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 31363 times)

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #60 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
Logged
nothing to say...

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #61 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
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #62 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #63 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #64 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #65 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #66 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #67 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #68 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.
Logged

telomerase

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Live Free Or Die
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #69 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.
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #70 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.
Logged

Stan

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
  • Lets Roll!
    • Free State Ads
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #71 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.
Logged
We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Check out FreeStateAds, a classified ads service for Porcupines!
http://www.freestateads.com/ads

thistlewind

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • I'm a llama!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #72 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.  
Logged
People unfit for freedom - who cannot do much with it - are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a "have not&

etphonehome

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Have a nice day!
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #73 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.
Logged
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
   â€”Captain Picard

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:what about necessary social programs
« Reply #74 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
Logged
nothing to say...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up