One of the precepts with conservative America is that America would be better if government stepped aside and left everything up to the states and private enterprises to take care of people. Then there are others who believe that private enterprise should be able to take care of everyone with the government having little if any headway into society.
While Bismark is credited with the creation of the modern welfare state, mainly because the socialists and communists offered program ideas for government. Bismark as a part of political calculus to keep the socialists and communists from taking power entertained the welfare state with a more financially conservative bend. Some credit the French monarchy with creating "really large government." However, the Roman Empire was truly the first real welfare state when we consider the nature of their agricultural redistribution program, census, and pension system.
If the welfare state has been experimented with for multiple generations in different time periods in the western tradition, is there some impetus to look at even with tribal and clan based forms of welfare as well. The Old Testament even offers some evidence of government policy towards welfare. Even the Sumerians, from what little know of their temple system, had some concept of centralized planning and welfare and education systems that were related to government. The library and scribe system under the Sumerians and the successor empires were also very big on government education system and libraries. So it seems that mankind has a long socialistic tradition when population becomes so diverse that clan and tribal arrangements become morally problematic.
So it seems when government decentralizes, you see an increase in tribe/gangs and clans or at least powerful families like the Medici and other wealthy powerful families.
So what are we offered if the choice is between dynastic familial control of an area or a centralized welfare state? Even then, when we consider the rise of the Adams family, Bush family, Kennedy family, Roosevelts, and others. Even under a war torn confederacy has strong families as well as a strong welfare state. Can we really "escape" big government and big family?
Within the private sector, nepotism is strong. Networking and mentoring are strongly encouraged in the private sector. Family businesses are set up as a dynasty with the sole purpose of maintaining control over the business.
When does merit matter? Where should forced welfarism take place? Where should charity be associated with? When is nepotism okay?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Just because welfare exists, doesn't mean merit doesn't and vice-versa.
Welfare should exist because the amount you earn is not directly proportional to merit. Not is everyone born in level playing field, nor is everyone given the same opportunities. Sometimes, ***** happens and you find yourself at the bottom of the barrel due to no fault of your own, even if you are far more skilled or far more industrious.
Yes, there will be people who will abuse the welfare system. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
Now for my opinion.
Charity should exist over welfare. For two reasons, it's voluntary, and it's compassionate.
If it's not voluntary, it's not compassionate.
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
The society that created the conditions in which you were able to profit is entitled to demand you contribute to its maintenance and upkeep.
Is this a lead in to a big Randroid third act reveal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
I also do not approve of corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Businesses should succeed or fail based on the merits of their product, and their ability to both meet supply & demand, and manage their money. They should not be sheltered from decisions that cause their business to suffer, maybe even become insolvent, by the government.
@Owl
Nice try, but no.
You have it backwards. Society did not create the conditions in which someone is able to profit.
Supply & demand is the ONLY thing that creates a profitable condition. If you had no supply of labor, no one would demand it of you. Likewise, if there was no demand for the fruit of your labor, you would not supply it.
It is government itself that has created a society that requires more taxation. It is the very circular nature of vampirism that exists in every Republic ever, and 99% of all societies ever attempted.
If there were no programs funded by the state, the state wouldn't need to tax you (well, other than pure greed).
When programs are created, funded by taxation, people who become dependent on those programs then perpetuate the need to have them, thus perpetuating the need to tax.
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
If people want milkshakes, a Restaurateur will supply them.
If the state supplies milkshakes, it will have to tax people in order to supply them.
If people depend on the state for their milkshakes, the taxation becomes necessary.
However, if they believe ONLY the State can provide milkshakes, and therefore the taxation is inherently necessary, they are incorrect.
All that being said - NO, I am NOT a Randroid.
I am NOT an anarchist. I do not even oppose taxation.
