[avalanche]

On average, disabled people are less productive than able people. Indeed, many severely disabled people produce nothing at all.

If taxes were abolished and if charitable contributions were inadequate (which they probably would be), the disabled would be left with no purchasing power to pay for their own healthcare. Many would suffer and/or die. This is not 'fair', but life isn't fair.

Is it the role of the State to redress Fate's wrongs? Personally I think yes. What do the Libertarians think?

[Koba SE]

Charity and the good will of people will cater to the needs of the disabled. ALso there are things called families (its funny that socialism doesnt work because men are 'greedy and selfish').

[Leopard]

No, it is not the 'states' role to committ a wrong against other humans in order to try to rectify a fact of nature. We humans need our rights protected, not abused, by the state - that is the purpose.

In regards to the plight of the disabled (or any other person which is unable to survive by its own labors), I do think that charity can easily step up to the plate on these issues. Sure, the folks will not be living in castles, but I think that it is rather easy to provide minimal standards of living for those who can't do for themselves.

[avalanche]

Fine - if all goes well charity would fill the gap.

But what if it didn't? Would these people be left to die?

[Apollos]

The church will care for it's own first and then for the others in society with needs such as that. This would be far easier if the government didn't take 25% of our income that could go in part to the church's work.

[Einherjar]

I do not see why people should be obliged in helping others especially when they had nothing to do with the state of the person in need. A system based on the possible occurance of calamities will turn into a calamity itself.

[Steven_K]

This assumption of charity is one of the largest flaws with libertarian theory. The whole point (and also origin of government programs) is that charity is unreliable and therefore cannot be an integral part of any fair system of justice that one would reasonably choose. I have absolutely nothing against charity, but I also see it as flawed to think that it can amount to any form of safety net because it is only conjecture that can make it applicable to all people. It is just as conceivable that charity would be unsuccessful as it is that charity would be successful, and this uncertainty comes from the fact that charity is not driven by any overall sense of justice. Government safety nets, on the other hand, are driven by an overall sense of justice and so have a mission to guarantee total coverage for a group of people.

Much can be said of tacit consent with regards to government programs (driving on government paved streets etc), but I think a more illuminative way to look at it is: would you rather have the potential fate of a disabled person with no support or would you rather the guarantee of support even if that means being forced to pay a certain amount of money into the system. Unfortunately, choices cannot be made in the womb, but since we are born into societies that have given us that guarantee we have a post-birth responsibility to pay back our insurance, and to build the insurance for the yet born, through taxes. Remember, in all likelihood we could have been born disabled and would have only took from the system, rather than contributing.

This is not to say I think the current system is perfect (or even very good), but only that there are strong underlying principles, stronger than that of a libertarian system. Reform should therefore be directed at improvements, not a radical change to a societal/economic system with a very limited sense of justice, one that does not take into account the randomness of fate in the human experience.

[avalanche]

I agree with Stephen.

To the others, I firstly reiterate my point in the OP - that I am exploring the situation where charitable donations, for whatever reasons, do not cover the expenses of looking after the disabled. So let's continue with that assumption for the purposes of this thread - let's talk about the situation where there is a lack of people donating to charities for the disabled.

Secondly, I ask this question: isn't theft (in the form of coerced taxation) morally justified if the benefits to aggregate happiness clearly outweigh the costs of a small reduction in aggregate liberty? To put it another way: what is your moral basis for arguing that the state collecting a few pounds from everybody who earns a certain income is morally worse than reducing disabled people to the status of street beggars?

[Ombrageux]

But what if it didn't? Would these people be left to die?

In a word: yes.

its funny that socialism doesnt work because men are 'greedy and selfish'

You are absolutely right. And I'm not being sarcastic, most libertarians will contradict themselves in this manner all the time. Although one argument I have heard is that human selfishness is not innate to man but caused by the state. (Rousseau essentially posits this as well) I think it's largely bull.

