Voluntary Assistance vs. Nanny handouts

This is to continue the discussion which began in the Music forum under the "Rap vs. Rock" thread between Fonzy and myself. Feel free to chime in anytime...

In a Libertarian society, what will keep the poor from starving in the streets? What about the homeless and the people who are handicapped? What proof is there that private charity will be sufficient?

These are primarily the questions raised by Fonz. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

thats correct

 

Sadly, there is no proof. But no society can guarantee that, whether it's libertarian or socialist.

I think the best thing to do is look at the examples. Hong Kong is really the only society in the world that's even close to libertarianism, so let's examine it compared to its nanny-state counterparts: You'll find much more abject poverty on the streets of New York, Paris, or London than you will in Hong Kong.

 

Well, Fonz and I are merely debating our theories. However, that is a good point. Thanks!

 

How significant are private contributions to charity? If volunteer time is valued at the minimum wage, total private contributions to charity exceed the combined poverty budgets of government at all levels. If Americans contribute so generously while they are also forced to pay taxes for government welfare programs, wouldn't we expect them to give more, not less, if government left more money in their pockets?

Providing help more efficiently to those who can't help themselves is only the beginning, however. Studies show that free markets, on average, create about ten times as much wealth as unfree ones. Not surprisingly, the needy in a wealthy society (e.g., the United States) are always better off than the needy in a poor country (e.g., India). Thus, deregulation, which stimulates wealth creation, helps the poor even more! A libertarian society would minimize the regulations which strangle the economy, thereby raising the standard of living for those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

Ironically, free societies have a more even distribution of wealth than those which try to redistribute wealth forcibly! The reason is simple: free societies provide the best opportunities for the poor to work and grow rich.

The question is...Do these poor WANT jobs? I manage a small newspaper. My personal experience is not limited. One example is a gentleman I hired at a fair rate to do some part-time work, however, he determined he would lose his government check if he took the job. He determined there was more security in his handout, then the job. He turned down over 15 jobs, he told me later. He has since gotten a raise in his government handout. He is secure alright, and he is as able-bodied as I am.

Of course, that is just one example of many. The Chinese proverb is correct: Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

The key is education and opportunity, not handouts. This is what Libertarian society is all about. Personal responsibility and total freedom from initial coercion of any kind.

 

I agree. I think it's also worth noting that some of the US states with the highest tax rates (New England) are the most stingy when it comes to charity money, while some of the US states with lower tax rates (the South) give much more to charity despite having less. Granted, maybe this is partially due to cultural influences (community involvement is a more Southern value than New England value), but perhaps part of it is also due to the difference in the tax rate.

Since the main reason most people support taxes is because they believe the money will enable the government to provide services, I don't see any reason they wouldn't be able to vote with their wallet, by giving the difference to charity if they don't want a tax cut.

 

Indeed. That's putting it straight as can be.

 

thats not true poverty and unemployment are much higher in hong kong than in ny for example.
HK: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/19/content_256020.htm
hong kongs unemployment is close to 9%, its about 6% in NY
NY: http://www.schube.org/images/NewYorkUnemployment.JPG


and hong kong is more socialist than NY
" Hong Kong has pursued one of the world's most ambitious housing projects, with the aim of providing every Hong Kong family with a home of its own. By 1993, half of Hong Kong's population lived in government-subsidized public housing, a higher proportion than anywhere else in the world."-
"Most public housing is clustered in the New Territories, in a forest of high-rises that leaves foreign visitors aghast. Each apartment building is approximately 30 stories tall, containing about 1,000 apartments and 3,000 to 4,000 residents. Seven or eight apartment buildings comprise an estate, which is like a small town with its own name, shopping center, recreational and sports facilities, playgrounds, schools, and social services. A typical apartment is indescribably small by Western standards -- approximately 250 square feet, with a single window. It consists of a combination living room/bedroom, a kitchen nook, and bathroom, and is typically shared by a couple with one or two children. According to government figures, every household in Hong Kong has at least one TV; many have one for each member of the household, even if the house consists of only one or two rooms. But as cramped, unimaginative, and sterile as these housing projects may seem, they're a vast improvement over the way much of the population used to live. They also account for most of Hong Kong's construction growth in the past 2 decades, especially in the New Territories"-
http://www.frommers.com/destinations/hongkong/0078020416.html
hmmmm...is it 1984 yet?

 

yeah... what better way to better education for the poor than take away public schools...i agree with u completely on teh education thing, education is key, but people arent as willing as u think, thats why u have assholes like those at enron who rob people of their life savings, and outsource jobs eploiting their new workers to turn a profit, thats why corporate crime is the fastest rising kidn of crime...not all people are caring human being like us...
lowering taxes is good for the middle class yes , but look who its hurting poor children...
and ur gonna have to back up that charity claim , i live in NJ, i dont know anyone who hasnt given to charity at some point or another...and we(NJ) have more money than u guys in teh south (in terms of Per Capita Income) and our cost of living is a hell of alot more than down there, so i think its safe to say we give more, altho i havent looked this up anywhere.

but yo, this discussion isnt really going anywhere, lets discontinue for the sake of the others...

 

Obviously.

It's been fun, Fonz.

Have a good one.

 

I wasn't really referring to the poverty line (as defined by the governments of those places), because that's relative. What I meant was that you won't find panhandlers or homeless people on the streets of Hong Kong, like you will in New York. Since the question was how does a libertarian society guarantee that people won't starve, I assume that's the kind of poverty that's important.

The housing project is really the ONLY socialist aspect of Hong Kong's government though. In almost every other way, New York is more socialist. I'm not up-to-date on the local politics of New York City (perhaps the local taxes are quite low), but you have to take into consideration that the average New Yorker probably gives 30-40% of his paycheck to the federal government. Hong Kong, as a city-state, doesn't really have a comparable federal government to answer to (the Chinese take a cut for the defense budget, but otherwise they just allow Hong Kong to control its own economy).

 

the middle ages were liberatarian in taht they had no fed govt lets compare that to NY...i have to stop doing this...im seriously done now...cold turkey.

 

what

 

i fear economic liberatarian ideas will result in fuedalism, like in the middle ages ... no fed govt, no redistribution, no health care, when theres no cap or regulation on how much one can make, and no fed. redistrubion, or labour laws restricting certain cruel practices then u get a polarized system of super rich and poor,super rich economically enslave(ensurf)the poor to make greater profit, then to suit their needs impose rediculous policies, that altho werent really laws punishable by govt, b/c there was none, but were punishable by risk of beign fired and losing everything, eventually everyone accepted this system and before u know it some of the super rich began murdering their surfs for no reason at all(and they (generally)alowed it), as it seemed losing ur job is losing ur life...because theres no support system for teh poor b/c theres no real government.
that came out really sloppy,wow, its late i gotta sleep...

 

thats completely not true hongkong has some of the worst slums and homelesness in teh world...poorer that the poorest scetions of NY b/c we actually have safety standards, u just dont see their slums, theyre hidden like ours, when tourists visit 42 st (times square) they dont see slums and poverty and homelessness, they see golden sidewalks, bright lights, and diverse, crowded streets...
but yeah hong kongs a shit hole...bad example...
heres a pretty cool power pt. thing, exposing some of the hidden slums(if ur interested):
[size=-1]www.citizensparty.org/community/hkslums.ppt

[/size]

 

lock this thread, libertine, please, im nevr gonna get to bed...