I certainly do not want private Soldiers, Police, Fire, or Prisons (which we do actually have and I find greatly harmful to prosperity).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
@ICM80 - Wasn't implying you to feel otherwise, but when we're dealing with a bleeding problem it makes more sense to go after the big bleeds first rather than the small. (And note, most subsidies aren't of the "save our business" or "bailout" variety - the grand majority is incentivized targeted tax breaks)
Especially when the viability of fixing the other (or it's need) could certainly flux when you fix the bigger bleed. It could be fixing that tightens up purse strings on those that could do voluntary welfare for example.
Oh I agree with you, but I was only going where the OP wanted this to go.
Corporate subsidies and government favoritism could be another thread altogether wouldn't you agree?
The issue I was getting at with Owl though morphs into this.
In a mechanism of supply & demand, what IS it that Government can supply?
Money, and only money. Namely, other peoples money, and money leveraged against future generations of people.
So if that is the only thing the government has a supply of, what then is the DEMAND?
The demand, from corporations, and individuals is this, they demand other peoples money.
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
You ignore scale in the modern world. The concept works fine in tiny communities where enormous sums of capital isn't necessary. It doesn't work nearly as well when the scale becomes unimaginably large.
I don't think it's possible for any private entity to create the national highway system.
Since I was only speaking of the assumption being a false dichotomy, and not of absolutes, I don't feel I was ignoring scale.
Maybe you're right that the National Hwy system would be privately impossible, but it's not a given. You're assuming it's impossible, and therefore guilty of making the same mistake.
There are enough successful toll roads in the world for me to believe "impossible" is too strong of a word.
EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?
Since I was only speaking of the assumption being a false dichotomy, and not of absolutes, I don't feel I was ignoring scale.
Maybe you're right that the National Hwy system would be privately impossible, but it's not a given. You're assuming it's impossible, and therefore guilty of making the same mistake.
I was rather talking about the proposition you wrote "If there is a demand for something, someone will supply,"
And I said that scale of the endeavor attempted matters quite a bit. Suppose the Panama Canal never got created. There would be significant demand for the Panama Canal, but it seems virtually impossible for a singular private company to achieve such an endeavor.
Or the U.S. transcontinental railroad. Another endeavor that received a tremendous amount of government assistance to complete.
These are the things that I'm talking about here. Enormously large endeavors that a single private entity cannot accomplish. It would need a number of private companies joining hands to provide the capital, material, and manpower required.[/quote]
Since I was only speaking of the assumption being a false dichotomy, and not of absolutes, I don't feel I was ignoring scale.
Maybe you're right that the National Hwy system would be privately impossible, but it's not a given. You're assuming it's impossible, and therefore guilty of making the same mistake.
I was rather talking about the proposition you wrote "If there is a demand for something, someone will supply,"
How in any way is this false?
Other than the demand for fictional items, the demand for things is always met by someone. The government being that someone often enough.
And I said that scale of the endeavor attempted matters quite a bit. Suppose the Panama Canal never got created. There would be significant demand for the Panama Canal, but it seems virtually impossible for a singular private company to achieve such an endeavor.
Or the U.S. transcontinental railroad. Another endeavor that received a tremendous amount of government assistance to complete.
These are the things that I'm talking about here. Enormously large endeavors that a single private entity cannot accomplish. It would need a number of private companies joining hands to provide the capital, material, and manpower required.
There are enough successful toll roads in the world for me to believe "impossible" is too strong of a word.
Can you give me examples of any privately created roads that match the same and complexity of any long stretch of the U.S. highway system?
Obviously I can't give you one that matches say, I-5.
However, a multitude of interconnected, yet separately private roads, can potentially function as well as one looong stretch of government road.
***EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm not sure a 5.2 mile stretch of road that's open half the year and only 9AM-5PM, and only when the weather is favorable, is a good example of a successful private road.
Well maybe you should actually READ my posts, you would have seen...
Obviously I can't give you one that matches say, I-5.
However, a multitude of interconnected, yet separately private roads, can potentially function as well as one looong stretch of government road.
And Skyline, while small, and limited, is still successful for it's intended purpose, which is a scenic byway.
