Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: what about necessary social programs  (Read 31358 times)

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #45 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
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

Aaron

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

arclight

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
  • Constitutionalist!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #47 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...
Logged
" The harder I work, the more luck I seem to have"   Thomas Jefferson

SN Porc

  • Guest
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #48 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.
Logged

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #49 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.

Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

MajesticLeo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Am neither Dahlai nor Lama
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #50 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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2003, 07:59:11 am by MajesticLeo »
Logged
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #51 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.
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

Tony

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
  • Anywhere but Delaware
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #52 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.
Logged

arclight

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
  • Constitutionalist!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #53 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...
Logged
" The harder I work, the more luck I seem to have"   Thomas Jefferson

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #54 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
Logged
nothing to say...

arclight

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
  • Constitutionalist!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #55 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.
Logged
" The harder I work, the more luck I seem to have"   Thomas Jefferson

MajesticLeo

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • Am neither Dahlai nor Lama
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #56 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.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2003, 09:27:37 pm by MajesticLeo »
Logged
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #57 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.
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #58 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
Logged
nothing to say...

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up