poor because they are lazy doesn't seem to come from people willing to give charity. So prove me wrong on this one.

I'm betting in advance that several people think it's OK for the struggling to starve for "not working hard enough".


It's obvious though, isn't it. Under the voluntary system only the worthy poor will get help. Therefore the money will not be going to the simply lazy.

Also a lot less money will be needed. So no contradiction.

I personally believe everyone deserves a second chance. I don't think you can say "sorry, you don't get anything because you fucked up." If people need welfare, that's all there is to it.

I think people deserve second chances on little small things, but I think when someone makes some (i.e. several) major mistakes consciously, esp. when people have told them what will happen, and fucks over their own life... then I DO think you can say "too bad, you fucked up". People should be responsible for their own actions...

Not really. Of course there are those who spoil things with drugs/whatever for example, but most people who are poor are that way because they were born poor.

No, most people are poor because...
a) They made poor choices
b) They are lazy
c) They are incompetant
d) Some combination of the above.

The born poor = will live poor argument doesn't really hold any water. When I was born, my parents had almost no money, they were pretty much fresh first generation immigrants. My mother barely spoke English (my father spent alot of time studying English back where they came from... so he spoke it decently).

Now I'm living in a middle-class home, obviously have some luxuries (I mean I'm sitting here posting on an online forum, meaning I have internet and a computer), and I'm probably going to be going to decent, if not good university.

These people that are born here? They have had far more opportunities to learn than my parents did when they were young, they didn't have the language difficulty, they knew more people here, etc. etc. They also can go on welfare (my parents never even touched the welfare system), so on so forth.

So from personal (well not really personal, it's more of my parents... but still that's pretty close to first-hand account), I can say, being poor doesn't mean you will stay poor, if you are willing to work hard and you are competant enough.

Those people that are born poor, if they are of at least average intellect (or maybe even a bit less, as long as they aren't total dumbasses), could get out of school and go to a local community college (if not a university) and get a decent job for themselves, and not live off their lives on the backs of hard-working people.

It's obvious though, isn't it. Under the voluntary system only the worthy poor will get help. Therefore the money will not be going to the simply lazy.

Also a lot less money will be needed. So no contradiction.

But theres the problem, see. The attitude is that most people are poor because they are lazy. So how do you determine who isn't? So you just let people suffer, then and tell them to get real jobs?

The far left, which is represented by some of your creepily nice churches (Like that one that's New Testament only), also logically wants to keep people poor, because, again, votes.

I hope you are using "your" in a general sense, and not saying that they are actually MY churches.

Either way, faith-based organizations are bad choices for charity unless you personally believe in their goals. I don't. I'm not going to make it -easier- for them by paying them money.

Then don't. Donate to a different charity. Or hell, give money straight to poor people, whatever you want to do.

Does it really make sense to have hundreds of charities needlessly duplicating administrative services when this could be done centrally, by government?

It does when the government's bureaucracy does nothing to help reduce the welfare rolls, as that would simply lessen the paychecks of the bureaucrats.

I find people who claim to prefer that private charities handle things like welfare highly suspect. It frankly reeks of self-interest, as I'm sure each and every one of you who make this claim has little or no interest in actually rendering assistance to those less fortunate, and a great interest in finding yet another way to write off X number of dollars more off your taxes.

Thanks. I love generalizations. I'm so glad that I'm quite obviously a self-interested inconsiderate prick looking for nothing but the chance to scrounge a few more pennies for myself.

And there's also the question of the multidinuous, varying agendas of each of these private charities. Welfare money tied in with...what? Faith groups?

Then donate to secular organizations, or set something up yourself, even. No, wait, I'm sure your generosity towards the poor only extends as far as your convenience does, and actually working toward helping people would certainly be far too inconvenient.

I've seen a lot of real-life examples where neocons managed to persuade the population at large that government was incapable of handling government business, and government responded by privatizing services, because business is so much better suited to handling government business.

That's funny. Neocons are usually of the pro-government variety.

But theres the problem, see. The attitude is that most people are poor because they are lazy. So how do you determine who isn't? So you just let people suffer, then and tell them to get real jobs?

Well the charity decides. I suppose they draw up a list of who is, and who is not, a workshy burden. That way you can look at the charity and decide whether or not they are spending the money in a correct fashion then donate accordingly. In other words it is direct democracy with the dollar. A lot like anarchism I suppose.