Now, one more time, and hopefully you don't screw this up again Tiax,
**********EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?**********
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Well, the majority of your other examples fall into various categories which do not meet the request for examples of privately-created roads. Some are publicly created and publicly controlled (such as the CBBT), some are publicly created but have been leased to private investors (such as described in this link: http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/indiana-toll-road-model-privatization.html), others are created in public/private partnership such as Ontario 407, and Australia's projects. A few of the remaining links are merely descriptions of the concept of a toll road. This leaves precious little in the way of relevant examples. None of them really give any evidence that a series of private toll roads could be created that would mirror the public highway system - all of the examples are either dinky private roads not meant for general transportation, or publicly planned roads that have private investors.
The CBBT was not publicly built, or publically operated.
Private investors BOUGHT (with private money) the bonds from the CBC, then built the CBBT, and the tolls were pledged to the PRIVATE investors to recoup the money they spent BUYING the bonds from the CBC.
Do your homework.
"The Commission was
authorized to acquire the private ferry corporation through bond financing, improve existing ferry service and implement a new service between Virginia's Eastern Shore and the Hampton/Newport News area.
In 1956, the General Assembly authorized the Ferry Commission to explore the construction of a fixed crossing. Results of the study indicated a crossing was feasible and recommended a series of bridges and tunnels. In the summer of 1960, the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission sold $200 million in revenue bonds to private investors. Monies collected by future tolls were pledged to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. Construction contracts were awarded to Tidewater Construction Corporation; Merritt Chapman, Scott; Raymond International; Peter Kiewitt & Sons, Inc. and American Bridge Co. No local, state or federal tax money was used in the construction of the project. In April 1964 - just 42 months after construction began - the Bridge-Tunnel opened to traffic and ferry service was discontinued."
"On May 4, 1995, the Commission awarded a construction contract in the amount of $197,185,177 to a joint venture of PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. of Denver, CO, The Hardaway Company of Columbus, GA and Interbeton, Inc. of Rockland, MA, to build a second span parallel and adjacent to the original Bridge-Tunnel. The project, which expanded the two-lane facility into four lanes, included expansion of toll plazas, trestles, bridges and roadways, and maintenance and repair on the original span. The project did not include the expansion of the four manmade islands or additional tunnels. Tunnels will be constructed at a later date.
The project, financed by monies from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District and through the sale of additional revenue bonds, was completed in April, 1999. No local, state or federal tax monies were utilized for the construction costs."
Please tell me that you understand that the bonds are bought by Private investors. If you don't grasp how this stuff works, then it's your problem.
Now, for the last time, (since I will no longer discuss this Private Toll Road thing. I've more than adequately supported my POINT and position that private roads are not impossible. Not to mention that Private Roads was not the end-all-be-all of my greater point, which was that "the assumption that if the government doesn't do it, no one will", is indeed a false dichotomy. Someone would probably do it. - "The enemy of a good plan, is the dream of a perfect plan." ~Carl von Clausewitz), and if you'd be so kind Tiax as to stop being petty, and nit-picky, lets get BACK ON TOPIC.
**********EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?**********
Yes, I understand what bond issuing is. Just because the government issues bonds and pays back investors does not magically transform the CBBT into a private project. The project was envisioned by government, planned by government, government issued bonds to fund it, government collects toll revenue and uses it to pay back those bonds, government awarded the construction contracts, government oversees the operation of the bridge, government determines when the bridge is closed, and the list goes on.
I'm not being petty or nit-picking, you're just simply not providing evidence for the claim that private roads could supplant public road networks. Simply noting that toll roads exist does not demonstrate that claim. Not least of all because there is much more to road construction than simple funding.
When people choose to be charitable, the *popular* forms of charity are going to be more likely to receive funds at the detriment of others, whereas welfare is generally less discriminating amongst the needy. Charity is often misdirected, and is often the target of scams.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?**********
Some of the original American thinkers on education felt that it was the point of government to pay for education as far as a person could go intellectually based on merit. That sort of thing. That's one interpretation of "meritorious welfare" we could also define that as benefits for soldiers and beyond their contractual obligations like public housing.
