The power of private charity

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to guess that your faith in government is quite ironbound and lacks questioning.

My 'just so' arguments aren't 'just so.' Next time compare your local DMV to your local convenience store or supermarket and tell me how 'just so' my arguments are.

Unlike your hypothetical scenarios of no government, I can see the implementations of our government firsthand. They are quite tangible, if lackluster. I can't see your preferred state of being to be sustainable/practical, and a lackluster ordered system is preferable to chaos. Unless you can somehow convince me that your system would amount to anything other than chaos? Can you convince somebody the practicality of your system? Can you convince me that your system wouldn't be a survival of the fittest every-man-for-himself corporate hegemony? Neither the DMV nor a grocery store are adequate comparisons for an entire country.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Military is a tough issue and I don't want to go into heady economic theory on that one.

But as for education and healthcare, you bet your @ss private enterprise would pick up the 'responsibility.' The quality of education would go up for millions of middle class americans, who would be able to choose the precise education they wanted for their kids, instead of having to go through bureaucratic channels to get what they want. Furthermore, many poor children would be enabled to go through apprenticeship programs or other educational programs directly related to work. This would keep at-risk kids off the streets and out of risky environments, such as inner-city high schools.

Healthcare is another area that is majorly bogged down by government intervention. Not only do you have the AMA artificially reducing the supply of doctors, but you have massive government subsidies and interventions in almost every aspect of healthcare. Combined with the bureaucratic red tape, you have a recipe for skyrocketing prices (especially as the baby boomers age).

It must be relaxing to have such ironbound, unquestioning faith in something. I, however, am unable to bring myself to have such faith. I can't accept your "just so" arguments.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to guess that your faith in government is quite ironbound and lacks questioning.

My 'just so' arguments aren't 'just so.' Next time compare your local DMV to your local convenience store or supermarket and tell me how 'just so' my arguments are.

So you would make the DMV a convenience store?

I think Anarchists such as yourself have more faith in the human spirit then any leftist does. Once we engage in a willful genocide of minorities I think only then will you realize the truth of your ideology. Without strong examples, without a government chaos is inevitable. The most numerous, the strongest will prevail and even amongst them clan warfare and tribes will be created. That is why government was created to bring order to Humankind. We have been steadily revolutionizing over the centuries... what you ask is to bring us backwards. I'm curious as too why any rational, modern being would support such a thing.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to guess that your faith in government is quite ironbound and lacks questioning.

My 'just so' arguments aren't 'just so.' Next time compare your local DMV to your local convenience store or supermarket and tell me how 'just so' my arguments are.

Unlike your hypothetical scenarios of no government, I can see the implementations of our government firsthand. They are quite tangible, if lackluster. I can't see your preferred state of being to be sustainable/practical, and a lackluster ordered system is preferable to chaos. Unless you can somehow convince me that your system would amount to anything other than chaos? Can you convince somebody the practicality of your system? Can you convince me that your system wouldn't be a survival of the fittest every-man-for-himself corporate hegemony? Neither the DMV nor a grocery store are adequate comparisons for an entire country.

Contrary to popular belief, Christianity is not the most widely practiced religion in the world. Authoritarianism is the most widely practiced religion in the world. This religion is so widely practiced that I would say that at least 90% of the adult population believes in collectivised security and the existence of a legitimate state. If you can show me a place where this religion is no longer practiced anywhere in the world, that doesn't have deep-rooted cultural problems/tribal warfare, then I can start pointing to modern-real world examples. Other than that, there are only theories based on economics and rational thought. Here are a couple of articles: The Possiblity for Private Law and But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?.

The other argument I will make is that there is no magical divide between government enforced order and the Hobbesian State of Nature/state of total chaos. In fact, the very existence of government itself is only possible because people decide to peacefully come to terms on issues on their own accord. For instance, when the supreme court ruled that George Bush won the 2000 election. The supreme court has no enforcement branch and hence, the execution of its ruling was based only on people's belief in the value of it.