Naturally some people won't get anything, but I suppose they deserve it if no-one is willing to help them personally.

No, most people are poor because...
a) They made poor choices
b) They are lazy
c) They are incompetant
d) Some combination of the above.

If that's the case, how-come there are many rich folk like that as well ;)


The born poor = will live poor argument doesn't really hold any water. When I was born, my parents had almost no money, they were pretty much fresh first generation immigrants. My mother barely spoke English (my father spent alot of time studying English back where they came from... so he spoke it decently).

Now I'm living in a middle-class home, obviously have some luxuries (I mean I'm sitting here posting on an online forum, meaning I have internet and a computer), and I'm probably going to be going to decent, if not good university

Congratulations on your luck, but I maintain that you're the exception rather than the rule. Your parents were also fortunate enough (guessing on your age here, but if you are to be going to university soon, i'm pretty confident in this) to have immigrated during a period of extreme growth. By the way- Did you go to a public school?

Whether it's deserved or not is irrelevant--what matters is the fact that, in the absence of a transgression having been committed against Paul by Peter, robbing Peter to pay Paul is NEVER morally justified. And that's all that matters--without moral justification, all the practical arguments for or against become meaningless and irrelevant.

Well the charity decides. I suppose they draw up a list of who is, and who is not, a workshy burden. That way you can look at the charity and decide whether or not they are spending the money in a correct fashion then donate accordingly. In other words it is direct democracy with the dollar. A lot like anarchism I suppose.

Naturally some people won't get anything, but I suppose they deserve it if no-one is willing to help them personally.

But then you have the problem of faith based charities again- and them deciding who is worthy could be troublesome.

...and really, if people have to wade through a mass of different charities to find one that spends their money in a decent way, most simply aren't going to bother.

Whether it's deserved or not is irrelevant--what matters is the fact that, in the absence of a transgression having been committed against Paul by Peter, robbing Peter to pay Paul is NEVER morally justified. And that's all that matters--without moral justification, all the practical arguments for or against become meaningless and irrelevant.

It's not robbing, it's a responsibility. You can't argue that taxation is more wrong than letting your fellow man suffer.

But then you have the problem of faith based charities again- and them deciding who is worthy could be troublesome.

...and really, if people have to wade through a mass of different charities to find one that spends their money in a decent way, most simply aren't going to bother.

It's an individual choice. I don't see having to wade through many charities either. Most people will get to know the charity they like pretty easily from their own convictions already.

Plus, since this is all voluntay, what is the problem with faith based charities?

It's an individual choice. I don't see having to wade through many charities either. Most people will get to know the charity they like pretty easily from their own convictions already.

Plus, since this is all voluntay, what is the problem with faith based charities?

People's convictions will probably result in religious charities receiving the most funding, and religious charities will most likely discriminate and give their charity with strings attached, alienating those who aren't "worthy" ie. those not of the same faith.

Amyst, spare me the crap. I spend two days per week teaching inner-city children from my own neigbourhood computer skills. I don't get paid for it, and I don't usually make a big stink about it, either. This is just FYI.

Why should I have to 'set up my own' secular charity - when there's a secular organization mandated to render assistance? Why should I pay an administrator, maintain an office, hire that admin a secretary, etc, etc, etc - just to deliver some monetary relief to those in need? Again, this reeks of self-interest and tax write-offs.

Seeing as you made it personal, just how are YOU charitable in a meaningful way that doesn't result in you taking advantage of tax loopholes at the end of the year?

It's not robbing, it's a responsibility. You can't argue that taxation is more wrong than letting your fellow man suffer.

False. Each individual exists solely for his own sake, and solely to serve his own ends. That means that neither nor anyone else has any sort of inherent obligation to provide for the existence of another if that individual's existence is not due to any act of my own. Selfishness is in fact the pinnacle of virtue; self-interest is the noblest of motives.

And before you make the extremely ignorant and shallow argument that you collectivists seem to enjoy, self-interest does NOT exclude VOLUNATRY work with or for others, if one finds it in his self-interest to do so.

False. Each individual exists solely for his own sake, and solely to serve his own ends. That means that neither nor anyone else has any sort of inherent obligation to provide for the existence of another if that individual's existence is not due to any act of my own. Selfishness is in fact the pinnacle of virtue; self-interest is the noblest of motives.

