[Mikolaj]

What is the anarchist view of the welfare state? Should it too be abolished? What would take its place, and would a new system be as efficient as the state in delivering social services(urban planning, healthcare, environmental engineeering projects, postal service, etc)?

[Paradigm]

I'm not an anarchist, but I believe the idea is that the state and social stratification are the cause of poverty in the first place, and thus the welfare state is essentially the state trying to solve a problem it created in the first place.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Welfare isn't about helping the poor; it's about giving the poor enough money that they can afford to support the middle class and rich.

Most flavors of anarchism are heavily collectivist, and they assume that people will be, one, more capable of caring for themselves (especially primitivist forms) and two, more willing to take care of others.

Anarcho-capitalists believe everyone would have more money-- ignoring what money is-- and would be universally more capable of caring for themselves; they're also wholly inclined towards feeding the poor to their dogs if they trespass.

[American Anarchist]

Welfare does less to benefit the poor than the not so poor. A person growing up in a wealthy family is more likely to start work later, as well as live longer. For example, say a wealthy person attends college for two years after attaining his batchelors, and starts working at the age of 24. His superior education (statistically speaking) will give him a higher income than someone with less education. now use another example: a person from more moderate beginings forgoes the opportunity to go to college based on his families economic status. He starts work at the age of 18. Both these people retire at the same time and get the same amount of social security. Because the first person makes more money, he will live longer (again, according to statistics) and thusly profit more from social security. The second person would have profited more from simply not paying taxes.

Social security is just one of the many policies enacted by the welfare state that gives the illusion of helping the impoverished. Welfare itself-that is, the forced re-distribution of wealth-is a negative practice because it is much too easy to take advantage of. Instead of doing what it is intended to do and helping the genuinely needy, it simply taxes them for the sake of aiding the lazy. The genuine hard worker has a better chance of getting out of poverty if they live in a purely capitalist society.

Anarcho-capitalists believe everyone would have more money-- ignoring what money is--

well, they would. And what exactly is money, in your view?

they're also wholly inclined towards feeding the poor to their dogs if they trespass.

How mature....anyway, if ANYONE violated my property with the intent of harming me or damaging what is mine, I'd sick my mastiff on them. and I'm not exactly "rich." Everyone has the right to defend themselves, rich poor or middle-class.

[Korimyr the Rat]

... well, they would. And what exactly is money, in your view?

A system of barter exchange; money is essentially a stand-in for some other good of exchange-- typically some nonperishable commodity that is also used as a means of exchange.

The most important thing about money, however, is that it is backed up by some organization powerful enough to guarantee its value.

Guess what? That's almost guaranteed to be a government.

How mature....anyway, if ANYONE violated my property with the intent of harming me or damaging what is mine, I'd sick my mastiff on them.

Yeah. And rich people are just as forbidden to steal bread, sleep under bridges, and piss in the street as poor people are. I'm sure you think that's fair.

Sure, I'll sic my dogs on anyone trying to take what's mine-- but I also support reasonable government measures to keep people from needing to. And I don't pretend for a second that hoarding whatever I can get my hands on and refusing to help other people is "enlightened self-interest".

[American Anarchist]

The most important thing about money, however, is that it is backed up by some organization powerful enough to guarantee its value.

Guess what? That's almost guaranteed to be a government

Money could easily be printed by private organizations. The treasury doesnt have to public.

Yeah. And rich people are just as forbidden to steal bread, sleep under bridges, and piss in the street as poor people are. I'm sure you think that's fair.

NO ONE is so poor that they have to steal food, at least in the western world. I could go get a free meal right now at several various private cherities, if I pretended to be homeless. And if your pissing on the street, you have issues. The majority of people "sleeping under bridges" are alchoholic or drug addicts.

but I also support reasonable government measures to keep people from needing to.

You mistake anarchy for a complete lack of order. Volountary police forces, funded by donations, would be able to defend the people who ask for their help. Unlike a government, they would not rely on theft to fund their efforts, nor would they have a complete monopoly.

And I don't pretend for a second that hoarding whatever I can get my hands on and refusing to help other people is "enlightened self-interest".

