[Meslocusist]

Well, Social welfare is all well and good, but someone has to pay, right? Even ignoring the costs added any time another organization touches money, the kind of programs (Not necessarily bad ones, either). But Government tends to be inefficient, and that's a fact.

My suggestion is that, instead of social welfare meditated through the government, the government mandate that a certain amount of money be given to charities, which could be evaluated as to whether they are acceptable for that type of charity.

No deficit spending is possible under this plan, since the money comes directly from the taxpayer. It also reduces inefficiencies a good deal, since some charitable organizations spend as much as 90 cents on the dollar towards their cause.

It may (?) also be more appealing to libertarians than direct government welfare, since it doesn't involve direct government control of the welfare process, and gives people some degree of control as to where their taxes go to. That said, I wouldn't presume to speak for them, so you can ignore that or correct me if it doesn't apply.

Anyway, I think this is at least slightly better than having the taxes run amorphously through the Senate, House, and then President (Or whatever applies in your home country)

[Muslimanka]

We (Muslims) already make mandatory contributions to charity - it's called zakat. The percentage differs from country to country but the most common figure is 2.5 per cent of our annual income. We also have mandatory banking practices that reduce the need for charity to begin with - for example, charging us interest on loans is prohibited - internationally it's known as Islamic banking. In some countries this is the only style of banking available - in others, such as my own, there are a variety of international and national banks and only some follow these religious rules. There is also the option to leave a public endowment upon our deaths - it's called vakuf. These are used to fund the maintenance of public buildings. There are some facilities in my city - a mosque, Islamic school, and a library, as well as related facilities - that are still being operated by the same vakuf after 450 years.

These sorts of things are very important to me so I think mandatory charity is not such a bad idea. Of course, there are many ways to go about it. I think the best compromise is to offer tax receipts to those who make charitable donations whereby the amount they give to charity is deducted from the amount of taxes they must pay to the government. Then there is no compulsion, which tends to upset some.

[Huntster]

Mandatory charity are contradicting words:

–noun, plural -ties.
1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.

True charity is altruistic, not extortion. It is from compassion, not compulsion.

This is what Christ advocated, not socialism.

[Meslocusist]

Firstly, I will say that I couldn't care less what Christ supposedly thought or supposedly said.

More importantly, the point of this idea is that it is a more efficient way to provide social services, since the government wouldn't ever touch the money. Perhaps "Enforced Giving of Money to Not-For-Profit Non-Governmental-Organizations". Doesn't exactly have the same ring to it, though.

It's hard to argue against efficiency and for wasting money (not that I haven't seen it done from all sides), and this proposal is essentially a way whereby we can provide the same social services without a good deal of wasted money, or expand our social services for the same price, or even decrease the social services with a further, non-proportional decrease in cost.

[Huntster]

the point of this idea is that it is a more efficient way to provide social services, since the government wouldn't ever touch the money.

But government wants to "touch the money". That's the whole point. They want control.

[Meslocusist]

Well, actually, the constituents want to touch the money. they don't care who touches it as long as they get it, and its best for everyone if however much money goes to them (Because, and once again I may be presumptuous and I apologize if I am, even most libertarians advocate at least a tiny bit of social spending). It is after all best if whatever money is being spent on social services is spent efficiently, right?

[Huntster]

It is after all best if whatever money is being spent on social services is spent efficiently, right?

Yup.

[Meslocusist]

My point exactly. People would, hopefully, choose those more efficient charities as opposed to the wasteful ones.

[Gommi]

Interesting. You would effectively privatize the civil service. Of course, the government would be required to enforce the policy, but beyond that, it has no involvement.

I think the best compromise is to offer tax receipts to those who make charitable donations whereby the amount they give to charity is deducted from the amount of taxes they must pay to the government.

Many businesses already donate to charities for this purpose.

[Order]

My point exactly. People would, hopefully, choose those more efficient charities as opposed to the wasteful ones.

It raises the problem, however, that certain less glamorous but nonetheless necessary social welfare programmes might receive insufficient funding while money is concentrated on the more popular stuff. Generally, it might hence end up being random, unfair and uncoordinated.

[Gommi]

It raises the problem, however, that certain less glamorous but nonetheless necessary social welfare programmes might receive insufficient funding while money is concentrated on the more popular stuff. Generally, it might hence end up being random, unfair and uncoordinated.

At least the government funds programs based on objective standards. As you stated, sensational causes would receive more attention than others in a voluntary system, leading to inefficiency.

[Meslocusist]

I guess if it became a problem that certain causes were being donated to insufficiently, they could be broken down into different categories (IE Health Care, Poverty alleviation, etc) and a certain amount be required to be given to each one. Perhaps in the future a lot of things could be done in this way, which would make it rather more efficient, and allow taxes to be lowered. Further, in order to incentivize giving to more efficient charities, one might say that X dollars needs to make it through the charity, so for example a charity that has 90% monetary efficiency would only make you pay 11% more than needs get through, while one that is 20% efficient (for example, the US government, at a guess), you would have to pay a tremendous amount of taxes. Taxes could also be lowered, which would be a good thing I think.