And before you make the extremely ignorant and shallow argument that you collectivists seem to enjoy, self-interest does NOT exclude VOLUNATRY work with or for others, if one finds it in his self-interest to do so.

So by that logic I guess it is OK to rob those weaker than me and take all of their money, because that's definitely in my self-interest, and its so much more ethical than paying taxes. Gotcha.

People's convictions will probably result in religious charities receiving the most funding, and religious charities will most likely discriminate and give their charity with strings attached, alienating those who aren't "worthy" ie. those not of the same faith.


Well I'm sure that religious charities will only help people of that religion, so no problem there as the strings are already attached.

If atheists and the rest are too mean spirited to donate to charity, then they clearly aren't deserving anyway. Again no problem.

If atheists and the rest are too mean spirited to donate to charity, then they clearly aren't deserving anyway. Again no problem.

No, that's not it, its just that I believe that a secular charity would not be as popular as a faith-based one, and would as a result be ineffective in its welfare proceedings.

No, that's not it, its just that I believe that a secular charity would not be as popular as a faith-based one, and would as a result be ineffective in its welfare proceedings.


Why would it be less popular in the first place? Unless people who are committed to secular goals are in fact less generous.

In any event, if catholic charties help catholics, jewish help jewich &ct. Where is the problem. The bulk of people in this country do already have some form of religious affiliation. Surely the non-religious people can do the same for the non-religious. (After all they are always pointing out how much more "moral" they are.)

Amyst, spare me the crap. I spend two days per week teaching inner-city children from my own neigbourhood computer skills. I don't get paid for it, and I don't usually make a big stink about it, either. This is just FYI.

Why should I have to 'set up my own' secular charity - when there's a secular organization mandated to render assistance? Why should I pay an administrator, maintain an office, hire that admin a secretary, etc, etc, etc - just to deliver some monetary relief to those in need? Again, this reeks of self-interest and tax write-offs.

Seeing as you made it personal, just how are YOU charitable in a meaningful way that doesn't result in you taking advantage of tax loopholes at the end of the year?

I apologise. It just annoyed me when you said that you were "sure" that those of us in favor of private charity were all only doing it because we could get tax writeoffs for it.

I'm hardly charitable at all. I'm a college student at the moment, and currently unemployed. The most I can say is that I'll usually give money to the little charity donation boxes on counters at stores. I sincerely apologise for having insulted you, and for having responded in exactly the manner that I despise.

Why would it be less popular in the first place? Unless people who are committed to secular goals are in fact less generous.

In any event, if catholic charties help catholics, jewish help jewich &ct. Where is the problem. The bulk of people in this country do already have some form of religious affiliation. Surely the non-religious people can do the same for the non-religious. (After all they are always pointing out how much more "moral" they are.)

I suppose. I just figure that christian charities for example are likely to attract far more supporters. Hell, it seems to work in politics.

I suppose. I just figure that christian charities for example are likely to attract far more supporters. Hell, it seems to work in politics.


Well yes they would, but they would also have more people to look after, (there being more christians). So it would all balance out. Probably.

I hope you are using "your" in a general sense, and not saying that they are actually MY churches.


If you have multiple churches yourself, I'm slightly scared. Visiting several churches, sure... but.. having... *shudders*


Then don't. Donate to a different charity. Or hell, give money straight to poor people, whatever you want to do.


You'll understand if I have better things to do than research where to toss my small amount of spare cash. Hence why I focus on animal charities. And no. Sadly, the whole "they'll just buy booze with it!" thing does happen. I'd rather not give someone money so they can become potentially dangerous. I pay taxes so the government can deal with this junk -for- me.


It does when the government's bureaucracy does nothing to help reduce the welfare rolls, as that would simply lessen the paychecks of the bureaucrats.


Yes, sadly, they do a bad job. At every fricking thing. Ever. Always.

Welcome to humanity; the smartest group of stupid animals on the planet.

Honestly, I have my own life to lead. I can only spend so much time trying to fix the world between essays.

Funny, every libertarian I have spoken to has stated this very clearly.

Count me out, then. I'd never make a blanket statement that no one living in poverty deserves a second chance. I believe that there are some who don't, and others who've already had three or four chances, and that the business of charity ought to be left to agencies that can make a distinction between the two. I, for one, prefer private charity, but I'm not completely closed to the idea of localizing welfare.