My theory is that the government produces institutions that are simply redundant. But it does so at great expense and waste. Another piece of evidence for this theory is that the government forcefully monopolizes these services. For instance, just as I am not allowed to open a private postal service that competes with USPS first class mail, I am not allowed to set up a private prison/police force. If the government was really necessary for all of these things it claims to be, why does it shut out all the competition? Why can't I set up a private community with its own private prison system and police force?

In the end, 'government' is based on religious beliefs in the rule of law, existence of legitimate governmental authority, 'consent' of the governed (social contract theory) and contradictory beliefs in government's right to override one's own moral judgement.

What you are basically asking me is that if everyone stopped practicing the religion of authoritarianism, would the country burn down in chaos? The answer of course is no, as long as the transfer of centralized government power to de-centralized private institutions was allowed to take place.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Military is a tough issue and I don't want to go into heady economic theory on that one.

But as for education and healthcare, you bet your @ss private enterprise would pick up the 'responsibility.' The quality of education would go up for millions of middle class americans, who would be able to choose the precise education they wanted for their kids, instead of having to go through bureaucratic channels to get what they want. Furthermore, many poor children would be enabled to go through apprenticeship programs or other educational programs directly related to work. This would keep at-risk kids off the streets and out of risky environments, such as inner-city high schools.

Healthcare is another area that is majorly bogged down by government intervention. Not only do you have the AMA artificially reducing the supply of doctors, but you have massive government subsidies and interventions in almost every aspect of healthcare. Combined with the bureaucratic red tape, you have a recipe for skyrocketing prices (especially as the baby boomers age).

It must be relaxing to have such ironbound, unquestioning faith in something. I, however, am unable to bring myself to have such faith. I can't accept your "just so" arguments.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to guess that your faith in government is quite ironbound and lacks questioning.

My 'just so' arguments aren't 'just so.' Next time compare your local DMV to your local convenience store or supermarket and tell me how 'just so' my arguments are.

So you would make the DMV a convenience store?

I think Anarchists such as yourself have more faith in the human spirit then any leftist does. Once we engage in a willful genocide of minorities I think only then will you realize the truth of your ideology. Without strong examples, without a government chaos is inevitable. The most numerous, the strongest will prevail and even amongst them clan warfare and tribes will be created. That is why government was created to bring order to Humankind. We have been steadily revolutionizing over the centuries... what you ask is to bring us backwards. I'm curious as too why any rational, modern being would support such a thing.

Yes I would. In fact, I would turn the entire road system over to private enterprise.

The state is not a positive evolution. It was a grave error that was created when men realized they had to make moral decisions in the world. Instead of leaving these decisions up to themselves, they decided they should be taken over by a monopolist group, which would make them compulsory.

If you are curious as to why any rational, modern being would support such a thing, I suggest you check out the writings of David D. Friedman (son of famous economist Milton Friedman). Text

His book 'Hidden Order" was used in an econ class at one of my local colleges.

 

[Dissipate]

Oh yeah, also don't forget to read Wendy McElroy's column at foxnews.com. She is an individualist anarchist.

McElroy's Site

See. Even Fox News has anarchists these days. It is totally mainstream.

 

[judasmachine]

private charites are great, but they tend to pick and choose (as is their right) their beneficiaries. type A charity will only help those with type A disability, and so on. No one blankets all in need.

 

[AntaresVI]

I have to tell you, Dissipate, one generally associates anarchists with extremeism, but you make it sound nice and inviting. Not that I agree with you, but it's an entertaining listen. :thumbsup:

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: AntaresVI
I have to tell you, Dissipate, one generally associates anarchists with extremeism, but you make it sound nice and inviting. Not that I agree with you, but it's an entertaining listen. :thumbsup:

Thanks man. It's good to know someone appreciates me. I will be the first to admit that anarchism is currently a fringe movement, but we aren't all nutjobs and conspiracy theorists.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: AntaresVI
I have to tell you, Dissipate, one generally associates anarchists with extremeism, but you make it sound nice and inviting. Not that I agree with you, but it's an entertaining listen. :thumbsup:

Thanks man. It's good to know someone appreciates me. I will be the first to admit that anarchism is currently a fringe movement, but we aren't all nutjobs and conspiracy theorists.