[Leopard]

avalanche:

To the others, I firstly reiterate my point in the OP - that I am exploring the situation where charitable donations, for whatever reasons, do not cover the expenses of looking after the disabled. So let's continue with that assumption for the purposes of this thread - let's talk about the situation where there is a lack of people donating to charities for the disabled.

by discounting the ability of charity to step up, then you have biased the entire conclusion - the only conclusion you can draw is that the state is necessary. Tell me something: we currently have a welfare state, how is it doing currently to provide for the homeless and indigent and disabled? I think THAT is the standad that need to be beat by charities - NOT perfection, which is unattainable.

Secondly, I ask this question: isn't theft (in the form of coerced taxation) morally justified if the benefits to aggregate happiness clearly outweigh the costs of a small reduction in aggregate liberty? To put it another way: what is your moral basis for arguing that the state collecting a few pounds from everybody who earns a certain income is morally worse than reducing disabled people to the status of street beggars?

no, theft is not morally justified as it is, in itself, an immoral act. There is no way of comparing happiness or utility between people from an outside perspective. You cannot say that taking $5 from this 'rich' person and giving it to this 'poor' person somehow increases the net happiness level or whatever. One thing we do know is that the theft of $5 is wrong AND does decrease that persons happiness or whatever. The giving part is more indeterminate, but still, no way to compare the two.

Now, take a charitable transaction: the giver willingly donates $5 and is obviously 'happy' about it, it 'feels' good, and the receiver is a bit different than the receiver of the previous stolen funds - this $5 represents the actual faith and belief in him as a person FROM another person, the government $5 is like an arranged marriage - 'Does she really love me or did she just do it because she had to?'

I ask you this: a person in the forest, is it 'moral' for him to die because he cannot provide for himself? Even though 2 miles away is another person who is successful at providing for themselves and thus is able to survive and his family thrive? How is it moral to take from someone who has figured out how to survive, crippling them a bit in a way, and give it to someone who, for whatever reason, is unable to cope in this world that seeks to kill us all, at all times?

You will find more than a few major changes that come about from the removal of the welfare state: more value and dependence upon families and friends - a tightening of social bonds, more community involvement and interest in one's neighbors, more ability to be charitable AND more social pressure to do so as well because the excuse of 'the government does it anyways with my money' is dissolved. Charity is not just organizations, it is family, friends, neighbors, and village as well. Not to mention shopkeepers and businessmen - you will find folks to be alot more charitable if they are not constantly subjected to the government taking their earnings right out of their pocket everyday.

[Apollos]

Although one argument I have heard is that human selfishness is not innate to man but caused by the state. (Rousseau essentially posits this as well) I think it's largely bull.

I agree. That's a lot of non-sense. Selfishness is just part of unregenerate humanity.

[Steven_K]

by discounting the ability of charity to step up, then you have biased the entire conclusion - the only conclusion you can draw is that the state is necessary. Tell me something: we currently have a welfare state, how is it doing currently to provide for the homeless and indigent and disabled? I think THAT is the standad that need to be beat by charities - NOT perfection, which is unattainable.

The point is that it is pure conjecture that charity could take up the slack, so to say. In the pre-welfare state situation, they certainly did not. But, what you fail to see is that it is not a matter of utility but justice. It cannot be called just when that protection is haphazard and unreliable. Charity could be potentially more useful, but it could also be potentially less useful, the problem is there is nothing intrinsic to charity to make it strive for completeness. Government, on the other hand, since it is intentionally created and shaped and so can have justice, as it can be created with the mission of complete charity intrinsic to it. Neither is going to be perfect, but the imperfection of one is no argument for another that in would be inferior.

no, theft is not morally justified as it is, in itself, an immoral act

A) On what grounds?
B) As my post above went into some detail on, the issue isn't theft in itself but consent. Most people pay their taxes willingly. Those who don't are in effect contemplating theft from a social system from which they have benefited.

Now, take a charitable transaction: the giver willingly donates $5 and is obviously 'happy' about it, it 'feels' good, and the receiver is a bit different than the receiver of the previous stolen funds - this $5 represents the actual faith and belief in him as a person FROM another person, the government $5 is like an arranged marriage - 'Does she really love me or did she just do it because she had to?'

