Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: columbiastudent on April 20, 2003, 05:38:08 pm

Title: what about necessary social programs
Post by: columbiastudent on April 20, 2003, 05:38:08 pm
with such a drastic roll back of the government programs, who will provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to compete in an economy that is unfettered by government social spending?
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 20, 2003, 05:54:00 pm
Churches and organized charity.

Before FDR's New deal days most Americans lived without government social programs and it worked. The goverment's war on poverity has failed to decrease the amount of families (by percentage) who are below the poverity line.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: sdaconsulting on April 20, 2003, 06:31:47 pm
1) Family and friends.
2) Community.
3) Charity.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: craft_6 on April 20, 2003, 06:42:57 pm
with such a drastic roll back of the government programs, who will provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to compete in an economy that is unfettered by government social spending?

If any state were to adopt truly libertarian policies toward taxes, minimum wage laws, business licensing, regulation, planning, and zoning, the resultant economic boom would eliminate the need for most social programs in short order.

The remaining needs of the less fortunate would be addressed by the large percentage of people who feel it is their duty to help, and who would have far more disposable income to help with, in the absence of taxation.

Government social programs are far less efficient than private charities, typically providing 25-33% of their budgets to beneficiaries, compared to 85-90% for private charities.  In other words, even if only 1/3 as much money were donated as the government used to spend, the same level of service could be provided.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 20, 2003, 10:07:04 pm
Yeah, welfare only gives 7% of there budget to the poor.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Newt on April 21, 2003, 02:05:20 pm
with such a drastic roll back of the government programs, who will provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to compete in an economy that is unfettered by government social spending?

If the economy is unfettered it will produce more wealth, since the government cannot produce wealth, it's attempts to provide services just enslaves the recipeints to the governments programs.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Critter on April 24, 2003, 09:27:56 pm
Here's my theory. Before government stepped in to provide the welfare, people had to depend on family, friends, neighbors, etc for help when hard times struck.

I think it made for better families, neighbors and friends, that people were so interdependent. You had better be kind to your neighbor, cuz someday you will need him. You better raise your kids right because someday you will need them to treat you right. You word better be good as gold with your friends, because someday you will need their help.

These days, people can screw their friends and neighbors and children with impunity, basically, because if they run into trouble, there is always the nanny state to run to.

But that's just one piece in the puzzle. Americans ARE the most generous people on earth. We contribute more money to more causes than any other nation on earth, by far. And we do this despite the nearly 50% tax burdeon we carry. Intresting, isn't it? Why do people just suppose that if we had say a 5% tax burdeon, that we would suddenly become a selfish nation? The idea just doesn't hold water.

If we were able to keep 95% of our money, maybe moms wouldn't have to work at all, and dads wouldn't have to put in the overtime to make ends meet, and maybe we would raise a better crop of kids, who would be less likely to need assistance in the future... and maybe we would see a downward spiral instead of upward, in the numbers needing help?

All in all, I would rather take my chances that no one will help me if I need it than depend on a government to help me in the half assed way that they do it now, at the expense of nearly  50% of my income.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 24, 2003, 09:39:53 pm
Here's my theory. Before government stepped in to provide the welfare, people had to depend on family, friends, neighbors, etc for help when hard times struck.


From all I've read, that is exactly correct.  And mutual-aid societies were also a major part of the picture.  About 90% of Americans (and over 95% of black Americans) belonged to mutual-aid societies that helped secure medical care and unemployment aid at low cost.  David Beito has some good work on this aspect of pre-welfare-state voluntary provision.  You can find his book on Amazon.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Critter on April 24, 2003, 10:15:21 pm
And mutual-aid societies were also a major part of the picture.  

I guess I am a member of a mutual-aid society of sorts, and we do a lot to help each other out, and other members of the community who are experiencing difficulties.

We quite often drop in and hand $500 to $1000 to a family with health problems to pay for whatever... and in one case, basically supported a young lady who found herself suddenly in a wheel chair because of a late diagnosed case of Lyme disease. I think that for the year that she was our benificiary, we gave her somewhere in the neighborhood of $8000.

I'm saying this not to brag, but to point out that even though none of us are rich (not even close in my case) we are willing to help our neighbors in need in any way we can. It is interesting to note that most of the people involved are libertarian by nature... :)


Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Robert H. on April 27, 2003, 06:38:02 am
I'm saying this not to brag, but to point out that even though none of us are rich (not even close in my case) we are willing to help our neighbors in need in any way we can. It is interesting to note that most of the people involved are libertarian by nature... :)

And just think what more could be done if it wasn't for statists raiding our wallets in pursuit of their precious "priorities."
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SandyPrice on April 27, 2003, 07:37:00 am
what a great thread!  This is exactly how we handled this in the late thirties and up to the time of the welfare state.  Our charities became our social life.  We had poker games, bridge clubs, bingo meetings and of course parties of all kinds and every penny after expenses was put into a bank account where a group of 5 or 6 of us took turns locating beneficieries.  

I still do this in many ways and always end up on fund raising committees because I enjoy it.

I was terribly disappointed when the local Catholic church in my old neighborhood decided to redesign the altar area and they went wall to wall marble.  I was not a member of the church but my chamber music group played there.  The sound became so hard and tinny that we had to move to another facility.  This was a funky beach town and the marble looked terrible when they were finished.  They also had many elderly parishioners that could have used some extra cash for their medications instead of the marble altar.  

I have given up donating to any churches now as the money buys doo dads instead of helping those who need it.  

When I was a kid, the churches ran the orphanages and the unwed mothers could give up their unwanted babies without a question asked.  We often had girls from other communities bring their babies so no one would ever know who they were.  Things have certainly changed today!  

I can't complain too much because today we are all more tolerant of each other and that is important too.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Reaper on April 27, 2003, 01:12:19 pm
Necessary social programs?

Is that an oxymoron?

Please provide me an example of a necessary government social program.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: johnws1776 on July 05, 2003, 10:53:14 pm

Necessary?  Who will be holding the barrel of a gun to the remaining citizens when they are told someone else holds a first mortage on their lives due to necessary social programs.   Human beings are not ants.  We live by mutual exchange and voluntary trade.

Furthermore.  Your use of the term necessary social program  is incompatible with the word free.

It is a FREE State Project

John
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: RidleyReport on July 06, 2003, 07:54:19 am
There aren't any necessary government social programs.   But even if we're wildly successful, you'll still have 49 nanny states and 49 coercively funded dependency schemes to pick from.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 10, 2003, 06:19:40 am
maybe there is a semantical problem with "necessary social programs" but Social Security is a HUGE issue.   the AARP is thee most powerful lobby and they most likely frighten the elderly (like my 79 yo mother) into believing it is the ONLY thing between them and starving to death in the gutter.   I tell my mother that I believe that the unbelievable amt of $$$ controlled by Social Security could probably be used to balance the budget, provide healthcare that could extend life indefinitely and still have enuf left over to cover the moon in foot think layer of platinum.  ^_^
the real issue is about how we all have been brainwashed to only look out for #1.  
it is quite obvious that the FS will quickly evolve into "mini-kibbutzs"; extending out the *collective* concept I read of elsewhere on the site.   everything from farmer co-ops to uberGeek singularities.  
has anyone noticed how varied the attitudes and views of ppl in these forums are with only a few thousand involved?   balance needs to be addressed from the get-go -- otherwise is could be like a poorly planned potluck where everyone brings desert.   -_-
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 10, 2003, 08:11:22 am
Ubik, the problem with "Social Security", other than the concept itself, is there is NO money "controlled by social security".  Politicians keep talking about "The Social Security Lockbox" but there is no separate funding for it.  The money comes from the general fund.  Originally there were funds set aside, but those quickly were "borrowed" for other more immediate uses and never repaid.  Talking about social security money is like looking at your checkbook and trying to differentiate the rent money from the car payment.  It is all supposed to be there somewhere........... 8)  And sometimes it is the only thing standing between the elderly and starving to death.

And the idea of looking out for #1, as you say is not all bad.  After all, you cannot look out for anyone else if you are not capable yourself.  Sort of like the instruction in airplanes to put on your oxygen mask before helping others don theirs.  
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 10, 2003, 03:36:52 pm
oh yeah, I forgot that the SS coffers are stuffed with IOUs but to most elderly folk who just wanna kick it and watch Matlock marathons on cable it means the difference between life & death.

it's hard to address the totality of any particular issue in a few posts on a web forum -- hmmm...
this is kind of another moot issue under libertarianism, eh?
as ppl have posted here it is best to find such assistance from one's immediate or extended family... and if u can actually create a haven from the fed's pickpocket taxation ppl will retain the $$$ they earn be enabled to provide their own assistance to programs or individuals they care about instead of funding world domination by the existing regime.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: heyerstandards on July 10, 2003, 04:43:21 pm
Please note the fallacy in the original post: "for whatever reason, [some people] are unable to compete in an economy."  

That reads like something directly from the Steel or Railroad Unification Boards in Atlas Shrugged.  

By what moral code can someone take from my pocket to give to someone who refuses to work? or cannot work?

My moral code requires me to give the shirt off my back, of my own volition, to someone who direly needs it. The government's moral code says it's therefore ok to take my shirt at the point of a gun and give to away. (I guess to save me the trouble.)

Another joker on these boards keeps asking "We will legalize cannibalism?" Brother, you already got it under the government's moral code. Except the looters can only feed off the living.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: etphonehome on July 10, 2003, 07:37:40 pm
It's also important to remember that since Social Security is a program controlled by the federal government, it will probably be beyond the scope of the Free State Project to do anything about it, at least in the near future. We need to work on getting all of the anti-freedom state laws repealed before we can divert our attention to changing national programs.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on July 10, 2003, 11:39:37 pm
Dearest Ubik,
Didn't mean to follow you to this thread, didn't expect you to show up here, so, please don't think I am personnally attacking you or stalking you in any way... you do have two interesting points tho...

maybe there is a semantical problem with "necessary social programs" but Social Security is a HUGE issue.   the AARP is thee most powerful lobby and they most likely frighten the elderly (like my 79 yo mother) into believing it is the ONLY thing between them and starving to death in the gutter.   I tell my mother that I believe that the unbelievable amt of $$$ controlled by Social Security could probably be used to balance the budget, provide healthcare that could extend life indefinitely and still have enuf left over to cover the moon in foot think layer of platinum.  ^_^

First, getting from the current status quo of the Social Security mess we are in to the goal of NO social security will be an extremely tough pill to shallow - one that I think everyone needs to prepare for in some manner.  We better have all of our charitable ducks in a row when the time comes to pay the piper so to speak - the elderly will scream bloody murder if their checks suddenly dissappear... and, no, the amount in the social security 'lock box' (ha) won't even cover the social security now promised to everyone let alone balance the budget or cover the moon with platinum - this is one of the problems - there is NO money!