The metrics are often fuzzy because of temporal and socio-cultural trends and political ideology.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
When people choose to be charitable, the *popular* forms of charity are going to be more likely to receive funds at the detriment of others, whereas welfare is generally less discriminating amongst the needy. Charity is often misdirected, and is often the target of scams.
Even if charity didn't replace welfare, welfare may still end.
The existence or prevalence of one does not determine the existence or prevalence of the other.
Take an TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd argue that the welfare programs most certainly would end. Possibly, no one will be charitable either. However, I'd be hard pressed to believe in such a situation, some people would not take in and care for others less fortunate. With food, shelter, or defense.
In this sense, I'd argue welfare is more vulnerable to elimination than charity.
As far as charity being scams or more susceptible to waste and fraud - I'd argue both are abused to some extent. The only difference is, a private Charity exposed as a fraud can be eliminated by the consumers/market, whereas government assistance/subsidy fraud never eliminates the government programs.
A fraudulent private charity only defrauds the voluntary contributors of their resources, it did not, and can not, harm the people who did not donate. Whereas fraud in government assistance harms all people who were taxed. This is why a voluntary system is better.
If I don't want to donate to ASPCA, I don't have to. Then if ASPCA uses some of its donations for CEO trips to Vegas and snorting drugs, they didn't defraud me of anything.
However, I can't refuse to pay my taxes. Then, if the government spends some of that tax revenue on bogus expenses, or gives it to people who are defrauding the service, I have been defrauded of something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
It should be added that for most people, paying taxes is also voluntary. You most likely have the means to move to a tax paradise and apply for citizenship, after all.
I also do not approve of corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Businesses should succeed or fail based on the merits of their product, and their ability to both meet supply & demand, and manage their money. They should not be sheltered from decisions that cause their business to suffer, maybe even become insolvent, by the government.
If there were no programs funded by the state, the state wouldn't need to tax you (well, other than pure greed).
When programs are created, funded by taxation, people who become dependent on those programs then perpetuate the need to have them, thus perpetuating the need to tax.
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
I can see it. "Mr Ca$h's Funhouse - Come here and suck dick for your welfare checks." "Cut & Slice Organ Bank - Offering special rate of $300 for kidneys tonight!"
Hyperbole aside, the issue here is that there are people dependent on charity/welfare to survive in any society. People with chronic diseases and birth defects are obvious examples, but it goes further than that to old people and those severely injured for whatever reason. There simply is no profit in catering to these people, even though they have a high demand for things such as food, lodging and protection. This situation will only get worse if you eradicate the government, for without subsidies for farmers the price of food will enjoy explosive growth.
By your logic there would be a profit in disassembling the slums near Indian cities, but I do not see that happening any time soon. Trades require two sides, both of which want something the other side has. These slums have nothing other than uneducated people in poor physical condition, which there isn't a great demand of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
'Welfare' is a loaded term, because when people say 'welfare', they don't literally mean the actual TANF welfare program. They mean a selective number of social programs that they've chosen to mean 'welfare' that benefit their argument. So get your definitions straight, are we talking about GOP Talking points (and which year and which GOP member, as it varies), or we talking about socialist programs?
Some Charity facts to begin with from the National Philanthropic Trust. Welfare (TANF) spending is about $6 billion, while charitable giving in the US in 2012 was $316 billion, meaning the Federal goverment only spends about .02% (rounding up) of what the American public gives freely. In that respect, it is certainly possible that charity could replace welfare. The problem is that charity is unfocused and unreliable. The funding involved is entirely dependent on donations, and that funding goes to the most popular causes. That means that the charities that succeed are the ones that can sell themselves, not the ones that are most likely to help people. It could be that saving a rare bird in South American gets all the funding while families have to live on the street*. In charity, people are 'shopping' for the program that makes them feel best, not the most efficient or effective one. Because of this, charity can never effectively take the place of welfare (or other entitlement programs) because it naturally lacks focus and consistency and the incentive for dollars skews towards the trending and popular and the charities that make the donors feel good.