And of course people can still give to charity in a welfare state if they want those feelings. The happiness one gets from giving to charity, though, would not outweigh the potential for many people to fall through the cracks as would happen under a charity system. Welfare states are not just about giving or creating happiness; they are about creating insurance all people within a society. You have to step back from that simple psychological utilitarianism as that will not lend itself to building or justifying a social system.

I ask you this: a person in the forest, is it 'moral' for him to die because he cannot provide for himself? Even though 2 miles away is another person who is successful at providing for themselves and thus is able to survive and his family thrive? How is it moral to take from someone who has figured out how to survive, crippling them a bit in a way, and give it to someone who, for whatever reason, is unable to cope in this world that seeks to kill us all, at all times?

Yet another interesting assumption imbedded in libertarianism: the anti-social nature of man. It’s not the person who fails to support themselves but their children who need to be and are the concern of the state. The children never 'failed' at anything, yet they are already in a position of failure. The reason they will later pay taxes is that the state should/will then step in and bring them up to a level playing field. Through this system, they have ensured a proper starting point for them, with the insurance fees for that are paid retroactively.

You will find more than a few major changes that come about from the removal of the welfare state: more value and dependence upon families and friends - a tightening of social bonds, more community involvement and interest in one's neighbors, more ability to be charitable AND more social pressure to do so as well because the excuse of 'the government does it anyways with my money' is dissolved.

Any simple analyses of the 'psychological' characteristics of capitalism, especially its core interest of consumption, will reveal an opposite phenomenon. When materialist acquisition becomes the ideal and becomes what constitutes our reality, social bonds become beholden to it. As well, consumption has a somatizing and conforming influence on all society (due to the profitability of ‘sameness’), subduing achievement and greatness as they have always been known. Bureaucratic government exists as a result of a profit-focused society, not in spite of it or in contrast to it.

[Noumenon]

Part of the problem with welfare statists is that they assume the government is like a benevolent dictator. It's not. In most cases we are talking about having welfare in a democracy of some sort. That means that government policies are largely dependent on "the will of the people." So lets assume that the population cares enough about the poor and disabled for the politicians to try win their votes with welfare programs. Well if they care that much, wouldn't they just give to charity instead if the option of government coercion wasn't available to them?

Welfare is by no means a guarantee in any democracy. No government policy is a guarantee. They are dependent on the desires of the population. Charity is dependent on the desires of the population. I don't see how one is more reliable than another. Charity, however, is more moral since it doesn't require coercion.

[Noumenon]

less useful, the problem is there is nothing intrinsic to charity to make it strive for completeness. Government, on the other hand, since it is intentionally created and shaped and so can have justice, as it can be created with the mission of complete charity intrinsic to it.

There is nothing intrinsic to government to keep it from straying from that mission, if it ever had that mission in the first place. Nothing except the desires of the population. And if the population cares about the disabled and the poor, then there will be charities whose mission it is to help the poor and disabled in a just and fair way.

As my post above went into some detail on, the issue isn't theft in itself but consent. Most people pay their taxes willingly. Those who don't are in effect contemplating theft from a social system from which they have benefited.

Wrong - you've got cause and effect backwards. Taxes come before the government programs. You have to fund them before they exist. So if I pay taxes, though unwillingly, I am justified in benefitting from the social system that I helped pay for. Its like if a thief is continuously stealing your money, and uses the money to buy a bike. He then offers you a ride on the bike. Of course you're entitled to ride the bike, you paid for it. But you still didn't give up your money willingly. Does your unwillingness to pay, combined with the fact that you used the bike, mean that you are contemplating theft from the thief?