Whether it's deserved or not is irrelevant--what matters is the fact that, in the absence of a transgression having been committed against Paul by Peter, robbing Peter to pay Paul is NEVER morally justified. And that's all that matters--without moral justification, all the practical arguments for or against become meaningless and irrelevant.

Do you feel this way about _all_ taxes, or just taxes that fund programs which you believe will never be of personal benefit to you?

There is nothing more insidious and destabilizing than giving long-term aid. Short term aid seems to work, but long term aid (just handing them cash and food) destroys the basic mechanism of how a society works.

Farmers will stop planting. People will no longer see any need to find work.

There's a balance somewhere to be found, but we haven't found it. The Great Society programs of the 1960s and later, the influx of drugs, have destroyed multiple generations of the people they were intended to help.

If just giving welfare is supposed to work, and affirmative action is supposed to work, and jobs programs are supposed to work, and midnight basketball is supposed to work, and the war on drugs is supposed to work, if all major cities now have extreme gun control that's supposed to work, why are more blacks (as a percentage of the total) than ever living in poverty, spending their lives in prison, and killing each other?

A serious mistake is being made. And it's the belief that government is wise and capable of solving all problems, if only we write the laws strictly enough and spend enough money.

These are "people" problems. And to a large extent, although they need some help, they have to be motivated to fix the problems themselves.

That includes any who may be "oppressing" them. The government won't be able to fix that either.

Some of those people deserve the money and some don't. If you're on welfare, but not looking for a job but are physcially and mentally able to have one, then you don't deserve to get welfare. If you are looking but continue to get declined, then yes, you do. People that can financially afford should give to charities but be wise about which ones.

Well I'm sure that religious charities will only help people of that religion, so no problem there as the strings are already attached.

If atheists and the rest are too mean spirited to donate to charity, then they clearly aren't deserving anyway. Again no problem.

Wow, so people who live in really rural areas and are of an extreme minority religion there (like where I spent a few years growing up there were exactly two Jewish families) then those people are just shit out of luck and that is okay with you?

Welfare sucks. Here in good ol' france, we have what is called the "providential state"; Meaning that taxpayer money goes directly to social security (literal translation : "I forgot the english term for affordable medecine for everyone"), some things good, some things utterly horrible. You can live on welfare, live on part-time jobs (or undeclared jobs, of course. lots to do here), and earn more than the stupid schmoe who works a normal , 9-to-6 job.

What this means, is that many people grow COMFORTABLE with welfare.
Which means MORE jobless people.
Which means LOWER wages for the working schmoe or else it's back to square one and the proverbial line one hears everytime you ask for a raise : "I'll find the first unemployed schmuck to hire at minimum wage and I'm firing you!"

Add a stunning number of illegal aliens into the territory, and disastrous "integration" politics which have turned france into a near-islamic state, turning a needed immigrant workforce into parasites...

And you have a huge deficit.

Do you feel this way about _all_ taxes, or just taxes that fund programs which you believe will never be of personal benefit to you?

I *FEEL* nothing. Rather, I know as a matter of objective fact that all coercive taking of wealth other than as restitution or penalty for a transgression is evil.

I *FEEL* nothing. Rather, I know as a matter of objective fact that all coercive taking of wealth other than as restitution or penalty for a transgression is evil.

You ignored what I said before, it seems:

"So by that logic I guess it is OK to rob those weaker than me and take all of their money, because that's definitely in my self-interest, and its so much more ethical than paying taxes. Gotcha."

I expect your response in triplicate. I'll read it tomorrow morning :p

Now, if the majority of you believe that welfare shouldn't be paid for in taxes, and instead come only from voluntary charity yet most of you also believe that the struggling in society are simply lazy, not as hard working as you, and therefore don't deserve your money in the first place, how does that hold together? To me at least, it seems pretty contradictory. I think this is a perfect example on why libertarian-capitalism wouldn't work out, as the belief that people are only poor because they are lazy doesn't seem to come from people willing to give charity. So prove me wrong on this one.

I'm betting in advance that several people think it's OK for the struggling to starve for "not working hard enough".

It depends on what segment of the population we are talking about. Ideally, welfare should be available only to those who are incapable of supporting themselves and have no family, friends, church, other charitable organization, local community, county or State support. Able bodied individuals who are not Developmentally Disabled or Severely Mentally Ill should never receive welfare. I realize that this is an ideal and in practical reality, a return to this, very definitely needs to be gradual an planned, but we need to make progress in that direction.