[fschwarzkopf]

It may (?) also be more appealing to libertarians than direct government welfare, since it doesn't involve direct government control of the welfare process, and gives people some degree of control as to where their taxes go to. That said, I wouldn't presume to speak for them, so you can ignore that or correct me if it doesn't apply.

Strictly speaking, this plan would be unacceptable to libertarians, as it would be backed by force. However, some might see it as an improvement over the current system, if the range of choices of "acceptable" charities was wide enough.

At least the government funds programs based on objective standards. As you stated, sensational causes would receive more attention than others in a voluntary system, leading to inefficiency.

Government standards for funding programs are not necessarily any more objective than those of private individuals. Government may fund those programs which are most popular politically, or which have the most backing from powerful lobbyists. Government may also fund programs based on the ideological desire for social engineering.This kind of funding is not necessarily "objective."

[Order]

Government standards for funding programs are not necessarily any more objective than those of private individuals. Government may fund those programs which are most popular politically, or which have the most backing from powerful lobbyists. Government may also fund programs based on the ideological desire for social engineering.This kind of funding is not necessarily "objective."

Of course the government is also influenced by lobbyists and ideology but I think one shouldn't underestimate the amount of technocratic thinking that goes into such a decisions. This would simply lack in a completely open scheme. While the government is far from perfect I would assume it is relatively better situated to solve such a complicated coordination problem.

[Meslocusist]

fschwarzkopf- I personally would have a rather wide amount of charities open, with a pretty large General section (meaning taxes that can go to any non profit.

Otherwise, I would have perhaps a "social services" section, an "infrastructure development" section, a "poverty relief" section, and a general section. Admittedly, not very much thought went into the previous categorizations. Perhaps just a social services section, then a general section, maybe something like a 75/25 split.

The rest would have to be taxes as they are now, for example to fund the military, but I think that ultimately this would be a better way at least to do social services.

[grassroots1]

Government standards for funding programs are not necessarily any more objective than those of private individuals. Government may fund those programs which are most popular politically, or which have the most backing from powerful lobbyists. Government may also fund programs based on the ideological desire for social engineering.This kind of funding is not necessarily "objective."

This is an incredibly important point, of which libertarians should absolutely take note.

[Michaeluj]

This is an incredibly important point, of which libertarians should absolutely take note.

HA! I have taken note of that, and it's mainly why I think socialism will always fail. It's also why I don't care for government welfare very much, although there's plenty economic thinken' going on about that, too.

[grassroots1]

You always keep me honest, Mike.

But if this is the reason you think socialism will fail, what makes you think an ideal libertarian society would fare any better? Why wouldn't you become an outright cynic because of this? Why do you care so much for corporate control (remembering the time you defended Wal-Mart like it was your child) and so despise government control?

[Michaeluj]

One at a time:

Government may fund those programs which are most popular politically, or which have the most backing from powerful lobbyists. Government may also fund programs based on the ideological desire for social engineering.This kind of funding is not necessarily "objective."

There's always a problem with democracy, although if the people are libertarian enough, they might not want to use the government for poor means; unlike in socialism, which is the opposite, increasing government dependance. Lobbyists would also be problomatic in a democracy, but unlike in socialism, in which tens of millions of major-controlling politicians pull each other to abuse the system for their own popularity, libertarianism would actually deter lobbyists and at least try to make any bad policies be voted out as long as there's only a few bad policies lying around, although I admit that this is not perfect. A libertarian government would have little means to attempt social engineering, unlike socialism, which would--due to its vast size--would have money poured into these things more than the banking system of our vastly smaller government, but that doesn't mean that the people can vote on them, if it's a democracy, I mean.

Why wouldn't you become an outright cynic because of this? Why do you care so much for corporate control (remembering the time you defended Wal-Mart like it was your child) and so despise government control?

I am fearful of corporate influence, but I would rather have small government and corporations decaying it for money rather than huge government being destroyed by greedy and eager politicians for both money and lasting political employment and fame. All other, non-coercive, things that a corporation can do are fine with me.

[Gelmax]

But Government tends to be inefficient, and that's a fact.

A fact? Really? Inefficient compared to what, and how is it inefficient? I won't deny that there's inefficiencies, but I reject the premise that government is, by definition, worse than private groups at doing things. Certainly, government has its problems, but those are largely due to human nature - taking government completely out of the picture and handing the government's job to private industry soon causes just as many problems to crop up in the private venture as did in the government, though they're typically different problems. Sometimes worse, sometimes better, depends on the situation. Rarely good.

In this particular scheme, the problems take a moment to see, but are quite clear once they appear. First of all, there's only one government, but there's a lot of charities, and the money would be divided unevenly between them by no logic other than the whims of each individual taxpayer, which is of course incredibly inefficient and would lead to massive, massive amounts of money wasted by a number of problems, most notably duplication of effort. Additionally, charities would be forced to spend more of their money on advertising to get people to choose their particular charity to send money to - so the charities that got the most money would be the ones spending the most money on marketing rather than on welfare! And of course, when donating to charities is federally mandated, there needs to be federal regulation to stop embezzlement and other misuses of money...but enforcement would certainly be underfunded in a government libertarian enough for such a law to be passed in the first place, and if the charity that misuses its money directs enough of that money into lobbying politicians and bribing federal agents, then it can set things up even more to its advantage. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.