[futuristic]

In my view, the argument of charities being “unreliable” is no more valid than the claim that the market is “unreliable”. Indeed, there is no guarantee, for example, that enough clothes will be produced and yet nobody is walking naked, which is not the case in some poor countries. Even the homeless are dressed quite well and have brand new umbrellas. And they might also have homes if some bureaucrats did not forget to impose land-value tax. The market can satisfy any need backed by enough money. Experience shows that the state is capable of satisfying needs not yet backed by enough money but the quality of the service is shitty and doesn’t improve with time, even after money is already there. This is because there is no “invisible hand” to direct bureaucrats the right way. The quality gap between services provided by the state and those provided by the market grows constantly. Anything that the state is doing is of shitty quality, from national defense to maintaining infrastructure to welfare to postal services to healthcare and education. As this quality gap grows the pressure for privatization and demonopolization increases and eventually state controlled sectors are privatized and deregulated, usually much later than they should be. Social security is in no way special. There is a clear need in it. Everyone on this forum wants it. So I see no reason for this need to remain unsatisfied provided it’s backed by enough money.

[Steven_K]

There is nothing intrinsic to government to keep it from straying from that mission, if it ever had that mission in the first place.

Well, of course not when all you are talking about is 'government' in some mysterious sense. If you are talking about a liberal democracy, then there is something to keep it from straying from that mission: the public. This is part of the necessity of a well-structured, active and participatory liberal democracy. Only in co-existence with that can a functioning welfare state exist. I don't think that a well-structured liberal democracy truly exists in Canada, and following from that I don't think that a functioning welfare state exists. The difference between the government and the market is that in government the public can make loud and clear value statements and can express their moral aspirations actively. The reality is that consensus won't be created, but if those opposing these welfare initiatives cannot gain proper traction then perhaps there is a problem with their position and how their position is expressed.

And if the population cares about the disabled and the poor, then there will be charities whose mission it is to help the poor and disabled in a just and fair way.

Charities, unless they expand to the size of a government, can be neither fair nor just. They can be nice and useful, but they cannot be fair by any definition of the word, as they will not have the ability or the will to create complete coverage for everyone that is born into a geographic area, the only situation in which coverage is fair. Really, lets get some perspective: will welfare subsidize education for all poor students? Will it give income assistance to all single mothers? Will it ensure bare minimums of nutrition and health for all citizens? Of course not, the scale of those are beyond the means of charities.

Welfare is by no means a guarantee in any democracy. No government policy is a guarantee. They are dependent on the desires of the population

.

Well, that's given, but once they are created by the desires of the population only something as extensive as a government program (that is, applicable and available to all born into a geographic area) can be called just. Charities may also fulfill what people want, but not in a just way.

Wrong - you've got cause and effect backwards. Taxes come before the government programs.

To take it hypothetically, the first people to pay taxes are the ones who consented politically to the government program, and so consented to the resulting taxes. All subsequent generations benefited from that program upon birth and so owe money to continue the program because of that. I would compare it to the duty one owes one's parents in their old age, albeit in a much more distant and abstracted form, one with less or no emotional content.

Does your unwillingness to pay, combined with the fact that you used the bike, mean that you are contemplating theft from the thief?

Now, if that thief owned the bike before you were born and since you were a child it was a necessity that you used the bike, but you were then unwilling to pay for that use since you did not really consent as a child, then I would say that approaches contemplating theft from the thief.

The market can satisfy any need backed by enough money.

So what about needs without any profit incentive, such as care for the disabled? If someone is born disabled without parents who have the means to support them, how does the market then step in and support them? Out of the goodness of its heart?

Everyone on this forum wants it.

I don't want it personally, nor do I need it personally. I want it for those who don’t have the means to log onto this forum and say it theirself.

[futuristic]

The difference between the government and the market is that in government the public can make loud and clear value statements and can express their moral aspirations actively.

And in the market the public can in addition empower their “value statements” with $$$ (provided they have some $$$, of course), which has proven to work much better. In addition a gov’t is a monopoly and income of officials doesn’t depend on how well they please their voters but rather on how well they please their “sponsors”. Plus, a gov’t is intentionally made weak by breaking it down to 3 branches and complicating and making inefficient its decision making process, so due to its inherent weakness it can’t do the job well. An intentionally disintegrated monopolistic entity full of internal tensions caused by conflicts of interests can’t be better than cohesive and competing with each other for-profit organizations.

The reality is that consensus won't be created, but if those opposing these welfare initiatives cannot gain proper traction then perhaps there is a problem with their position and how their position is expressed.