Quote
the real issue is about how we all have been brainwashed to only look out for #1.


research a bit on this:  looking out for #1 is ultimately the 'best' way to have a fair and successful society... it will far bypass any socialist/communist attempts at caring for the poor or handicapped or elderly... etc

Quote
it is quite obvious that the FS will quickly evolve into "mini-kibbutzs"; extending out the *collective* concept I read of elsewhere on the site.   everything from farmer co-ops to uberGeek singularities.  
has anyone noticed how varied the attitudes and views of ppl in these forums are with only a few thousand involved?   balance needs to be addressed from the get-go -- otherwise is could be like a poorly planned potluck where everyone brings desert.   -_-


actually the variety in the FS and the natural individuality of the folks involved will be an incredible living experiment in social structure and order.  Yes, there will be uber-geek communities, communistic ones, freaky hippy love nests, gay-only towns, white-bigot co-ops, female-only communes.... and any other type of situation you can think of as long as force is not used or infringement on anothers property (pollution, trespass,etc).  The best part about these situations is that they will all have to compete against each other to be prosperous - which means the 'best' method for humans to live together will naturally float to the surface and the strange, unproductive communities will wither and die without any outside help... what better way to settle an argument on the best type of social structure - If you think you have a better way to do things, get some others of like mind and try it out.... and good luck

Why do you seem afraid of letting freedom run rampant?  This is something I have noticed in alot of people - they are afraid of what massive chaos could ensue, they are afraid of all the 'bad' people killing everyone with their M-16s while running crazily through the streets,naked, and high on dope... It is just not the general human nature to do these sorts of things... and when and if these things do occur, they will be dealt with much quicker in a free-market with a bunch of gun-toting grannies sitting out on their porches, just waiting for that neo-nazi to run up to their house and try to set it on fire... Go Granny Go get 'em!

oh well,
michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 11, 2003, 12:48:44 am
sorry, don't know how to do the quote box thing yet.

well, here's another category: tek slaves with mood swings.
I belong to so many oppressed classes I do not wish to enumerate.   I bet most ppl (people) don't even know what lengths we (teks) go to to make this whole thing work.

I've got da bug to go to Canada actually.   they are already eliminating marijuana prohibition greatly because it is getting so obvious how much of a drain it is on their society.

anyway, I keep getting confused about the alleged $$ in the SS lockbox.   I have read very detailed articles about how it is just one BIG IOU.   I guess it's this type of thing that makes me wonder if it is even possible to promote genuine change from *within* this fully corrupt infrastructure.
like how the sitting prez is in there due to voter fraud and a "Supreme Court" up for sale.  
[BREAK!   I hope we're kool.   I do get a bit too passionate about my views here'n'there.]

this is where I am a bit skeptical about the approach to migrate all of these ppl to a particular state and try to slowly (over how many election cycles?) convert an entire state to libertarianism.  don't get me wrong I commend the effort but I guess I am impatient and would rather just move out of the jurisdiction of the US federal gov't completely; esp. when Canada has such a head start.   I'm not particularly a supporter of the gay community but I think their move to allow gay marriage is logical and a definite step in the libertarian direction.

anyway, Mike, et al, sorry to get off on da wrong foot but strong opinions can clash at times, eh?

peace&prosperity!
Jon
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on July 11, 2003, 01:48:59 am
Ubik,
I got no problem with opinions clashing... most times I learn something new or get the opportunity to view my own argument from a different point of view...

ok, now I got a question or two for ya: What is a 'tek'? or 'Tek Slave'?

I agree that our government is very corrupt and we have a LONG way to go.... BUT...

(I preface this by mentioning I know very little about the Canadian Governmental System and or politics)

from the few things I do know about Canada, it is not necessarily  more free than any state in the US...

More Free: regarding pot and gay marriage

Less Free: regarding governmental health care, very large social programs in general

Personnally, I would rather have pot illegal and NOT have any government health care at all, just my opinion BUT taxes or redistribution of income does not sound like freedom to me...

but, as with the great debate on 'which state', everyone has their own opinions and priorities as to the value of different governmental policies etc...

yours in freedom
michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 11, 2003, 04:08:50 am
wow, the tek slave issue...
people want computers to be like magic but Microsoft and others are just out to make $$$ and they cater to the megaCorp orgs so they need to make everything an act of wizardry, per se.
just to get a little perspective look closely at this this forum program.   there is the logical layout of the postings and check out the entry form with all the various "smilies" and YABBC tags (there is logic and purpose to every one of those buttons), etc, etc.
I was a Data Miner (scouring various undocumented databases for information) for the megaCorps for many, many years; dealing with tens of millions of records of data.
[www.netslaves.com]

as I am typing there is a vast army of greatly under-paid and over-worked networking specialists keeping thousands and thousands of servers connected to the Internet serving up websites and transmitting email, etc.

do u get that the FSP probably wouldn't even be possible without the web and that the PC and the Internet was originally created to help us help ourselves?
I want to develop bleedin' edge web-based applications that will truly fulfill this dream.   this forum program is great but it is possible to create an application that will assist in tracking issues and even provide decision support to whomever uses it.
every aspect of the FSP could be embellished by the web; like there are already a variety of ways to exchange gold online.

www.e-gold.com  (I think the FSP should have their own private version)

I've been thinking about all of this for years now.   it always seems like something comes along to distract us.   interesting how the FSP was launched 10 days before the 9/11 disaster, eh?
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 11, 2003, 09:23:29 am
"tek slaves"??????  Are you referring to people working in the computer/information technical field??  I worked in that field for many years and never considered myself a "slave".  The pay I recieved was the one I negotiated for myself and was adequate for the job I was asked to do.  Otherwise I would have changed jobs.  Freely entering into employment does not make one a "slave".  Greatly underpaid and overworked networking specialists???  I don't think so, unless you have a greatly inflated idea of your personal worth.

Of course Microsoft is in business to make money.  All business are there to make money, even so-called non-profit corporations.  This is the essence of Capitalism, as I understand it.  I am confused by your comment about "making everything an act of wizardry", what does that mean?  Everything is an "act of wizardry" if you don't understand how it works, but that is corrected by education.  Driving a car is "an act of wizardry" to someone unfamiliar with such an operation.  What is your point? Do away with capitalism?

The Internet was NOT originally "created to help us help ourselves", it was created to facilitate data/information exchange among selected universities and the military, it has evolved into something considerably different, but the current use was not what its creators intended.

Your comment about the current president being in office because of voter fraud and a paid for Supreme Court is far from true.  Yes there was voter fraud, as there always has been, but almost all of it was aimed at getting his opponent elected.  This smacks of the disengenious argument that Gore won "the popular vote".  So what?  This is a Republic, not a democracy and the "popular vote" only exists to establish how the representatives of the various states will be selected.  Read some Civics and get over it.

And I fail to see what any of this has to do with "necessary social programs"
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 11, 2003, 01:22:56 pm
phuk, u all are such hard-ass mo-fos!

see, I still can remember the original Libertarian Party before all the radical Republican types came in and phuked it up, as usual.
here again there is no real discussion as most of u are completely incredulous about the concept of "social programs".
I think y'all are playin' with turning the US into a version of Mad Max dragging the country into a new Dark Age with this hard-ass attitude.
this is why I say there needs to be more intelligence in this forum program; ie. once the sentiment that "social programs" are contrary to this new hard-ass LP attitude of dog-eat-dog'ism then close the thread.

do y'all really think u r gonna compete with international megaCorps with your small potatoes "whatever the market will allow" attitude.   phuk, your reps in this alleged "free state" will be more up for sale than the existing bunch of fools.

sorry about any off-topic issue but so many issues tie into others and this pervasive attitude of dog-eat-dog is not a way of living that will enhance people's lives in the long run.

WARNING: do NOT join the FSP unless u know how to use an assault rifle because the first labor dispute against some "plantation owner" like MajesticLeo will devolve into civil war.

what part of the tek biz were u in anyway - middle [phukn worthless] management?   I wouldn't wanna be an employee of any company run with this guys attitude.   do u really think anyone has any clout to *negotiate* [as u so naively put it] a decent raise without some sort of a guild or union (oops, that's probably an obscenity in here)?
I think that the neoConservatives have assimilated the LP.
if u r upset with my post don't fret too much because I won't likely return to this forum much.

PS: how in the world anyone claiming to be a Libertarian could support the current US regime is beyond me.   these past few years have been the greatest attack on personal liberty in a long, long time or haven't u heard of Patriot Act I and II?????
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Penfist on July 11, 2003, 01:32:38 pm
Who said we support the current Congress or White House administration?

It would help if you would use proper English. Your posts take three times longer to read and digest than the ones written in standard English.

Knowing how to use an "assault" rifle is a basic survival skill. Learning how to capitalize will enhance your income potential.

Go join a Union if you're uncomfortable here. Just remember, they're going to skim a large chunk off the top of your salary, and the government will still get its cut. You won't be able to compete because you'll have to charge $30/hour to weave baskets while the unionless people in India will weave them for $5/hour.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ubik on July 11, 2003, 01:49:56 pm
just curious.   did u read this part of Mr Leo's post?

Your comment about the current president being in office because of voter fraud and a paid for Supreme Court is far from true.  Yes there was voter fraud, as there always has been, but almost all of it was aimed at getting his opponent elected.  This smacks of the disengenious argument that Gore won "the popular vote".  So what?  This is a Republic, not a democracy and the "popular vote" only exists to establish how the representatives of the various states will be selected.  Read some Civics and get over it.

>>> I guess we'd have to go further off topic and discuss the archaic aspects of the Electoral College, eh?   this guy wants to perpetuate non-democratic rule and u complained about my style of typing?   I am a tek.   I have had to spend a great deal of life just to keep up with the evolution of the computer industry so, yes, I have come up with a *unique* style of written communication.   'nuff said.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: MajesticLeo on July 11, 2003, 02:17:54 pm
I am sorry you have had such a difficult life attempting to keep up with technology, Ubik.  Personally, I started working with computers as a technician maintaining mainframes and peripheral equipment when you were 10 years old, then a technician educator, then a network administrator.  So I really have no sympathy for you.  And keeping up with technology has not caused me to adopt some arcane style of writing in hopes it will make me appear "wizardly".  Unfortunately, from your point of view apparently,  clear communicaton skills are seen to be a positive attribute in the job world.  I can see where your "style" would make promotion more difficult.  You probably would find it very difficult to work in a company of mine because I require employees to be able to discuss problems, both with clients and other employees in a clear, understandable manner.  

You wouldn't have to worry about my assault rifle, my preferred weapon is the M-14 (which I carried many a mile in the Army) so I can reach out and touch you at a distance.  Yep, I am rabidly non-union cause I have seen the harm they can cause such as loss of jobs and lack of quality in union work.  

You seem to be infected with so much vituperation against almost everything, why is that?  I have no objections to people having differing views than mine, but I do appreciate them being expressed in a civilized and understandable manner.   I don't know what your problem is with "middle-management", since they are a necessary part of a business where responsibility is delegated from the top. (oops, I almost said in a hierarchal manner, tsk, tsk)  Perhaps you wish everyone in the whole world would be engaged in cottage industries and live in little quaint villages so as not to be contaminated by MegaCorps (whatever they are)?

Perhaps there are necessary social programs after all.....have you seen a counsellor about all this anger and self-loathing?
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on July 11, 2003, 04:34:31 pm
luv ya Leo!

michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: skypod on July 13, 2003, 05:27:29 pm
There are no necessary social programs. ;)
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: lloydbob1 on July 13, 2003, 05:31:00 pm
YEA,Skypod
Lloyd
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SBottari on July 23, 2003, 03:49:04 pm
That Ubik guy is amusing.  Is he really in his forties?  I mean, with his writing style - it looks like it comes from a teenage IRC script kiddie* that thinks he knows everything.  I'm in the tech industry in the lower end, but I have a job because I'm intelligent and can at least articulate myself to customers.  If he's some kind of disgruntled sysadmin that just sat on IRC all day, that could explain his behavior and lack of a job also.  But, really - this guy's a riot.



* = Typically a 13-year-old male that sits and runs scripts (small programs, written in a few minutes) on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to mess with the internet or serve illegally copied porn, software, or videos.    
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: larry on July 25, 2003, 12:45:30 am
Uhh, Folks,

"necessary social programs"?   WTF are they?

Now, it's true, it ain't a good idea to walk into the room
and yank the needle out of the junkies arm.

But, in relation to government, we couldn't do that, as much
as we might like too.

It's a step at a time, or it's nothing.

But necessary government programs??  I've never seen evidence for that claim.

In fact, old man that I am, I ain't even going back to read the
supposed validation for "necessary gummint programs".