Right, because you say so?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
a) some services are absolutely critical, ie. military, education, healthcare (not open for debate)
b) The likelihood enough resources will go to the correct areas that need it is bad.

HuH? Why aren't military, education and healtchare issues open for debate?

Military == protection. A dead populace leads to no more country.
Education == maintanance. An uneducated populace cannot maintain the country.
Healthcare == life. Again, a dead/incapacitated populace leads to no more country.

If the government were just gone, would private enterprise pick up that responsibility competently? Maybe. I know I'm not gonna take that chance though.

Military is a tough issue and I don't want to go into heady economic theory on that one.

But as for education and healthcare, you bet your @ss private enterprise would pick up the 'responsibility.' The quality of education would go up for millions of middle class americans, who would be able to choose the precise education they wanted for their kids, instead of having to go through bureaucratic channels to get what they want. Furthermore, many poor children would be enabled to go through apprenticeship programs or other educational programs directly related to work. This would keep at-risk kids off the streets and out of risky environments, such as inner-city high schools.

Healthcare is another area that is majorly bogged down by government intervention. Not only do you have the AMA artificially reducing the supply of doctors, but you have massive government subsidies and interventions in almost every aspect of healthcare. Combined with the bureaucratic red tape, you have a recipe for skyrocketing prices (especially as the baby boomers age).

Dissipate, you present some interesting ideas, but to the best of my knowledge there has never been a country that has succesfully employed an all private education system (while maintaining accesability to the poor). Do you have any examples of such a system working for a prolonged time with good results? If not, how can you believe such a system would work better than public education which raised the litteracy rates of almost every country to implement it?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I have only read "But Wouldn't Warlord Take Over?", but it is also very much a "just so" argument. In particular this passage:

"Third, people need to really picture the nightmare scenario to see how absurd it is. Imagine a bustling city, such as New York, that is initially a free market paradise. Is it really plausible that over time rival gangs would constantly grow, and eventually terrorize the general public?[iii] Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs."

Yes, to me that is not absurd, and is very plausible. Why this is not so to the author is beyond me. Although Los Angeles may be a better example than NYC. His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

I'd rather force everybody to give equally. Rich people are not rich on their blood, sweat and tears alone. They got that way from working the economic machinations of this country. Now the country needs something in return.

They do. They pay a greater share of the roads, the military, schooling, etc, even without paying for others' retirements as well. Of course, you aren't interested in giving 40% or even 20%, you want Bill Gates to do it.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

I'd rather force everybody to give equally. Rich people are not rich on their blood, sweat and tears alone. They got that way from working the economic machinations of this country. Now the country needs something in return.

They do. They pay a greater share of the roads, the military, schooling, etc, even without paying for others' retirements as well.

If you really have an issue with the SS, then you need to start with your own party. A huge portion of Republican power comes from the national Assoc of retired people. In fact, they along with those approaching retirement (both Reps and Dems) are what killed SS reform... not the toothless dems.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

I'd rather force everybody to give equally. Rich people are not rich on their blood, sweat and tears alone. They got that way from working the economic machinations of this country. Now the country needs something in return.

They do. They pay a greater share of the roads, the military, schooling, etc, even without paying for others' retirements as well. Of course, you aren't interested in giving 40% or even 20%, you want Bill Gates to do it.

40%? Of my income? Well, when I was working I was giving 30%.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

If society were to degenerate into rival gangs, do you think the government would be able to stop it? Look at the riots of '92 and how long it took the government to stop that. Now multiply that by 10,000 fold.

You cannot enforce 'goodness' with a monopoly government, or through any other means for that matter.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

If society were to degenerate into rival gangs, do you think the government would be able to stop it? Look at the riots of '92 and how long it took the government to stop that. Now multiply that by 10,000 fold.

You cannot enforce 'goodness' with a monopoly government, or through any other means for that matter.

Do you have any examples of an anarchists government?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

If society were to degenerate into rival gangs, do you think the government would be able to stop it? Look at the riots of '92 and how long it took the government to stop that. Now multiply that by 10,000 fold.