The problem is the army of slaves who view the state as their master. It really sucks to be a slave but it’s yet more frightening to imagine being free...

Really, lets get some perspective: will welfare subsidize education for all poor students? Will it give income assistance to all single mothers? Will it ensure bare minimums of nutrition and health for all citizens? Of course not, the scale of those are beyond the means of charities.

Will charities give the needy warm clothes? Yes, they will and they already do so. So why wouldn’t they give them the other things?

Charities may also fulfill what people want, but not in a just way.

Instead of the “just” or “fair” I would care more of absolute standards of living of the most poor.

So what about needs without any profit incentive, such as care for the disabled? If someone is born disabled without parents who have the means to support them, how does the market then step in and support them? Out of the goodness of its heart?

You don’t get it. You are the one who wants something to happen. If you really want it to happen you would be willing to pay something for it. And if you not alone the market will deliver. You might see my post about for-profit churches. Those are flush with money. They have resources to provide for the needy and they do so to improve their image. They would then make money selling DVD’s with sermons. They would sell many more DVD’s if they have a good image so it makes sense for them to spend some money helping the needy. All is needed for this to work is enough wealth in the society. You may say it’s a kind of throwing a bone to a dog but the fact is that the gov’t throws a much smaller bone to us. Due to competition this bone would be getting bigger with time. And keep in mind that the number of those in the poverty trap will be steadily decreasing if the state is gone. The state intentionally sustains an army of the poor and dependent to pretend that it cares for them, to justify own existence because someone has to care for them, and to have them to vote for any decision that elites want, like for example invade an oil rich country and install a puppet government there so that energy companies could make more money. With no state the market would quickly raise the poor out of the poverty trap even though it may do so in an “unfair”, “unjust”, “unreliable”, or unequal way.

And think about a yet another option that will be possible if the state is gone. I believe it’s already economically viable for an investment group to buy a piece of land in a remote area, build a city there (think of a mix of Las Vegas and Silicon Valley) and rent and sell property to anyone out there. They would also have their own regulations in their private city. There may be multiple private cities with different policies. Some may be collectivist and some may be individualist. This may be a 2nd chance for collectivist ideologies that have already proven not to work. They might not work because the only way they could survive is via massive coercion, which is unstable and unsustainable; another reason collectivist countries failed is because being a monopoly the state did not have reasons to get better. However if the participation is voluntary and the gov’t is affected by market forces the result may amaze the world. Of course, that’s not gonna happen until we stop viewing ourselves as slaves of the state.

[Ombrageux]

And they might also have homes if some bureaucrats did not forget to impose land-value tax. The market can satisfy any need backed by enough money.

2 points:
- In this case, the disabled are presumed to be by definition incapable of having a suitable income, IE, money
- Need is a selfish thing, we're talking not about the lack of money, but the lack of sufficient "selflessness"

[substratus]

So lets assume that the population cares enough about the poor and disabled for the politicians to try win their votes with welfare programs. Well if they care that much, wouldn't they just give to charity instead if the option of government coercion wasn't available to them?

The problem there is that those with lots of money are far less charitable then those with little money. Sure, there are exceptions on both sides but many studies on the donations to charities have found that the poor give the largest percentage of their income to charity while the rich give the least. This is why welfare policies have worked better than charity.

[Todd D.]

The problem there is that those with lots of money are far less charitable then those with little money. Sure, there are exceptions on both sides but many studies on the donations to charities have found that the poor give the largest percentage of their income to charity while the rich give the least. This is why welfare policies have worked better than charity.

Well that's just silly. In fact, the entire argument behind Progressive Taxation relies on the theory of diminishing marginal returns apply to money. So, while the "poor" (though I question how poor they really are if they are giving to charity) may give a larger percentage of their income, it's silly to assume that it's going to be more than what the "rich" give to charity. As for the merits of each, go ask a homeless guy if he'd rather have 100 bucks from a guy who has 2 million or 5 bucks from a guy that has 30. The generocity is appreciated, but something tells me he might be friendlier to Mister Moneybags.