You ignored what I said before, it seems:

"So by that logic I guess it is OK to rob those weaker than me and take all of their money, because that's definitely in my self-interest, and its so much more ethical than paying taxes. Gotcha."

I expect your response in triplicate. I'll read it tomorrow morning :p

Yes, I did ignore it. I do not respond to straw men.

There is no contradiction.

By any syandards, U.S. citizens gave the most to charity in the 1980s.

But public sector jobs will be lost, and you'd end up with just as many unemployed.


:rolleyes: Are you bad at math?

Does it really make sense to have hundreds of charities needlessly duplicating administrative services when this could be done centrally, by government?No, but that's not the idea. The idea, well my idea at least, is that taxes are taken by force to pay for things that could be funded voluntarily by those who actually care.


I find people who claim to prefer that private charities handle things like welfare highly suspect. It frankly reeks of self-interest, as I'm sure each and every one of you who make this claim has little or no interest in actually rendering assistance to those less fortunate, and a great interest in finding yet another way to write off X number of dollars more off your taxes.
Oh no, not self-interest! How dare people care about themselves! ...Assholes


And there's also the question of the multidinuous, varying agendas of each of these private charities. Welfare money tied in with...what? Faith groups? Doesn't that notion set off alarm bells for anybody? Like the Christian missionaries who beg for money to help children in other countries - who insist on converting the locals before giving them a cup of rice?So what the hell do you want? Missionaries have the noble goal of saving people from both starvation and eternal damnation. This is what happens when the people who actually care spend time and money to help others. Would you prefer they didn't bother?


I've seen a lot of real-life examples where neocons managed to persuade the population at large that government was incapable of handling government business, and government responded by privatizing services, because business is so much better suited to handling government business. It's a crock. It's always resulted in poorer service - or in outlying regions no service - needless duplication of administration, and in short order, a higher cost to taxpayers.Thats an entirely different game. My problem with government is that everything requires taxes for funding. When you're still paying taxes for the same services, the problem is not solved.

:rolleyes: Are you bad at math?

No. But if you eliminate the public sector of social welfare and trim government, a lot of people are going to be out of work. Any upsurge in the economy as a result of less taxation is going to be counteracted by a large level of unemployed that won't be able to find work (depending on fledgling private charities) until the economic benefits of reduced taxation begin to surface and thats assuming that the gains are going to be going towards enterprising initiatives, which most of them will not. I anticipate the majority of purchases will be spendthrift, of which largely increased demand (Say you've been given a $5000 tax cut. What would most people do?) will result in large inflation...slowing the economy somewhat in turn. Businesses may have to expand production (or just keep the prices high, counteracting benefits of reduced taxes), but it won't happen overnight, and it wont help the masses of newly unemployed who have had their welfare cut out. In the meantime, theres going to be quite a lot of trouble.

Yes, I did ignore it. I do not respond to straw men.

I'm not sure what you mean.

But I think I made a valid point. You claim that taxation is stealing and that self interest is the noblest of virtues. But is stealing OK if it's in my self interest and not serving government?

By any syandards, U.S. citizens gave the most to charity in the 1980s.

Most overall (which is a gimme considering the much larger population than other western nations) or most per capita and can you provide a source?

I'm not sure what you mean.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

False. Each individual exists solely for his own sake, and solely to serve his own ends. That means that neither nor anyone else has any sort of inherent obligation to provide for the existence of another if that individual's existence is not due to any act of my own. Selfishness is in fact the pinnacle of virtue; self-interest is the noblest of motives.

And before you make the extremely ignorant and shallow argument that you collectivists seem to enjoy, self-interest does NOT exclude VOLUNATRY work with or for others, if one finds it in his self-interest to do so.
We don't have a practical or inherent obligation to help suffering people, but you were the one talking about morals, and we do have a moral obligation to help them.

I don't think that selfishness is the pinnacle of virtue, or that greed is good.

Collectivist policies work because - guess what - we live in collectives. Most of us live in cities. Most rural residents are still working for other people.

We don't have a practical or inherent obligation to help suffering people, but you were the one talking about morals, and we do have a moral obligation to help them.

I don't think that selfishness is the pinnacle of virtue, or that greed is good.

Collectivist policies work because - guess what - we live in collectives. Most of us live in cities. Most rural residents are still working for other people.

While this is morally true, the Gov. doesn't have any business forcing people to contribute to or help others. That is between you and me and God.