Location: Politics/Government >> Libertarians
Login for full access to Couchsurfing Groups. Not a member yet? Join our community!

Post removed.
Post removed.
Posted November 19th, 2012 - 10:27 am by from Antalya, Turkey (Permalink)
This post has been removed by the user.

Deleted Post
Posted November 19th, 2012 - 3:03 pm by from Zielonki, Poland (Permalink)
First, I would like to say that I would love to spend more money on charity organisations, but the government is taking away half of what I earn every month. I think there is no need to feel uneasy because of the lack of charity helping people within laissez faire system, because I see no reason why should the ones that do it now stop doing their work for charity if there was no welfare state. It is not the government that makes those individuals invest their time and effort for little or no financial reward, or am I missing something? If it was true, that all people are so selfish pricks and don't want to help others from time to time, then we would be doomed anyway :-) Secondly, what is the factor that is supposed to suck out all good-willed people of the country and make them form a government? Or maybe those who are supposed to hurt everyone in their vicinity when operating their private businesess will suddenly become angels of impeccable deeds as politicians?
You talk about high prices on some very sophisticated methods to cure certain illnesess. Ok, I admit they are unaffordable for many, but let's see what is causing such high prices? Is it the free market, of which I haven't seen much lately, especially in EU, or the welfare state with all of regulations and red-tape barriers for those who want to provide such services to people? I lean toward the second option. So, coming back to the price, you can't really tell on what level it could be in an unhampered laissez faire economy.

Greetings from Poland,
Bartek

Posted November 19th, 2012 - 6:57 pm by from Antalya, Turkey (Permalink)
Of course some people will keep doing it if there is less tax or not. But will it be enough? By the way i think it's still selfish; they do it because they like it, they have a relief or like being admired by their community etc.
If goverment says ok i'll stop collecting tax do you think these big companies would care about people and the money they supposed to pay goverment before, where will it go?
Yeah, taxes increase the price but still there would be people who cant afford it with or without tax. People will always want more and there will be always some people doing crime. But providing some basic like food,shelter,health, education etc. will minimize the crimes. How can we be sure in a libertarian system people will get these? Most liberals i met told me they would prefer paying more tax instead of feeling insecure on the streets.
is there anyone with some statistics ?
I checked LP website but the only thing i found: "We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity."
This subject is really bugging my mind and my soft underbelly during debates. Hope someone can help.
Thanks

Posted November 19th, 2012 - 8:10 pm by from Zielonki, Poland (Permalink)
[quote]Of course some people will keep doing it if there is less tax or not. But will it be enough?[/quote]

You can never be sure, but there has always been like that: where there is demand, there will soon be supply. I know some people here in Poland that are at the moment building a school in Zambia and actually making money from it, despite the fact that it's almost literally surrounded by impecunious dwellings.

[quote]If goverment says ok i'll stop collecting tax do you think these big companies would care about people and the money they supposed to pay goverment before, where will it go?[/quote]

If we speak about a libertarian/laissez faire system, the influence of big companies, or corporations, will be much smaller that it is today, when they are usually backed by strong government. Initiative will be passed to the hands of small and medium-sized businesses. I think it's time to reject the notion that government takes working people's money and gives it to the poor and needy for nothing. This is a complete fallacy nowadays. Even if I ignore the demoralizing aspect of such activity, I can not overlook the fact, that most of the people living on welfare now in Poland are perfectly able to work hard, even physically, as they often do, only in the so called "grey market".

[quote]Yeah, taxes increase the price but still there would be people who cant afford it with or without tax. People will always want more and there will be always some people doing crime. But providing some basic like food,shelter,health, education etc. will minimize the crimes. How can we be sure in a libertarian system people will get these?[/quote]