I ain't even convinced gummit is necessary, after thirty-years
of studying the question.

Uhh, Folks, it's true, Jason's big tent as turned over a bigtime
rock.   Maybe for good?    And maybe not.

libertarian larry

 













 



That Ubik guy is amusing.  Is he really in his forties?  I mean, with his writing style - it looks like it comes from a teenage IRC script kiddie* that thinks he knows everything.  I'm in the tech industry in the lower end, but I have a job because I'm intelligent and can at least articulate myself to customers.  If he's some kind of disgruntled sysadmin that just sat on IRC all day, that could explain his behavior and lack of a job also.  But, really - this guy's a riot.



* = Typically a 13-year-old male that sits and runs scripts (small programs, written in a few minutes) on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to mess with the internet or serve illegally copied porn, software, or videos.    
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: spiteface on July 25, 2003, 10:10:57 pm
this guy wants to perpetuate non-democratic rule and u complained about my style of typing?  

I'm just wondering which section of our Constitution perpetuates democratic rule??  It really is amazing that people once understood that was one of the worst possible forms of government.  Oh well, back to lurking...

msm
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: larry on July 26, 2003, 03:26:52 am
SO, FOLKS,

As a philosophical market-anarchist, in the very long run,
there is no necessary government social programs, and there
is no necessary government.

But, as I see it, the human who started this thread, newbie likely, had a variation on a ligit question.

And, I will say, with you knee-jerks giving your testimony, you
have likely already run him/her off.

As I see it, the thing you knee-jerks (is that okay, Jason?) don't
catch is the absolute necessity of incrementalism.

Lots of folks are poor in America, and lots of folks are starving to death in other lands

Why, because fascists and worse are in charge.

If you folks write up with "mutual aid" societies, while Archer
Daniels Midland is still on the government dole, not to mention
US farmers, to the tune of $100 billion over the next few years, and the list is virtually endless, in relation to fascists sucking on the fascist teat.

So, somebody writes up about "necessary social programs".

Well, folks, as long as we live in a fascist state, with the
in a symbotic relationship with the state, somebody pays the
price!!!!!

Somebody pays the price for Fascism, and it is the folks at the
bottom of the ladder, with the first rung gone.

So, I'll say it!!   Anarchist that I am.   You don't get to yank food
from starving humans, going on about mutual aid societies,
when they have already been destroyed by gummint.

Unless we are knee-jerks, running off folks who are concerned
about to poor, we better damned well deal with Archer Daniel
Midlands first.  And the Corporate teat suckers, as in the military industrial complex.

Good Gawd, I'm a philosophical market-anarchist, and the most incrementalist you will ever meet.

If you folks calim mutual aid societies can solve the current problem, with nearly full-blown fascism in place.  Well>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd tell you what I truly think, but Jason would kick me out.

Think incrementalism, folks, and communication.

I figure the human who started this thred was a newbee,
and all she/he got was knee-jerks.

So Sad, with liberty the goal,

libertarian larry



.



Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: lloydbob1 on July 26, 2003, 09:07:55 am
Larry,
You are correct, corperate welfare is just as bad a social welfare programs and probably more expensive.
Most corperate welfare occurs at the national level and we are talking about working, initially, at the state level where a lot of the social welfare programs exist.
Another thing to consider is that when we get to where we can stop corperate welfare, it will be stopped.  Social welfare, as practised today, is the gift that keeps on taking!
I see it here in Hartford (CT) all of the time.  A teenager gets pregnant.  The welfare people offer her an apartment if she leaves her family.  The boyfriend brags that he has made another baby.  She continues in a lifestyle of drinking, smoking, drugs, tight clothing and delivers a possibly pre-mature, probably sickly child costing the taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars in medical bills. The child goes on to be a problem in school and gets involved with the legal system,  again,  costing the taxpayers thousands.  And the cycle just continues.
Lloyd
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: larry on July 26, 2003, 08:59:30 pm
Lloyd,

I understand the picture you have painted, below.  Please let me intersperse a bit, to flesh out the possible picture.

 A teenager gets pregnant.

Yup, the School Board had voted to teach nothing but abstenance in their "sex education" classes, to molify the right-wing conservatives.

About the same time, with the fascist gummint, with it's taxes and rules to benifit the rich far more than the poor, had so screwed up the economy that when her Father got laid off
from his twenty-year job and couldn't find a job, over-qualified for everything, he shot himself, just after his wife divorced him
for not being a good provider.

So, not wanting to live in the streets, who went out to find herself a job, to support herself, but with teenage unemployent rates at near 20% (as they, in fact are, right now), she found that the minimum wage had priced her out of the market.  She'd have been happy to have offered to work for 4.00 an hour to get the training, but that was against the law.

Desperate for survival, with mom and dad gone, and despising the gummint schools who forced her to memorize bullshit that was irrlevant to her life at the time, she met a guy who had lots of money.  

Yup, he'd turned the gummint's war on humans who use drugs
into a cash cow, with the gummint creating the job for him.

He was kind of a low-life, though, as you might expect.   Before
she had even decided to move in with him, seeking someone who cared, he threw her on the floor one night and raped her.

Teffiried, with no where to turn, she sought out her families
Catholic Priest for advice.  Well, he'd been arrested, you know what for, so the sub. Priest advised her.  "Whatever you do, don't get an abortion, or you will go to hell".

She, didn't, but one night, digging through garbage cans, some
guy offered to pay her for a lay, with him seeing beauty behind
the dirt.  He hit her a few times, but the money was good.
Not good enough to buy the folic acid to keep her baby healthy, but she was doing all she could to hang on herself.

In a flash, the baby was born.  It was unheathy, but still she loved it.   She started dressing up in tight clothes, and short skirts to promote the only way of survival she had been able
to find.

But one of her Johns beat the baby one night, for crying.

She went in search of a "mutual aid society" one day, but was
told they'd been driven out of the charity thing by gummint by welfare.

She checked into the gummint welfare thing, just hearing about it.   They treated her like shit, worse than a number.
She felt like she had sold her soul, but at least she and her
baby would have shelter and food.

Then one day, teaching herself to read, more than any government monoploy had, she read about the Free State
Project.  Reading about it, she had shivers of joy, and the first hope in what was now so many years.

When the state was selected, she hitched there with her
young son.  Long story short, she was elected the first
governess of the FSP, running on a platform of "abolish all
welfare, but do it incrementally.  Start at the top, and don't
go taking gummint food out of the mouths of babes until that is the last step to achieve true liberty!!

She won in a landslide, peeing of a few right-wing conservatives who didn't belong in the FSP, anyway.


*****

So, my friend, you can paint a picture.  So can I.   I maintain
my picture is much more accurate than yours, given the incipent fascist state we all live in.

A few years ago, after many years working as a purchasing agent, I was unemployed so long, losing hope, that garbage cans started to smell real good to me and my dog.

One week away from being kicked into the streets, I found a
part-time job to survive on.   Now, later, I have a real good job.

Tell ya this, though, I have not since reacted to the claims of
right-wing conservatives that welfare reciepients are just lazy free-loaders who vote for big gummint.  When I read that claim, these days, I think to myself: I hope you are unlucky enough to discover the truth of it yourself, smelling  the sicky sweetness of garbage cans.

Now, please don't take offense.  I'm not so much writing to you as I'm writing to all libertarians, FSPers, and especially right-wing, conservative, Rush Limberger nuts.

Sincerely,
Larry

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: arclight on August 02, 2003, 01:49:11 am
What is a necessary social program?? Well? Anyone? I' ve looked in the constitution, and the closest thing that I 've found is the military. Other than that....
Where in the Constitution does it say you have to be nice to anyone?
It does not say that anywhere.
What is this notion out there that, healthcare is a "right"?
Welfare is a "right"?
Pills to drug your children into submission are somehow a "right"???
Where is this entitlement spelled out? It must be there, if Hillary C and Teddy Kennedy can read it? Please tell us all? Pretty Please!!!
You government educated idiots who have this lofty sense of entitlement to go along with your lack of repect  ( or even acknowledgement) of the concept of individuality should all migrate to California before it sinks into the Pacific. Too bad, San Diego is such a beautiful city (from a distance).


None who accepts welfare should be allowed to vote!
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: larry on August 02, 2003, 04:44:50 am


None who accepts welfare should be allowed to vote!

Uhh, Bud, do you drive on gummmit roads?  And do you
accept mail, delivered by the gummint?

And if you have been forced to pay for it your whole life,
what the *f* is wrong with cashing a social security check?

SORRY, BUD, WITH YOUR PROCLAIMED SUPERIORTY,
LOOK AT IT.   By your own standards, I figure you ain't
gotta right to vote.

What planet am I on??!!

libertarian larry



Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 02, 2003, 06:18:57 am


None who accepts welfare should be allowed to vote!

Uhh, Bud, do you drive on gummmit roads?  And do you
accept mail, delivered by the gummint?

And if you have been forced to pay for it your whole life,
what the *f* is wrong with cashing a social security check?

SORRY, BUD, WITH YOUR PROCLAIMED SUPERIORTY,
LOOK AT IT.   By your own standards, I figure you ain't
gotta right to vote.

What planet am I on??!!

libertarian larry




What planet are you on Larry?
One who WORKS and pays taxes has not only paid for use of the roads and mails, they have overpaid!
They should have a say(vote) in how things are run.
Someone on welfare, has never had a real job(Teddy Kennedy) or who otherwise lives at a net lost to the society that pays the bills, has no right to any say in things.
Obviously, if you have had your income stolen from you in the Social Security extorsion system, you have a right to get it back with reasonable interest.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: arclight on August 02, 2003, 11:21:48 am


None who accepts welfare should be allowed to vote!

Uhh, Bud, do you drive on gummmit roads?  And do you
accept mail, delivered by the gummint?

And if you have been forced to pay for it your whole life,
what the *f* is wrong with cashing a social security check?

SORRY, BUD, WITH YOUR PROCLAIMED SUPERIORTY,
LOOK AT IT.   By your own standards, I figure you ain't
gotta right to vote.

What planet am I on??!!

libertarian larry





Hey BUD!! The cars are honking at you because you're not driving the speed limit! Get off the TAXpayer funded road. Stay home, the mailman is payed with your TAXES, and will bring you your mail. These things could very easily be privately funded, mail service and highway construction.
Don't give people a sob story about how "less- fortunate" or "un-lucky" you are. If you had half a mind, you would have invested and saved every penny possible from the time you were old enough to drive. Then you could tell the govt. to shove it and light those checks on fire.  If you didn't, too damn bad. Take your check from the Govt, but you do not contribute to the economy in any way, and you are more likely to be bought by politicians, as they are offering you more of other peoples money!so you do not vote!!! That is a great idea if you ask me. Please do!
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 02, 2003, 01:34:44 pm
Lloyd,

I understand the picture you have painted, below.  Please let me intersperse a bit, to flesh out the possible picture.

 A teenager gets pregnant.

Yup, the School Board had voted to teach nothing but abstenance in their "sex education" classes, to molify the right-wing conservatives.

About the same time, with the fascist gummint, with it's taxes and rules to benifit the rich far more than the poor, had so screwed up the economy that when her Father got laid off
from his twenty-year job and couldn't find a job, over-qualified for everything, he shot himself, just after his wife divorced him
for not being a good provider.

So, not wanting to live in the streets, who went out to find herself a job, to support herself, but with teenage unemployent rates at near 20% (as they, in fact are, right now), she found that the minimum wage had priced her out of the market.  She'd have been happy to have offered to work for 4.00 an hour to get the training, but that was against the law.

Desperate for survival, with mom and dad gone, and despising the gummint schools who forced her to memorize bullshit that was irrlevant to her life at the time, she met a guy who had lots of money.  