So don't hoarde. Give to charity, give to a voulantary police force. Let the greedy hoarde, let the charitable give.

[Haraldur]

Money could easily be printed by private organizations. The treasury doesnt have to public.

There are some problems with this. First, there would be an incentive for these organisations to print more money than there are goods of value, so causing inflation (especially if these organisations are in debt). Second, might not these organisations print different values of money, causing confusion and lack of confidence in the currency, and so the return to barter? There is also little to stop these organisations forming cartels or monopolies, and so the beginning of a bare-bones government.

You mistake anarchy for a complete lack of order. Volountary police forces, funded by donations, would be able to defend the people who ask for their help. Unlike a government, they would not rely on theft to fund their efforts, nor would they have a complete monopoly.

Who would control these "police forces"? Those who make donations? If so, then you will basically end up with an oligarchy, where the rich who donate the largest sums dictate law. They might be used to enforce the (to me inevitable) monopolies of large companies. If these "police forces" are under noone's control other than themselves, then it is no different to an armed gang, and these "donations" could quickly degenerate inton protection rackets.

[futuristic]

The most important thing about money, however, is that it is backed up by some organization powerful enough to guarantee its value.

Guess what? That's almost guaranteed to be a government.

How can a government possibly guarantee value of money? If anything governments really guarantee is that they will keep printing excessive amounts of money to avoid paying debts. Value of money is determined by the economy, i.e. numerous businesses willing to exchange stuff for money. Although both governments and private treasures may be interested in printing more money the later is much more accountable as they have to beat the competition by providing most stable currency. Contrary, governments use force to suppress competitors so there no “invisible hand” to direct them the right way. Cartels are of course a danger but they would be no worse than governments if they can’t use force against competitors. There will be always rogue private treasuries that would decide they would be better off providing more stable currency than joining the cartel. Take for example PayPal. They provide an online currency, not in fact a standalone one as the gov’t wouldn’t let it to evolve that far but it would be a possibility if the gov’t did not use force against competitors. Would PayPal be better off devaluing its currency than selling online payment services? Highly unlikely.

[American Anarchist]

There are some problems with this. First, there would be an incentive for these organisations to print more money than there are goods of value, so causing inflation (especially if these organisations are in debt). Second, might not these organisations print different values of money, causing confusion and lack of confidence in the currency, and so the return to barter? There is also little to stop these organisations forming cartels or monopolies, and so the beginning of a bare-bones government.

Look at america pre-1920. All money was printed privately, and it wasn't exactly bad. Weren't we still one of the richest back then? also, google "liberty Dollars." It is privately made Inflation proof money. There would be NO incentive to create inflation, as it would devalutize (is that a word?) your product and make it unattractive. Monopolies would be rather difficult to maintain in the money buisiness, and it would be easy for a willing third party to break the monopoly by printing (or forging) a more sensible currency.

Who would control these "police forces"? Those who make donations? If so, then you will basically end up with an oligarchy, where the rich who donate the largest sums dictate law. They might be used to enforce the (to me inevitable) monopolies of large companies. If these "police forces" are under noone's control other than themselves, then it is no different to an armed gang, and these "donations" could quickly degenerate inton protection rackets.

First of all, not only would rich people donate to these organizations, but anyone who cared about being safe would. Thoughtcorporations might have a bit of sway, they would certainly not have complete control, anymore than the public would. And what you call "oligarcy" I call the free market at work. More options=better law enforcement. The leaders would be voluntary and paid by these donations, and therefore inclined to help others. they would also make money be fining corporations for violating human rights (ie. using sweat shops). That would not make them very friendly with corporations.

[Deutschmania]

In answer to the original question, mutual aid would replace the welfare state.

[Kon]

mutual aid would replace the welfare state.

This is correct, I believe that trade unions would regulate the industries and aid would be given out of free choice for the good of the collective. If you were in need of a doctor you would go to a hospital flash your union card and be given aid, if you needed food you would go to a storage area and take as much as you needed. The main problem in this kind of society would be to stop abuse of the system. For all of you who think that this system (gift economy regulated by unions) wouldn't work I'll call upon the example of the free pharmacies in Chiapas managed by the EZLN (effectivley a union in these circumstances)