You cannot enforce 'goodness' with a monopoly government, or through any other means for that matter.

You can't enforce "goodness". You can punish and deter "badness" though. Society is not going to degenerate into rival gangs with the threat of jail/death looming over criminals.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gee whiz, zendari- by your line of reasoning, all of our problems should have been solved long before any of us were born, back in the 1920's, when men were men, taxes were low, the stock market was booming, and charity was all there was... which proved entirely inadequate after 1929... something you'd obviously rather not mention...

So-called conservatives like to tout private charities because they can give 2% rather than 20%, get people to suck up for money, and then pat themselves on the back for being generous... nothing warms the heart quite so well as putting a few farthings in the hand of some poor miserable wretch on the way to the country club...

But since the so called "compassionate" liberals give 40% instead of 20%, because they "care about the poor", it evens out right?

I'd rather force everybody to give equally. Rich people are not rich on their blood, sweat and tears alone. They got that way from working the economic machinations of this country. Now the country needs something in return.

The country received something in return, it received production. People would not have paid those rich people all that money if they did not think they were getting value from it, but now you want more value after the fact. You want to say, I got my bread from you, but now that I have eaten it you still have my money but I have no bread.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I have only read "But Wouldn't Warlord Take Over?", but it is also very much a "just so" argument. In particular this passage:

"Third, people need to really picture the nightmare scenario to see how absurd it is. Imagine a bustling city, such as New York, that is initially a free market paradise. Is it really plausible that over time rival gangs would constantly grow, and eventually terrorize the general public?[iii] Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs."

Yes, to me that is not absurd, and is very plausible. Why this is not so to the author is beyond me. Although Los Angeles may be a better example than NYC. His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

The thing is this has happened time and time again. Russia is pretty much that this point now, that is, being ruled by a underground criminal organization.
The Taliban ruled in Afghanistan.
The Mafia nearly took over several US cities during prohibition, they did take over Las Vegas.
There are several other places in the world that pseudo-military criminal organizations have more power then the local government.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
The country received something in return, it received production. People would not have paid those rich people all that money if they did not think they were getting value from it, but now you want more value after the fact. You want to say, I got my bread from you, but now that I have eaten it you still have my money but I have no bread.

Unfortunately, what an advertising executive produces is of little direct value to somebody living in poverty. Most of that money, that is, money that they generate and money that they accumulate, will never be in the hands of those people (living in poverty) without taxation.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
The thing is this has happened time and time again. Russia is pretty much that this point now, that is, being ruled by a underground criminal organization.
The Taliban ruled in Afghanistan.
The Mafia nearly took over several US cities during prohibition, they did take over Las Vegas.
There are several other places in the world that pseudo-military criminal organizations have more power then the local government.

I simply don't see how getting rid of the government would improve any of those situations.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I propose we do defense this way. We can have the best army donations can buy. It will be enormous.

:thumbsup:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I propose we do defense this way. We can have the best army donations can buy. It will be enormous.

Can I get a hell yeah
Moonie '08!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

If society were to degenerate into rival gangs, do you think the government would be able to stop it? Look at the riots of '92 and how long it took the government to stop that. Now multiply that by 10,000 fold.

You cannot enforce 'goodness' with a monopoly government, or through any other means for that matter.

You can't enforce "goodness". You can punish and deter "badness" though. Society is not going to degenerate into rival gangs with the threat of jail/death looming over criminals.

I wonder how keeping my own money is somehow "badness".

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Dissipate

His arguments are all based around both the essential goodness of many people. Sort of like Communism.

If society were to degenerate into rival gangs, do you think the government would be able to stop it? Look at the riots of '92 and how long it took the government to stop that. Now multiply that by 10,000 fold.

You cannot enforce 'goodness' with a monopoly government, or through any other means for that matter.

You can't enforce "goodness". You can punish and deter "badness" though. Society is not going to degenerate into rival gangs with the threat of jail/death looming over criminals.

I wonder how keeping my own money is somehow "badness".

jesus would not be proud of you. selfish little boy, don't you know that material possessions don't make a man wealthy? parable of the rich man ring a bell?