Yup, he'd turned the gummint's war on humans who use drugs
into a cash cow, with the gummint creating the job for him.

He was kind of a low-life, though, as you might expect.   Before
she had even decided to move in with him, seeking someone who cared, he threw her on the floor one night and raped her.

Teffiried, with no where to turn, she sought out her families
Catholic Priest for advice.  Well, he'd been arrested, you know what for, so the sub. Priest advised her.  "Whatever you do, don't get an abortion, or you will go to hell".

She, didn't, but one night, digging through garbage cans, some
guy offered to pay her for a lay, with him seeing beauty behind
the dirt.  He hit her a few times, but the money was good.
Not good enough to buy the folic acid to keep her baby healthy, but she was doing all she could to hang on herself.

In a flash, the baby was born.  It was unheathy, but still she loved it.   She started dressing up in tight clothes, and short skirts to promote the only way of survival she had been able
to find.

But one of her Johns beat the baby one night, for crying.

She went in search of a "mutual aid society" one day, but was
told they'd been driven out of the charity thing by gummint by welfare.

She checked into the gummint welfare thing, just hearing about it.   They treated her like shit, worse than a number.
She felt like she had sold her soul, but at least she and her
baby would have shelter and food.

Then one day, teaching herself to read, more than any government monoploy had, she read about the Free State
Project.  Reading about it, she had shivers of joy, and the first hope in what was now so many years.

When the state was selected, she hitched there with her
young son.  Long story short, she was elected the first
governess of the FSP, running on a platform of "abolish all
welfare, but do it incrementally.  Start at the top, and don't
go taking gummint food out of the mouths of babes until that is the last step to achieve true liberty!!

She won in a landslide, peeing of a few right-wing conservatives who didn't belong in the FSP, anyway.


*****

So, my friend, you can paint a picture.  So can I.   I maintain
my picture is much more accurate than yours, given the incipent fascist state we all live in.

A few years ago, after many years working as a purchasing agent, I was unemployed so long, losing hope, that garbage cans started to smell real good to me and my dog.

One week away from being kicked into the streets, I found a
part-time job to survive on.   Now, later, I have a real good job.

Tell ya this, though, I have not since reacted to the claims of
right-wing conservatives that welfare reciepients are just lazy free-loaders who vote for big gummint.  When I read that claim, these days, I think to myself: I hope you are unlucky enough to discover the truth of it yourself, smelling  the sicky sweetness of garbage cans.

Now, please don't take offense.  I'm not so much writing to you as I'm writing to all libertarians, FSPers, and especially right-wing, conservative, Rush Limberger nuts.

Sincerely,
Larry


Larry, Your story is fiction.  If it were true it would be annecdotal.
The story I presented is epidemic here in Hartford and in cities across the country.
Lloyd
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: telomerase on August 24, 2003, 08:22:04 pm
"Needed social programs" will be provided by people who voluntarily organize and contribute to them.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that this will be less helpful to the poor? I worry about people who think that government can magically increase the amount of resources to solve social programs. I also worry about people who don't think that anyone would voluntarily help their neighbor (don't YOU help your neighbors?). In my experience, it's the help that people receive directly that puts them back on their feet. "Social programs" funded by taxes are largely designed to encourage permanent dependence.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Newt on August 25, 2003, 10:49:14 am
State and Federal governments have a loosely defined "Mission"(Objective) to help people, educate children and fix things....  The confilcting "Vision" however, is growth and power.  One can always tell the Vision of an organization from the results it produces....  Results are the ultimate sign of intention. "Necessary Social Programs" are just the leverage governments use to accomplish their Vision.

Notice in Larry's dissertation that poverty and misery prevail in a country that has spent more tax money on programs to wipe out poverty (The Great Society) than the combined value of the S&P 500.  Yet we still have Larry's description of life in the US sounding like the Grapes of Wrath.  Why???  Larry's contention is that if we just had the right kind of govmint everything would be sweetness and light.

Larry's arguments are Marxist at their core.... Argueing that "Govmint" should somehow magically provide for the less fortunate and punish the "Rich" according to some mathmatical model of fairness.  The  base assumption here is that if I make a $, it had to come from someone that did not make it.  A zero sum game, which we know to be untrue or wealth would be like matter; neither created nor destroyed, only traded about.  If Larry's founding principle was true (The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer) we would all live in caves trading seashells, with some of us having large piles of shells since wealth is static.  Ayn Rand's Novel, Atlas Shrugged, so eloquently makes this argument (put is on your reading list Larry)

As Adam Smith pointed out 225 years ago, governments do not create wealth and well being, they only destroy it.  Economic health and growth are produced by large numbers of individuals acting in self interest.  The only question remaining is how much wealth do we allow the government to destroy.... and in comes the FSP.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on August 25, 2003, 12:14:28 pm
perfect Newt!
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LibertyLover on August 25, 2003, 01:35:13 pm
As Adam Smith pointed out 225 years ago, governments do not create wealth and well being, they only destroy it.  Economic health and growth are produced by large numbers of individuals acting in self interest.  The only question remaining is how much wealth do we allow the government to destroy.... and in comes the FSP.

Newt, you are absolutely right, but I think you are misinterpreting Larry's position. His rants can be pretty confusing, but he agrees with you about government destroying wealth. I think he is arguing that government also traps innocent individuals into government dependence by forcing charities out of the market, even though charities (or mutual aid societies) can do a much better job of caring for people who have fallen on hard times because of government policies. I think Larry is saying that we should blame the criminal (government) rather than the victim (welfare recipient).

Personally, I think it is too simplistic to say that all welfare recipients are innocent victims of government interference in the economy. It is also too simplistic to say that anyone who takes money from the government is a lazy bum living off the labor of others. However, I do like the idea that anyone who takes money from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.  :o ;D
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Aaron on August 26, 2003, 02:00:02 pm
However, I do like the idea that anyone who takes money from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I disagree.  I feel it would be more appropriate if all government employees were denied the privilege of voting.  It is a conflict of interest.  The social worker who is handing out those welfare checks has just as great a motivation to maintain the status quo as those receiving the checks.  Even career military members are much more inclined to vote for those who would increase military spending.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: arclight on August 26, 2003, 02:06:34 pm
However, I do like the idea that anyone who takes money from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I disagree.  I feel it would be more appropriate if all government employees were denied the privilege of voting.  It is a conflict of interest.  The social worker who is handing out those welfare checks has just as great a motivation to maintain the status quo as those receiving the checks.  Even career military members are much more inclined to vote for those who would increase military spending.
Would you agree that in addittion to govt employees, welfare recipients should not be voters? All have conflict of intrest, especially welfare recipients. But it would be equal to include all of those who recieve the money taken from others in the form of "taxes". I think anyway...
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SN Porc on August 26, 2003, 03:05:34 pm
Hairy subject!

Not sure where I'll land on this discussion. The one about who should be allowed to vote, not the necessary social programs.

I definitely believe if your employed by the gov, you shouldn't be allowed to run for public office. I believe serving in the legislature or state house and being an active duty cop is a conflict of interest,(i.e. the Henderson cop whom is also the speaker of the house in Nevada).

Nevada is a prime example. Since I've moved here more and more public employees have been elected to public office. Now, as most of you are aware, we had a big row over an $800 million dollar tax increase. That's a 50% tax increase in one session. It's true, Nevada's growth has been phenominal, but along with the growth, the tax base has also increased. Meaning, of course, the amount of taxes paid where also increasing, without any increase. To the tune of about 11% a year. We could have gotten by without any increase at all, but the California influence was hard at work.

The Superintendent of the Clark County School District was hired out of California. Of course, his solution to everything is taxes, taxes, taxes, for the children.

And guess what. No amount of money in the world is going to replace incompetence. My son went from 5th grade to the 6th grade this year. When I took him to the middle school to get him registered I found they had sent his registration papers to an address we had several years earlier. I know his address had been updated at the elementary school. This isn't the best part.

When I took him to get registered to ride the bus the address they had was from when we first moved here over ten years ago.

Small issue, I agree, but the point is, having incompetent employees can't be fixed by hiring more imcompetent employees. This, unfortunately, is something the government is excellent at.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LibertyLover on August 26, 2003, 04:33:50 pm
However, I do like the idea that anyone who takes money from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I disagree.  I feel it would be more appropriate if all government employees were denied the privilege of voting.  It is a conflict of interest.  The social worker who is handing out those welfare checks has just as great a motivation to maintain the status quo as those receiving the checks.  Even career military members are much more inclined to vote for those who would increase military spending.

I was mostly joking, but I certainly meant to include government employees among those who take money from the government. I might even include government contractors and recipients of government grants and subsidies, except that would leave practically nobody eligible to vote.

Just on principle, I think it fair that anyone who, in any year, received more money from the government than they paid in would not be eligible to vote that year, due to conflict of interest. Of course, that would be impossible to administer, and the last thing we need would be another bureaucracy monitoring the source of our income.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: MajesticLeo on August 27, 2003, 07:57:25 am

Just on principle, I think it fair that anyone who, in any year, received more money from the government than they paid in would not be eligible to vote that year, due to conflict of interest.

Ok, so I guess I better email the Board and have them tear up my vote for the FSP state since I am a retired military member and my wife is also retired military (except she can vote for another few years since she doesn't get any money until she is 60).  

Thanks for clearing that up.  Perhaps I can find another state in which to live.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LibertyLover on August 27, 2003, 04:22:14 pm

Just on principle, I think it fair that anyone who, in any year, received more money from the government than they paid in would not be eligible to vote that year, due to conflict of interest.

Ok, so I guess I better email the Board and have them tear up my vote for the FSP state since I am a retired military member and my wife is also retired military (except she can vote for another few years since she doesn't get any money until she is 60).  

Thanks for clearing that up.  Perhaps I can find another state in which to live.

Oops, I thought we were talking about voting in elections, not the FSP state vote. There is certainly no conflict of interest in a member of a voluntary association voting in a decision that affects all the members.

If anyone thinks I was implying that people who receive money from the government shouldn't be members of the FSP, I apologize for my lack of clarity. Anyone who believes in liberty and wants to work toward increasing liberty in our lifetime is obviously welcome in the FSP. There are any number of reasons why people might take money from the government in our current state of tyranny, even if only to get back a little of the money that was stolen from them.

My point about conflict of interest is that it is hard to vote for someone who is promising to repeal a law that provides your income, whether as employee, welfare recipient, or pensioner. My father spent twenty years in the Navy and has been receiving a pension for the thirty-five years since he retired. Even though it doesn't affect me directly, I'm pretty conflicted about whether pure libertarian principles would deny him that pension, including annual cost-of-living increases. I would hate to have to argue either side of that question.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Tony on August 27, 2003, 05:51:45 pm
I don't think a consensus will ever be reached regarding cutting off pay to retired/crippled government workers.  It's usually part of the compensation package they are contracted to get when they sign up, so it doesn't really constitute welfare.  The solution is to continue to pay those who have already retired and those who will soon, but to fire most of the younger folks and not offer the pension plan to the people that remain.  As the current crop of retirees die the budget would contract.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: arclight on August 28, 2003, 06:55:20 pm
I am a government worker who has been crippled, and will soon become a non government worker! I will be offered a pension and "benefits", which I see as a pay off. I will give that monry to charity. The only thing I will use is the G.I. Bill, which I had to pay for. Maybe I'm stupid though...
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on August 28, 2003, 07:05:54 pm
arclight, if your contract for employment with the government include pension and benefits - there is NOTHING wrong with you taking them... I wouldn't feel guilty or give it away unless you really want too - you earned it

michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: arclight on August 28, 2003, 07:17:15 pm
It just feels wrong to take other peoples money for something that I had little control over. The persons who caused it are now no longer alive, and I still am, so I feel gulity accepting "compenstaion" from the VA.
I feel restituted already. My mother says I am stupid, so maybe I am. Always listen to mom! Your point is taken though, Mr Leopard.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: MajesticLeo on August 28, 2003, 09:27:12 pm
Arclight, I have a question for you.  If you had an insurance policy in effect and were injured, would you collect from the insurance company?  There really isn't much difference here, part of the contract for military service is compensation if you complete so much service or if you are injured in fulfilling your contract.

