Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[columbiastudent]

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?

[Dalamar49]

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.

[sdaconsulting]

1) Family and friends.
2) Community.
3) Charity.

[craft_6]

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.

[Dalamar49]

Yeah, welfare only gives 7% of there budget to the poor.

[Newt]

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.

[Critter]

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.

[JasonPSorens]

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.

[Critter]

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...

[Robert H.]

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."

[SandyPrice]

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.

[Reaper]

Necessary social programs?

Is that an oxymoron?

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

[johnws1776]

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

[RidleyReport]

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.

[ubik]

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.   -_-