I agree with you that crime will not cease to exist, except in Pradise. It is the task of protecting everyone's own property to prevent those from happening and/or punish the perpetrators. Do we need government for this, that is at least questionable for me as an anarcho-capitalist, but let's leave that for now. At the same time I really can't see any circumstances, under which it is allowable, with use of force, to take one's property and give it to someone else because they can't afford food/sleep/shelter/younameit. Going that way a little further, isn't bread a basic commodity? Then why shouldn't government take care of distributing bread, evenly and for free among all. The answer is simple. No central planner knows how to distribute any commodity, be it cars or water, among people to suit their needs best. Plus, there is no such thing as "free commodity", unless it has been produced by nature itself, without human interaction. Actually, there were times in history, when one organisation tried to provide everything to everyone, bringing humanity to endless glory without rich or poor. It ended in catastrophy in USSR, Cambodia and former Eastern Block, to name a few places. Effect of such policies and offsprings of similar ideas are still noticeable in Poland. If I were to humbly offer the solution to this fundamental problem of satisfying customers' needs, it would be laissez faire system, for it is the only system that embraces the constantly changing price system conveying the correct information about what to produce, where, when and in what quantites. Of course there are systems with prices, but they allow prices to be tampered with from outside the market, for example with inflation, which in turn can cause a business cycle. As you can see, I like to go off on a tangent from time to time, which I beg your forgiveness for, but I couldn't help myself, because that discussion has really set my mind ablaze.

Thank you!

Posted November 20th, 2012 - 9:33 am by from Antalya, Turkey (Permalink)
Thanks for your time to write Bartosz. i also found some articles about libertarian charity but not really convincing.
http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn110.htm

and contrary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-charity-republican-2012_n_983721.html

"We should take care of ourselves and our families, and for those who need special help, a generous society [is the answer]," -Ron Paul

it sounds good in theory that we cut the expenses and higher ratio of the money will go to welfare but in total will it be enough? is this practical?

Posted November 20th, 2012 - 4:55 pm by from Zielonki, Poland (Permalink)
I have stumbled upon another article, this time by L. Reed.
http://mises.org/daily/751

I hope the fact it was written some time ago (2001 to be precise) won't scare anyone from reading it. Whether you agree with the author or not, still there is an interesting point of view presented.

Posted November 19th, 2012 - 8:11 pm by from Paris, France (Permalink)
Well.. they belive in the austerity...

Posted November 26th, 2012 - 6:42 am by from San Isidro, Argentina (Permalink)
I'd like to point out that people have privately gotten togethern to do charity work for centuries. Charity is not necessarily mandated by the state nor by enterprises that seek profits.

Crime, on the other hand, is multicausal, and presence or absence of charity networks is most likely not a determining factor. Competent security forces, justice system, gun ownership, seem to have much more direct impact on crime rates.

Companies ARE people as well, and while some might do without charity, I believe most would continue to do charity even in absence of govt. I understand that some companies do even more than what would be reasonably equired of them (think of Walmart during Katrina emergency in the US). Here in Argentina you can come across plenty of examples where individuals, non profits and companies all do charity work without govt mandates of any kind.

There is a certain social expectation nowadays, that large companies engage in some charity work on the sidelines (i think CSR has really caught on and it now more or less expected for a company to try and reach out to the community to a certain degree). But then again this is only my impression, I can't back it up with hard data.

Also, looking from the purely selfish perspective, companies still have incentives to keep up a certain amount of charity work - first on PR grounds, and secondly if the social environment around them deteriorates too much it might become unviable for a healthy bussiness.

best regards

Posted November 29th, 2012 - 6:52 am by from Southlake, United States (Permalink)
I firmly believe that the more the government squeezes its citizens through taxation and oppressive control , the less people are likely to contribute to charities . Charities don't have to be based on any faith or religion either .

Can an atheist give to a charity ? Of course .

Also it doesn’t have to be listed on a LP website to understand the benefits that are achieved from removing some of the heavy chains of government. After all , we aren’t the typical McVoter’s from establishment party that are spoon fed constant B’S.


Posted December 2nd, 2012 - 6:29 am from New York, United States
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.

Posted January 22nd, 2013 - 10:54 am by from Haan, Germany (Permalink)
"Hi, as a libertarian i sometimes have difficulty in debates in this subject, especially with my German guests."
- Haha, unfortunately this is true. Can you imagine living here? :D

Posted March 13th, 2013 - 2:39 pm from New York, United States
This member has chosen to allow only Couchsurfing members to see their group posts. To see this full converstion, sign up or log in.

Posted March 15th, 2013 - 7:20 am by from Lansing, United States (Permalink)
We need to get back to the days where families and charities took care of people in need. Since the advent of welfare and %50 taxation we now rely on the government to take care of our needy and it is a system full of waste and inefficiency. Would not the people who have a stake in the game do a better job of helping those people than a faceless bureaucracy? I'm not saying to get rid of the system altogether, there are always going to be people who have no one to help them, but that would be minimal. I don't know how we would go about doing this but we need to at least try. Let people keep their earnings and don't take from those that work and give it to those who don't because it is ruining our country and our moral fabric.