While you certainly may give your compensation to charity if you choose because you feel "guilty" accepting it, wouldn't it make more sense to just refuse to take it at all??  While this is your life, I say "Listen to your mother!!". ;D  Unless you caused your own injuries, there is certainly no reason to feel "guilty".  But that is just MHO.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on August 30, 2003, 04:59:23 pm
And mutual-aid societies were also a major part of the picture.  

I guess I am a member of a mutual-aid society of sorts, and we do a lot to help each other out, and other members of the community who are experiencing difficulties.

We quite often drop in and hand $500 to $1000 to a family with health problems to pay for whatever... and in one case, basically supported a young lady who found herself suddenly in a wheel chair because of a late diagnosed case of Lyme disease. I think that for the year that she was our benificiary, we gave her somewhere in the neighborhood of $8000.

I'm saying this not to brag, but to point out that even though none of us are rich (not even close in my case) we are willing to help our neighbors in need in any way we can. It is interesting to note that most of the people involved are libertarian by nature... :)



What about the selling of certain state and local government assets  with each citizen getting a equal share of stock to be used in their choice of mutual aid or co-op organzations. There is one city in my state where the sale of the  city owned electrical utlity alone is probally enough to make the income of those on Social Security disablity.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on August 30, 2003, 05:14:04 pm
Quote
What about the selling of certain state and local government assets  with each citizen getting a equal share of stock to be used in their choice of mutual aid or co-op organzations. There is one city in my state where the sale of the  city owned electrical utlity alone is probally enough to make the income of those on Social Security disablity.

um, two things I have a problem with here: First, government assets are already property of the people so it would be like a theif selling me back the items he took from me in the first place, and second, Why the heck is the government involved anyway?  Why not have private institutions cater to the needs of the people? (ie - utilities, post office, security/police, etc, everything basically)  Privatization would make the government provided 'service' a whole lot less expensive and more efficient.

michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on August 30, 2003, 06:12:28 pm
Quote
What about the selling of certain state and local government assets  with each citizen getting a equal share of stock to be used in their choice of mutual aid or co-op organzations. There is one city in my state where the sale of the  city owned electrical utlity alone is probally enough to make the income of those on Social Security disablity.

um, two things I have a problem with here: First, government assets are already property of the people so it would be like a theif selling me back the items he took from me in the first place, and second, Why the heck is the government involved anyway?  Why not have private institutions cater to the needs of the people? (ie - utilities, post office, security/police, etc, everything basically)  Privatization would make the government provided 'service' a whole lot less expensive and more efficient.

michael
                                                                             
Michael, the government after the sell of the assets would no longer be involved any more than it should with any other private group. As far as possible claims such as on land or taxes I payed or you payed thosed claims would go in propration with the asset( the utlity, The University the park or the expressway for example). My idea is sort of a take on Harry Browne's answer for Social Security, his plan would transfer sold assets to private annuites, mine would tranfer sold assets to  individuals in the form  of transferable shares of stock  which the individual could put into a Mutual aid group of their choice, If I wanted more retirement than healthcare insurance I would pick the group that offred it.  the mutual aid group would by market incentive pick weither to do all plans in house or contract some or all plans through for profit or non profit companies.They would also choose what  premimums to charge.                                                        
Another note on the expo facto claims to assets, a clause could be introduced that if I made  such claims, I would forfeit my share of the  citizens distrubution. so I would have to decide if going to court with the claim was worthwhile or not.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on August 30, 2003, 06:22:25 pm
very good, Terry

just wanted to hear it spelled out - I too believe that Harry Brownes ideas have merit
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 08:09:37 am
very good, Terry

just wanted to hear it spelled out - I too believe that Harry Brownes ideas have merit
              Thanks
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 08:44:11 am
very good, Terry

just wanted to hear it spelled out - I too believe that Harry Brownes ideas have merit
                                                                               
One  recent federal law may help( although I disapprove of such federal laws) is a reqirement for state and local public governments( I  refer to public governments as opposed to private consentual  covenants) to put a value on all their hard assets like bridges, school buildings etc. The reqirement goes into effect for the smallest governments next year. The newspaper article said the reason for the law is to give a more accurate account for bond ratings.                                                                                   I know the first example I gave social security disablity is a federal not a state program but I gave it only as an example. I know the approx. book value of the cities electric company but I have not seen stats on the number of people on SS disablity in that city, I was going by the percentage of people on that program .                                                                                 IfThe cities  electric company was auctioned off at near book value it would bring around 4,000 dollars for every resident or 16,000 for a family of 4.    On the other hand the sale would bring over 100,000 for every person on SS disablity( if the number is around average). The average monthly check today for SS disablity is around 800 a month, .The 120,000 to 150,000  might come closer to the present monthly income being put into a annuity than a conservative bond.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 08:50:03 am
Churches and organized charity.

Before FDR's New deal days most Americans lived without government social programs and it worked. The goverment's war on poverity has failed to decrease the amount of families (by percentage) who are below the poverity line.
                                                                             
A good book on the subject is " From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Franternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967" by David T. Beito. One groups motto( I think the order of Moose) was cradle to grave.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 09:02:45 am
with such a drastic roll back of the government programs, who will provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to compete in an economy that is unfettered by government social spending?

If any state were to adopt truly libertarian policies toward taxes, minimum wage laws, business licensing, regulation, planning, and zoning, the resultant economic boom would eliminate the need for most social programs in short order.

The remaining needs of the less fortunate would be addressed by the large percentage of people who feel it is their duty to help, and who would have far more disposable income to help with, in the absence of taxation.

Government social programs are far less efficient than private charities, typically providing 25-33% of their budgets to beneficiaries, compared to 85-90% for private charities.  In other words, even if only 1/3 as much money were donated as the government used to spend, the same level of service could be provided.
      One of the things I wish charities would ecourage more is when you get solidly on your feet pay back the charity. I got in need several years ago and a charity group gave me a food basket, I have since payed them back many times over but even if I had payed back only face value it would help.    During that time I got two months of foodstamps ( a total of around 180 or 90 a month), I have since payed that back in taxes a  hundred times overor more but I still feel bad about taking it but I don't from the charity.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 09:15:16 am
Here's my theory. Before government stepped in to provide the welfare, people had to depend on family, friends, neighbors, etc for help when hard times struck.

                                                                           
Folks this is a really good book with many notes and refrences. I like the part where many of the mutual aid groups and even some of the union leaders predicted the problems associated with government aid. Their idea was the dignty of their members with mutual assistance  as opposed to charity, especially tax supported charity. Unfortuently  a few of the  groups where for going for state government health plans.

From all I've read, that is exactly correct.  And mutual-aid societies were also a major part of the picture.  About 90% of Americans (and over 95% of black Americans) belonged to mutual-aid societies that helped secure medical care and unemployment aid at low cost.  David Beito has some good work on this aspect of pre-welfare-state voluntary provision.  You can find his book on Amazon.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 09:46:08 am
Ubik,
I got no problem with opinions clashing... most times I learn something new or get the opportunity to view my own argument from a different point of view...

ok, now I got a question or two for ya: What is a 'tek'? or 'Tek Slave'?

I agree that our government is very corrupt and we have a LONG way to go.... BUT...

(I preface this by mentioning I know very little about the Canadian Governmental System and or politics)

from the few things I do know about Canada, it is not necessarily  more free than any state in the US...

More Free: regarding pot and gay marriage

Less Free: regarding governmental health care, very large social programs in general

Personnally, I would rather have pot illegal and NOT have any government health care at all, just my opinion BUT taxes or redistribution of income does not sound like freedom to me...

but, as with the great debate on 'which state', everyone has their own opinions and priorities as to the value of different governmental policies etc...

yours in freedom
michael
                                                                               Have you notice the  country economic freedom report, the US ranks in the top 10 but gets a slightly less score than Estonia and Denmark, Hong Kong is still number one, Sigapore number  two( although personal freedom  there is not much to brag about),Luxemburg number 3, New Zealand number 4, Estonia, Denmark and the US  have about equal points. North Korea is last place and I think Cuba is second to last. While Denmark has a high tax rate it seems they have less regulations on business than the US.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 10:04:42 am
Now of course there may be some hard core Max Stirner egoist or hard nosed( not insult intended) Obectivist in the libertarian movement who would say there should be no charity or help  and they should have the right not to give but most libertarians would not agree with no charity or mutual aid.                        Accoriding to a quote by Chris Matthew Sciabarra in" Ayn Rand the Russian Radical" Peikoff, Rands heir said a society that would not help orphans and widows would be a manviolent society and any  rational person would not want to live there. I may not have the quote exactally word for word but I have the jest of it down.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 01, 2003, 06:03:48 pm
very good, Terry

just wanted to hear it spelled out - I too believe that Harry Brownes ideas have merit
                                                                                Sorry, I meant to see I was fiquring on the number of people on social security disablity in the city of reference as being about the same as the national average.
One  recent federal law may help( although I disapprove of such federal laws) is a reqirement for state and local public governments( I  refer to public governments as opposed to private consentual  covenants) to put a value on all their hard assets like bridges, school buildings etc. The reqirement goes into effect for the smallest governments next year. The newspaper article said the reason for the law is to give a more accurate account for bond ratings.                                                                                   I know the first example I gave social security disablity is a federal not a state program but I gave it only as an example. I know the approx. book value of the cities electric company but I have not seen stats on the number of people on SS disablity in that city, I was going by the percentage of people on that program .                                                                                 IfThe cities  electric company was auctioned off at near book value it would bring around 4,000 dollars for every resident or 16,000 for a family of 4.    On the other hand the sale would bring over 100,000 for every person on SS disablity( if the number is around average). The average monthly check today for SS disablity is around 800 a month, .The 120,000 to 150,000  might come closer to the present monthly income being put into a annuity than a conservative bond.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: telomerase on September 07, 2003, 10:18:47 am
Let's not forget the major point in our attempt to describe how future, richer libertarians would help the poor:

If there weren't SS taxes, all the interference with medical care, tariffs and price support programs to drive up the price of food, taxes, taxes, and other taxes, then most of today's poor would be self-supporting.

So the numbers left for private charities would be much lower.

Of course this would lead to violent turf wars as the various charity gangs fought over the few remaining poor, but we have to take some risks for freedom. A few Salvation Army drive-bys on the Red Cross would be a good trade for all the welfare-related crime that we have now.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 08, 2003, 04:55:02 pm
Let's not forget the major point in our attempt to describe how future, richer libertarians would help the poor:

If there weren't SS taxes, all the interference with medical care, tariffs and price support programs to drive up the price of food, taxes, taxes, and other taxes, then most of today's poor would be self-supporting.

So the numbers left for private charities would be much lower.

Of course this would lead to violent turf wars as the various charity gangs fought over the few remaining poor, but we have to take some risks for freedom. A few Salvation Army drive-bys on the Red Cross would be a good trade for all the welfare-related crime that we have now.
LOL I can see it now.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Stan on September 09, 2003, 09:18:28 pm
Let's not forget the major point in our attempt to describe how future, richer libertarians would help the poor:

If there weren't SS taxes, all the interference with medical care, tariffs and price support programs to drive up the price of food, taxes, taxes, and other taxes, then most of today's poor would be self-supporting.

So the numbers left for private charities would be much lower.

Of course this would lead to violent turf wars as the various charity gangs fought over the few remaining poor, but we have to take some risks for freedom. A few Salvation Army drive-bys on the Red Cross would be a good trade for all the welfare-related crime that we have now.

Too funny!   ;D

Maybe they'll make their own market, by redefining poor as anyone without a plasma tv.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: thistlewind on September 10, 2003, 04:00:35 pm
WOW! This is the best dag-gone thread I have seen on this site, a pity
I didn't find it sooner!  

Alot of issues have been touched on, and others explored in depth.  At this point I don't have all of the answers, or even all of the questions as to how this whacky experiment in freedom is going to come off...but to me the worst crime is not giving it an honest shot.  There is an old saying that "if you want to keep getting what you are getting, keep doing what you are doing."

Now, this little saying can be played from both sides.  

If we, as individuals and as a country, want to continue our decent into a nanny state, then we must do nothing more than we are currently doing and the current politicos will deliver us handilly.  If we maintain the same moral justification that we are "owed" something without having earned it, we need only sit back in our armchairs, tune in, and tune out while our pockets, intellects, property rights, and ability to even get out of the chair are slowly robbed.  This ethic plays out in direct contrast to the founding principles that made this country great in the first place.  

On the other side, if we (FSP'ers)  are able to successfully identify the values that made this country great (rule of law, the concept of a democratic republic, protection of individual and property rights to begin with) and create an environment in which it can succeed (the free state), then, my friends our prayers will have been answered.  

Is there any such thing as "necessarry government programs" ?  Sure, the goverment can have all of the "necessarry programs" it wants, so long as none (read not one) works against the values outlined above.  If, upon condideration of these values, the government is still able to create a "necessarry program" I would likely support it.  But the minute the need for a necessarry program, at the point of a gun, asks for my wallet, my property, or my inalliable rights we have a problem.  

There is a quote from the 70's cult classic Zen and the Art of Mororcycle Maintenance that I have taken to heart, and have found as a usefull tool in framing my current circumstances at any given time, and is an expantion of the "getting what you're getting" thought above.
It states:

Right values produce right thoughts,
Right thoughts produce right actions,
And right actions produce a material reflection
For others to see the serenity at the center of it all.  

Basically, this equation breaks down to if you are putting shit in (values) you are going to get shit out (action), and of course the reverse also applies.  

I must aggree that the only rational way to judge someone's values is to judge the fruits of thier labor (or intellect).  I think that there is plenty of indication in the current state of things that the direction our collective values and resulting actions are evidence enough to warrent drastic adjustment (hence your reading this post on this site).  The question is, are you willing to act your way in the other direction?

I am.  
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: etphonehome on September 15, 2003, 02:30:25 pm
I seem to have tuned into this thread a little bit late for the discussion about restricting voting rights to only those who don't have any conflicts of interest with any of the candidates. In my opinion, this would be a serious step backward in our political process.

The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things. In my opinion, it is perfectly allowable for a candidate to advocate higher government spending at a state level, because there are few Constitutional limits on the powers of a state government as far as spending is concerned. To deny certain people the right to vote, simply because they are likely to support a candidate who will enact laws that we don't like, would frankly be un-American.

Like it or not, people in this country have the freedom to make their own decisions about what they want out of their government. Our goal should not be to create a voting system where only liberty-minded people have any say in government. Our goal should be to create a society where everybody is taught about the value of liberty from an early age, and most would never even think their life would be better if the government started giving hand-outs to everybody. This type of society will not be formed by taking away voting rights from our opponents. It can only be formed by many years of hard work reforming the government from the inside out and showing people first hand that liberty does work.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on September 15, 2003, 02:48:04 pm
The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things.

Yes!  The main difference between the federal government enacting programs and the states enacting is that ONLY the federal government is allowed to print money (so the feds can 'hide' taxation from the payers whereas the states can't so easily AND the states are NOT suppose to be homogeneous - they are set up to be 50 little laboratories of democracy...

michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 16, 2003, 11:40:02 am
I seem to have tuned into this thread a little bit late for the discussion about restricting voting rights to only those who don't have any conflicts of interest with any of the candidates. In my opinion, this would be a serious step backward in our political process.

The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things. In my opinion, it is perfectly allowable for a candidate to advocate higher government spending at a state level, because there are few Constitutional limits on the powers of a state government as far as spending is concerned. To deny certain people the right to vote, simply because they are likely to support a candidate who will enact laws that we don't like, would frankly be un-American.

Like it or not, people in this country have the freedom to make their own decisions about what they want out of their government. Our goal should not be to create a voting system where only liberty-minded people have any say in government. Our goal should be to create a society where everybody is taught about the value of liberty from an early age, and most would never even think their life would be better if the government started giving hand-outs to everybody. This type of society will not be formed by taking away voting rights from our opponents. It can only be formed by many years of hard work reforming the government from the inside out and showing people first hand that liberty does work.
                                                                                  I think if you are going to have a free state, your going to need to have a constitutional agreement from the bottom up, something as far as I know was never done in any of the 50 state constitutions, they where  made up by consent and never have been by consent.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 16, 2003, 11:53:47 am
I seem to have tuned into this thread a little bit late for the discussion about restricting voting rights to only those who don't have any conflicts of interest with any of the candidates. In my opinion, this would be a serious step backward in our political process.

The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things. In my opinion, it is perfectly allowable for a candidate to advocate higher government spending at a state level, because there are few Constitutional limits on the powers of a state government as far as spending is concerned. To deny certain people the right to vote, simply because they are likely to support a candidate who will enact laws that we don't like, would frankly be un-American.

Like it or not, people in this country have the freedom to make their own decisions about what they want out of their government. Our goal should not be to create a voting system where only liberty-minded people have any say in government. Our goal should be to create a society where everybody is taught about the value of liberty from an early age, and most would never even think their life would be better if the government started giving hand-outs to everybody. This type of society will not be formed by taking away voting rights from our opponents. It can only be formed by many years of hard work reforming the government from the inside out and showing people first hand that liberty does work.
                                                                                  I think if you are going to have a free state, your going to need to have a constitutional agreement from the bottom up, something as far as I know was never done in any of the 50 state constitutions, they where  made up by consent and never have been by consent.
                                                                             
I think something similar to the NATO model is the better way to go, that is any member government can veto a  major action by the larger body. One of the problems I see with NATO is a clear idea on payment for leaving the body and the ablity of member governments to black ball or kick a government out of the group, which should also have a payment formula set in the constitution. Most of the time if a government leaves it should pay the higher body, if the higher body blackballs a government, the higher body should pay, exceptions would be noted in the constitution and if necessary decided in a neutral court.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Michael Enquist on September 29, 2003, 06:23:55 am
What I find very ironic is when people pretend to believe in liberty, but then whine about others who "don't contribute to the economy."

Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

Right wingers who have infiltrated the libertarian movement because they hate welfare mothers should just go back to the Republican party where they belong. If the Republicans are not conservative enough for you, the National Socialists are always looking for new members.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Terry 1956 on September 29, 2003, 08:28:53 am
What I find very ironic is when people pretend to believe in liberty, but then whine about others who "don't contribute to the economy."

Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

Right wingers who have infiltrated the libertarian movement because they hate welfare mothers should just go back to the Republican party where they belong. If the Republicans are not conservative enough for you, the National Socialists are always looking for new members.


                                                                             
I agree with you on somepoints but I think you overall piece is  hyperboil. I agree that welfare to the poor is a small percentage of the budget as compared to entitlements, corporate welfare and other rent seeking spending on the political class.                                                                                  
That being said there are still net gainers and net losers( with some breaking even) from the not actual contractual tax systems.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 29, 2003, 09:17:10 am
Quote
Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I believe when enough people get to the point where they make a statement like this, we're all doomed.  What value is there putting corruption on a pedestal?  Do you believe people reject government aid out of stupidity?  You said, "others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash" - do you truly believe the feed they eat, the house they live in, the medical services they receive are free?  Who builds the houses, grows the food and spends half their life studying medicine and then gives their work away?

Quote
I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

I've said the same thing but in reality many on the receiving end are guilty as well.

Quote
There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

It's true we receive some services back - but think about who is actually performing those services.  Is it one of our representatives who comes down and lays asphalt on the roads, or constructs a new housing project.  No, it's us.  They just give back a small amount of the money and then tell us what to do with it.  It's purely about control.  The paper has no value except what our minds attach to it.  If you believe Bush knows better how you should live your life and what you should do with your time then by all means, read up, there's plenty of legislation and tax code to keep you busy for a long long time.  Maybe there are a lot of people that do need to be told how to live but I think it's fewer than you believe.

Quote
I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use.

We already do!  Every government service is provide by peoples time and effort.  There is no such thing as a free meal or even a half price one.  There is human labor devoted to providing these things.  Let the house of cards fall so we can see the real costs and be able to make better choices in what we do and strive for.  As your statement even implies, government masks the true costs of things which hurts the economy because what you think is cheap or free can actually cost significantly more in taxes but you still pay for it.

I will make the counter claim that you will be surprised at how people will live just fine without much government involvement.  Prove me wrong ;)
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Radar on September 29, 2003, 11:03:51 am
Quote
There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program.

Bullshit.  I have never collected a single dime of money from any government program.  I have also paid for every government service I've ever used and then some.  I will never see a penny of social security, I am robbed by the government each and every single week.  I don't work for a company that gets government subsidies, nor have I ever.  Although when I was in the military I worked for the government.  

Unlike those who are perpetually on the dole, I have worked for every single thing I've ever gotten.  Even when I was dead broke I refused to steal from others by taking government assistance in any form.  

I'm not against charity, but I'm against committing robbery and calling it charity.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: BillG on September 29, 2003, 11:50:12 am
Quote
I have also paid for every government service I've ever used and then some.

One simple question Radar?

Have you ever driven on a gov't created road or are you only driving on private roads and paying your users fees?

sheesh, give it a rest!

Quote
There is no such thing as a free meal or even a half price one.  There is human labor devoted to providing these things

One simple question SteveA - so what do you call a land speculator who contributes ZERO labor to improve their property and then is rewarded handsomely for collecting all of the appreciated site value that naturally occurs when populations rise, the public makes infrastructure investments, and your neighbor improves their property?

A productive member of our society or a leech like the welfare queens?
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Radar on September 29, 2003, 11:56:12 am
Quote
Have you ever driven on a gov't created road or are you only driving on private roads and paying your users fees?

I've paid for every government road ever made in America.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Michael Enquist on September 29, 2003, 12:40:02 pm
Terry 1956- You are correct. In some ways it is hyperbole. Which parts?

In the overall economy, there are net gainers and losers, but in your personal economy, which are you? How could you figure it out?

SteveA- I never said the benefits received by the recipients were free. I'm just trying to bust the balls of all those who think they are so much better than the ones who "never contributed to the economy." They are very hypocritical in claiming to be libertarian and then going around telling others how to live.

People on the receiving end are guilty of what? Knowing how to work a system that government created at the request of the voters?

Yeah, I know who does the work. And I know how much they really get paid for those government contracts. I live in Boeing's backyard.

When I say "full price" I mean the cost of the thing, such as a loaf of bread, from farm through processing and transportation to grocery. We don't know how much a loaf of bread should really cost, because all of those steps have subsidies, taxes and regulations that skew the end price.

I do believe, however, that many of our costs for food, fuel, schools and roads are skewed low, while other areas (such as healthcare) are skewed high to compensate.

I'm not really as cynical as this post makes me out. Again, there's just a group of pseudo-libertarians that gets me riled up whenever they pretent to be so moral, while driving on gov't roads, sending their kids to gov't schools, buying subsidized groceries, etc. etc.

Radar- Yeah, yeah. You never went to public school, either, or to a sports event, or watched TV or mailed anything. You never got government-mandated job benefits, or ate the products of American agriculture or used FDA approved drugs. How do you know if you paid, "and then some"? Could you show a breakdown of your taxes and what they went for?

****

If you-all want to end welfare, then you have to show the welfare recipients that they will be better off working. This requires more than just saying, "Why don't you get a job!" Most people I know on welfare would like to get out from under the thumb of government, but going to crappy schools, being told all their lives they will never amount to anything and being shut out because their skin tone is just a little too dark makes them feel their options are limited. They are not limited, you and I know this, but others have a different world view, shaped largely by their environment.

You-all can pretend that you are self-made, but most of you did grow up with either positive influences towards work, or enough negative influences against welfare to keep you just motivated enough to get your job and work you asses off for 45 years (to end up in a government nursing home).

Anyone who thinks that they got where they are today without the help of others is lying to themselves. Even if it was just help from the "invisible hand," you grew up in an environment that provided opportunities. -You- took advantage of them, it's true, but you already had the mental conditioning to feel you could.

Unless you have interacted extensively with "the poor," as I have, you really can't understand all the internal and external factors that led them to where they are.

Finally, the phrase "contribute to the economy" is just code for "contribute to society." In other words, those who say that are just closet socialists, wanting others to be forced to pitch in so you can benefit.

The welfare budget is so small compared to all the money we spend killing people in other countries or paying corporations to destroy the environment. I think we should focus our attention on these things, and by the time they are taken care of, the poor will be mostly taken care of, too.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: Radar on September 29, 2003, 12:59:19 pm
Quote
Radar- Yeah, yeah. You never went to public school, either, or to a sports event, or watched TV or mailed anything. You never got government-mandated job benefits, or ate the products of American agriculture or used FDA approved drugs. How do you know if you paid, "and then some"? Could you show a breakdown of your taxes and what they went for?

Every single goverment service I've ever used, (post office, schools, etc.) was paid for by taxes that I paid or my parents when I was a child.  In fact not only was my stuff paid for by me and them, but so was that of other people who are lazy and inept drains on others.  

And don't get me started with the unconstitutionality of farm & business subsidies or the FDA.  The FDA causes thousands of deaths each year by keeping life saving medicines from people who need it, while rushing through genuinely dangerous drugs for weight loss, etc.  

And if you want an accurate breakdown of where our taxes go you can check out the budget or checkout the pig book  

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2003

I can say that 85 cents of every dollar collected for welfare, social security, medicare, and the other unconstitutional parts of government like business and farm subsidies, foreign aid, etc. is kept for overhead.  Compare that to any private non-profit charity.

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 30, 2003, 10:10:16 am
Quote
One simple question SteveA - so what do you call a land speculator who contributes ZERO labor to improve their property and then is rewarded handsomely for collecting all of the appreciated site value that naturally occurs when populations rise, the public makes infrastructure investments, and your neighbor improves their property?

A productive member of our society or a leech like the welfare queens?

He provides resources to someone selling property.  The selling wants cash to invest in something else, the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.  It would not be efficient to buy a house and leave it unused only to sell it later, so a speculator who merely bought and resold it quickly for a profit without anyone living in it, is at a disadvantage but if he can find a buyer will to buy it for more and earn a profit then he is effectively performing marketing and earns money buy matching sellers with buyers.  I agree there may be little physical value in what he does, and personally think we have too many salespeople but he does provide a service, takes a risk and helps assure fair market values are available to buyers and sellers.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: BillG on September 30, 2003, 10:25:34 am
Quote
the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.

I am not talking about the realtor "working to determine a fair price" (what a joke that is) and I am not talking about a house. I am talking about a buildable lot ready to go...

The speculator buys it for X dollars 5 yrs. ago and sells it today for 2X without applying (himself or hire) any labor what-so-ever to the land.

How is the price determined? By a willing buyer walks up to him and says "hey, I'll give you 2X what you paid for that buildable lot!"...no broker involved.

So in your words "is this a free lunch or maybe half-a-lunch" or not?

If not - by what libertarian principle makes it just?

Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 30, 2003, 10:46:08 am
Quote
SteveA- I never said the benefits received by the recipients were free. I'm just trying to bust the balls of all those who think they are so much better than the ones who "never contributed to the economy." They are very hypocritical in claiming to be libertarian and then going around telling others how to live.

I'm not telling anyone how to live their life.  I'm just saying not to include me in the latest socially fashionable legislation.  I'm also asking them to get out of my pocket and pay for it themselves.  What's hypocritical about that?

Quote
People on the receiving end are guilty of what? Knowing how to work a system that government created at the request of the voters?

I see you have not encountered corruption in our welfare system.  How about this one?  You tell me if the recipient is guilty of anything.  Many "unmarried" women collect for their children and state they don't know who the father is while living with the father who pays no child support.  Is that mere guilt, criminal or noble in your opinion?  Is that intelligently "working the system"?  I claim it's a lot of the reason that when my friend had trouble with work and needed some temporary support for his wife and two children he couldn't receive any help.  I could go on with plenty of other scams but I won't, if you think you have a defensible position you aren't looking very closely.

Quote
Yeah, I know who does the work. And I know how much they really get paid for those government contracts. I live in Boeing's backyard.

So you've run into all the government mandated employee training programs, endless planning meetings and stacks of paperwork that add almost no value to the end product.  You also pay the taxes that the government gives back to you  to keep working for them.  From your position I'll assume you've never been the victim of legislated racial descrimation either.  How often do you get to use your end product?  Would you rather be building something else?

Quote
When I say "full price" I mean the cost of the thing, such as a loaf of bread, from farm through processing and transportation to grocery. We don't know how much a loaf of bread should really cost, because all of those steps have subsidies, taxes and regulations that skew the end price.

That's what I meant too though I am unsure if you are considering the taxes you pay to fund all those inefficiencies as well.

Quote
I do believe, however, that many of our costs for food, fuel, schools and roads are skewed low, while other areas (such as healthcare) are skewed high to compensate.

And taxes are skewed high also.

Don't get wrong, I know that there are legitimate services the government provides that have value and there are some people who currently need public assistance but I really want to emphasize the amount of waste and inefficiency in such a large and uncompetitive beaurocracy.  There are reasons upon reasons why this is true but basically Jefferson summed it up nicely:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Let's shoot for something like this.  People did just fine before we started with the nanny state ideas.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 30, 2003, 11:23:44 am
Quote
Quote
the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.

I am not talking about the realtor "working to determine a fair price" (what a joke that is) and I am not talking about a house. I am talking about a buildable lot ready to go...

The speculator buys it for X dollars 5 yrs. ago and sells it today for 2X without applying (himself or hire) any labor what-so-ever to the land.

How is the price determined? By a willing buyer walks up to him and says "hey, I'll give you 2X what you paid for that buildable lot!"...no broker involved.

So in your words "is this a free lunch or maybe half-a-lunch" or not?

If not - by what libertarian principle makes it just?

Thanks for defining speculator.  The situtation is similar to any type of "investment" except land value can currently be largely affected by government (generally not good for free market trading).  I'll use investor here to make the statements more general.  

Services provided by an investor

1)  A successful investor will find items being underutilized by a seller and supply those to a buyer who can make better use of those items.
2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.
3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Unsuccessful investors are eventually weeded out and have less effect on the inefficient use of property.

Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: BillG on September 30, 2003, 11:59:56 am
SteveA are you going to run for political office in the Free State?

what a duck (quack) that was!

Quote
The situtation is similar to any type of "investment" except land value can currently be largely affected by government (generally not good for free market trading).  

So you see no difference between labor-based property and title-based property at all? Then you completely pass over the fact that site values naturally rise as populations increase or as your neighbors simply improve their own property (plus public infrastructure investment as you mention) letting your dogma get infront of intellectual honesty...

Quote
1)  A successful investor will find items being underutilized by a seller and supply those to a buyer who can make better use of those items.

what if the speculator just sells the property to another speculator who continues to underuitilize the land and sells it in 5 yrs. for 2X again without lifting a finger - is that your definition of success?

Quote
2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.

this sentence suggests that someone will take action to "maintain or improve" that is not the case in my scenario. What about the scenario where the speculator just lets a building fall into complete disrepair because he knows that the land will become more valuable if the building just crumbles so no one has to tear it down to reap the benefits of a vacant lot which will fetch a higher price?

Quote
3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. They continue to "sit" on their titled property in the hopes that it will fetch an even higher price in the future while people are living in the street because they can't afford any shelter...

Quote
Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. The incentive is to build something that is easily torn down (like a billboard) so the next speculator can sit on the property and do nothing as the value rises...I think this is commonly called a "free lunch" - no?

Quote
Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.

why no mention of populations increasing because speculators know that they aren't building anymore land!

Quote
Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

I could care less if it labor-based property we are talking about whcih we can create more of by definition right?...but instead I am talking about access to the natural world by which we provide sustenance for our very EXISTENCE. Without a place to make a home or a living are we not just wage slaves (taxes) to the landholders (government) as we hand over the fruits of our labor simply to get access?

Honestly - would you not feel outraged if we were talking about the same subject as it relates to the air that we breath or is that a "communistic" statement that I just uttered?
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: RhythmStar on September 30, 2003, 01:03:11 pm
>>Communistic

To some folks, anything that has to do with money or responsibility that isn't 100% self-centric is 'Communist'.  :)

>>free lunch

It's not quite a free lunch, because the same money invested in treasuries or a money market account would have earned (essentially) risk-free interest.  Also, there is the risk that the land may not appreciate in value.  So, the price of the lunch is the opportunity cost (i.e. the amount of interest income foregone) plus the risk.  

Nevertheless, it is quite unassailable that the appreciation of unimproved property is very much the unearned income derived form other peoples' improvements and public infrastructure investments.  This, along with the fact that land titles (and other such grants) are government-enforced use monopolies, provides the moral basis for property taxes (or, as they are more appropriately called resource rents).  Compared to the other forms of revenue collection used by goverment, a resource rent is one that is really a form of use fee.

RS
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 30, 2003, 01:37:50 pm
Quote
SteveA are you going to run for political office in the Free State?

what a duck (quack) that was!

Most likely not.  I would have hard time taking a cut in pay but I frequently take extended vacations ... it's not impossible :)

Quote
So you see no difference between labor-based property and title-based property at all? Then you completely pass over the fact that site values naturally rise as populations increase or as your neighbors simply improve their own property (plus public infrastructure investment as you mention) letting your dogma get infront of intellectual honesty...

Other investments naturally rise in value and property that is being used provides additional value so that's why I kept repeating "A successful investor".  An investor will find out that unused property sitting around for a long time is not very profitable and he'll be weeded out.

Quote
what if the speculator just sells the property to another speculator who continues to underuitilize the land and sells it in 5 yrs. for 2X again without lifting a finger - is that your definition of success?

Same thing.  Think about it.  Underutilized land is underutilized.  If government restricts the free use of land then we have more likelyhood of seeing a scenario like this otherwise he will lose more money than an alternate investor who either sells the land sooner for his 2x value or an alternate investor who earns profit from the land during this 5 year wait.

You are also ingnoring the seller.  If the investor gives his assets to the seller in exchange for the property he effectively has less capital for other investments.  If the seller can make better use of the investors capital then by all means we should support the trade.  Who will end up with more capital and influence in the end?

Quote
Quote
2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.

this sentence suggests that someone will take action to "maintain or improve" that is not the case in my scenario. What about the scenario where the speculator just lets a building fall into complete disrepair because he knows that the land will become more valuable if the building just crumbles so no one has to tear it down to reap the benefits of a vacant lot which will fetch a higher price?

I happen to actually know quite a few people who buy houses, make improvements and resell them.  I believe you are stretching your argument a bit thin on this one.  It may cost more money to provide upkeep for a building but if noone is living there ... well you do the math.

Quote
Quote
3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. They continue to "sit" on their titled property in the hopes that it will fetch an even higher price in the future while people are living in the street because they can't afford any shelter...

In the mean time, the seller is making use of the investors capital and attempting to earn money from it as well.  At least if the investor is literally sitting on it then he has a place to sit lol :)  If a group of homeowners wanted to mandate development in an area they could join a homeowners association.

BTW, the people who are living on the street are there because they thought they could just sit on some property to get rich.

Quote
Quote
Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. The incentive is to build something that is easily torn down (like a billboard) so the next speculator can sit on the property and do nothing as the value rises...I think this is commonly called a "free lunch" - no?

Now you've totally lost me.  It would seem that at least leaving the billboard up would provide some additional income.  You are trying to deny what a free market does.  If such were the case then people would already be offering a higher price for property because of this supposed super-inflationary character of unused property values.  Such an increase in property prices would only occur to the point at which investment in other manners provided a greater gain so the investor would only be able to continually sustain such transactions if he had enough forsight in property values (or governmental insight) to predict their future values.  This is what my reference to fair market value was.  The seller needs capital for other uses and the investor performs his "work" by assuring a market.

I agree that if people spent less time trying to suck every last penny out of a transaction we'd all be better off but trade and marketing are legitimate issues and someone providing those services in a fair competitive environment should be allowed those profits.

Quote
Quote
Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.

why no mention of populations increasing because speculators know that they aren't building anymore land!

What about the stock market?  What about the failed and struggling real estate investors.  Yes real estate can be a good investment but so can other sources.  The fact that we are currently experiencing a (IMO) overpriced market in CA due to immigration pressures and low-income housing doesn't mean that everyone is going to end up rich.  Did you read about the tulip bulb craze?

Quote
Quote
Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

I could care less if it labor-based property we are talking about whcih we can create more of by definition right?...but instead I am talking about access to the natural world by which we provide sustenance for our very EXISTENCE. Without a place to make a home or a living are we not just wage slaves (taxes) to the landholders (government) as we hand over the fruits of our labor simply to get access?

Honestly - would you not feel outraged if we were talking about the same subject as it relates to the air that we breath or is that a "communistic" statement that I just uttered?

You can create useful land too with labor.  People have labored to obtain property rights for the land they possess.  Such reward for their labor should be upheld or what is the point of working if property rights can change on a regular basis.  You can also go create livable land.  You can build houses, purify saltwater, make a greenhouse in a desert, grow lumber etc. etc. etc.

Land has little inherent value other than its desirability by people.  Such desirability can be created.  Look at Vegas.  If you build a road, they will come.  Go build something :)
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on September 30, 2003, 02:19:32 pm
Something else to consider:

If a buyer was willing to pay 2x the value of the property in 5 years then the property was initially undervalued wasn't it?  The investor did a service by sacraficing his capital temporarily knowing that a buyer would need that property in the future and held that property to match it with someone who would be able to realize the true value of it.  The seller is happy because he got a fair price.  The investor is happy because he made a profit and the buyer is happy to find a free slot in the area he/she desired to live.  But to be truly a successful investor I believe you'd have to do better than this - for example, build the property the expected buyer will want and rent this property out so I would say that sitting on property or destroying would be less productive and demostrated as such in lost assets and the inability to try such experiments in the future.

Also, if someone had wanted to live on the land or had some better use than just sitting on it they would have offered more so the investors offer would have been rejected.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on October 01, 2003, 11:12:40 am
If land speculation was so profitable (more than anything else as you propose) and so 'easy' then why isn't everyone in on the deal?  If everyone participated (which they are not precluded from doing) then the effect would be the same as your Georgian System but without government - that is the real problem, any government involvement/enforcement.... it can be done in the free market!

michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: skw on October 11, 2003, 09:45:16 am

it is quite obvious that the FS will quickly evolve into "mini-kibbutzs"; extending out the *collective* concept I read of elsewhere on the site.   everything from farmer co-ops to uberGeek singularities.  
has anyone noticed how varied the attitudes and views of ppl in these forums are with only a few thousand involved?   balance needs to be addressed from the get-go -- otherwise is could be like a poorly planned potluck where everyone brings desert.   -_-

Would you rather go to a potluck where everyone brought desert, or one where the government told you what dish you had to bring?

One meal of desert-only isn't going to kill anyone, and then we would get it figured out better for next time.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: rowso on October 12, 2003, 05:17:53 pm
can you define what a necessary social program is? I can't think of any social programs that are needed for society to function.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 28, 2003, 09:05:30 pm
Hiyas......first off, yessss I am a newbie here  :) Just a quick background summary of myself.  I grew up with girls where it was their goal to get out of high school as early as possible by getting pregnant and having as many babies as tahey could, because at this time you still were paid more money depending on the amount of children you kept having.  I also turned my own cousin in for fraudding the welfare system.  I do not agree with it and do not support it.  Now the reason I really decided to reply to this thread.

The ORIGINAL question was regarding "neccessary social programs", wow what a rant some of youse went on ;-)  Anyway....the term "neccessary" in MY meager opinion would be what the children of all generations since the 30's have been accustomed to.  Welfare has been in the United States for so long that it has become "neccessary" in the eyes of some.  :::::thinking to self, boy are they gonna slam me in here:::::  In the 30's it was neccessary to achieve financial and political balance....so the great minds thought up WELFARE.  I'm sure they didn't foresee this program still maintained in the next millennium.    Lets look at unemployment insurance....I know I have used this myself and at that time was thankful for it BUT it was NOT a way of life....it was a temporary bandaid.  Again in my meager opinion....I think that is how most of these "neccessary social programs" came into being, just for a bandaid Not for a new layer of skin.  

Now.........as I see it, the FSP is giving us a chance to correct or improve on the erors made by people before us.  This is not a time to argue, have a battle of wits, or just out right putting others down.  This is a time for us to communicate IDEAS on how to IMPROVE what is wrong.  This is our chance to try and be civilized persons and maturely and rationally discuss the issues that people are concerned with.  This is a new State where NO ONE has the expereince of running it.  We all have our ideals of perfect or right and wrong but we should also have the respect for all.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on October 28, 2003, 10:30:37 pm
If any social programs are needed, it would be for unforeseen and unexpected bad luck.  Either "Acts of God" or down on their luck situtations might be justified but noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?

Quote
I grew up with girls where it was their goal to get out of high school as early as possible by getting pregnant and having as many babies as tahey could, because at this time you still were paid more money depending on the amount of children you kept having.

My mother fell victim to this too, though she couldn't take care of the children.  The state typically sided with the mother on custody issues and half my brothers and sisters were bounced around between my mother and her relatives, though the entire time my father was raising the eldest of us just fine and trying to get custody of the younger children.  After about 10 years, my mothers side of the family realized what had been going on and apologized to my father but at that point he owed tons of child support, had paid for countless lawyers etc. and basically gave up.  He's very quiet now, and though he loves us, I think he's had enough of the legal marriage system and rarely sees any of the family.  20 years after this all started my mother began apologizing as well and wishing to get back together but he's not listening anymore.  Oh, and the IRS stuck him for a bill on a car lot 4 states away that he never owned.  How's that for justice?  IRS = police, judge, jury, executioner and collection officer.  Where's the balance of power in that system?

I could go on, but the currently our system is so prone to abuse it's literally pitiful.  A guy here at work was telling me knew someone who immigrated here and set up a scam to collect 8 welfare checks!

What about necessary social programs?  I like rowsos post:

Quote
can you define what a necessary social program is? I can't think of any social programs that are needed for society to function.

Ditto me a copy.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 28, 2003, 10:42:30 pm
noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?



I agree.....just as a bandaid...nothing perm :)  uuum....I think its saying survival of the fittest???
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: LeopardPM on October 29, 2003, 01:38:11 am
If any social programs are needed, it would be for unforeseen and unexpected bad luck.  Either "Acts of God" or down on their luck situtations might be justified but noone continually has bad luck for 5 years, and if they did, how long can we afford to hold this luck at bay?  Maybe nature is saying something we aren't listening too?

Acts of God and other catastrophies can (and have been in the past) be easily taken care of through private means (Social Clubs like Odd Fellows, Elks, Shriners - these few remaining and the many others that have been replaced by the government).  These clubs provide 'social self-insurance' and helped out fellow members in times of desperation.  They were very successful AND had many side benefits which a governmental program doesn't have: accountability, built-in 'means testing', less fraud/abuse, etc etc.

no social programs by coercive force (read:government)


michael
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on October 29, 2003, 03:04:13 am
Quote
I agree.....just as a bandaid...nothing perm   uuum....I think its saying survival of the fittest???

Yes, the easiest rule of thumb for government is no permanent social services.  I'm not saying survival of the fittest but it's true that everything has a cost, and for every bandaid given, someone else loses one.  Who are we sacrificing while doing this?  If the wound won't heal, is there someone else that can use a bandaid to better benefit?  Government has been known to be unselective in the past ...

It may sound cruel but it's not.  It's just facing the reality that stuff (or any other suitable word) happens and we have to deal with it as best as we can.  Helping get someone on their feet is different than pulling them in a wagon so they can get their beauty sleep.  In the end, even if it's purely out of compassion, giving too much without expecting any effort in return can be addictive to the recipient and detrimental to both parties.

We currently often have an attitude of "The government will take care of it." and place people that need help in the "care" of it.  Is this the pinnacle of social achievement?  We can do much better than that.

Many marriages have been broken because governmental 'assistance' removes the advantages of staying together and like Michael stated, social organizations that existed before have been destroyed by governments forceful monopoly.

We don't truly need government social programs.  It may take time for people to relearn what a community should be but the longer we expect government to take care of our own responsibilities, the longer it will take to recover our sense of humanity.  It may be that social programs breed, not compassion, but carelessness (or callousness).  Some of our prominent capitalists were philanthropists as well.  Could it be that the concept of charity and the pride in helping others has been corrupted into a tool manipulated to create indebtedness to the government, the true symbol of human compassion?

Well, I'll stop there, but I think there's a lot of mental conditioning that's been going on.  Time to rethink common assumptions and find which have underlying truths.
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 29, 2003, 07:11:36 pm
Steve....

You say it so eloquently......I agree with everything u have said.....alot of people WILL need to re-condition themselves for this type of movement.  Unfortunately the government has made us sheep for the slaughter (just a term i use in my old newsletter).  I may say ( or type) extreme words at times but I grew up on the streets ( so to say) where extreme was the only way to survive.  I am very passionate when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.....I WILL NOT LET ANYONE STAND IN MY WAY :)  I am very happy to have found this and can't wait till I move :)  Peace..Lizz
Title: Re:what about necessary social programs
Post by: SteveA on October 29, 2003, 07:34:25 pm
Quote
alot of people WILL need to re-condition themselves for this type of movement.  Unfortunately the government has made us sheep for the slaughter (just a term i use in my old newsletter).  I may say ( or type) extreme words at times but I grew up on the streets ( so to say) where extreme was the only way to survive.

Actually, I like the way you said it and am hoping more people will start seeing the reality of what we're doing.  I'm preaching to the choir here but there will never be a better time for spreading the word and working on a gameplan.

Quote
I am very passionate when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.....I WILL NOT LET ANYONE STAND IN MY WAY   I am very happy to have found this and can't wait till I move   Peace..Lizz

Well, we're glad to have you with us.  I've been feeling a lot of this too.  We'll see what happens but if even 1 out every hundred people out there truly wanted more freedom in life and knew how to get it, we'd succeed.  It's just showing them the value of freedom and convincing people they have options.  Have fun ProteusLizz.

Peace..Steve :)