I think there is definitely a value in welfare programs, or at least entitlement programs. I'd rather discuss them on a case-by-case basis than in general terms, however, because all programs are not created equal.
* Homelessness is an entirely separate issue, and I understand that it's a lot more complicated that just living on the street, but that would lead us off topic here so I'm leaving it on this.
As far as charity being scams or more susceptible to waste and fraud - I'd argue both are abused to some extent. The only difference is, a private Charity exposed as a fraud can be eliminated by the consumers/market, whereas government assistance/subsidy fraud never eliminates the government programs.
'Never' is a big word, plenty of countries are cutting entitlements. Both kinds of programs are driven by popularity, the difference is that a government entitlements are stable. Sure, they both have waste and abuse, and they're hard to get rid of, but that also means that they're not as subject to the immediate winds of popularity. That was kind of the point when we established a legislative branch and checks and balances, we didn't want our efforts to be subject to the immediate and fickle nature of public opinion.
In addition to being 'able' to get rid of bad Charities, it also means that popularity entirely dictates how charity dollars are spent. The most efficient and effective charity in the world may have to shutter overnight because a charity for blind Pomeranians with good PR showed up and is in vogue.
A fraudulent private charity only defrauds the voluntary contributors of their resources, it did not, and can not, harm the people who did not donate. Whereas fraud in government assistance harms all people who were taxed. This is why a voluntary system is better.
If I don't want to donate to ASPCA, I don't have to. Then if ASPCA uses some of its donations for CEO trips to Vegas and snorting drugs, they didn't defraud me of anything.
By extension, then, wouldn't any fraud in any government program defraud you? Should we make taxation entirely voluntary then? Maybe the military should be a private militia funded through donations? I really don't understand the logic of this, because the extension makes all government harmful... you know, except for the alternative.
It's far more useful to take programs individually and understand that anything with a human element is going to have some fraud and abuse. The problem is there aren't any statistics on the subject that aren't heavily skewed in one direction or another.
Quote from IcecreamMan80 »
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
So it's a false dichotomy because the free market will magically supply something? You know what the free market solution is to poverty? Shantytowns, starvation and a de facto underclass. That's the logical conclusion, and that is exactly how society has always worked, we've just found various ways to rationalize poor people being poor so that we can feel morally superior by not being them.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
It's very simply marketing as well. You see a can for donations at a checkout lane, place one with a homeless person on it saying "Please help me get treatment for <insert mental disorder here>" and the other with a cute kid that says "Help me fight cancer." The kid with cancer is going to have the lion's share, while the homeless person will be lectured about personal responsibility and the like. When libertarians who understand that issue look at rare diseases and areas that donations aren't covering, are more willing to use public money for those specific issues. It comes down to that the market cannot provide for everything, so we have experimented with thousands of years for charity and having the government.
The Sumerians had a welfare system, the Romans have a welfare system, and on and on. This far before Bismark was involved and created the modern welfare state in order to keep the socialists and communists out of power.
At this point, we've found that government is a preferred tool to solve some specific problems, the question now is how to use that tool for that place in time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
While Bismark is credited with the creation of the modern welfare state, mainly because the socialists and communists offered program ideas for government. Bismark as a part of political calculus to keep the socialists and communists from taking power entertained the welfare state with a more financially conservative bend. Some credit the French monarchy with creating "really large government." However, the Roman Empire was truly the first real welfare state when we consider the nature of their agricultural redistribution program, census, and pension system.
If the welfare state has been experimented with for multiple generations in different time periods in the western tradition, is there some impetus to look at even with tribal and clan based forms of welfare as well. The Old Testament even offers some evidence of government policy towards welfare. Even the Sumerians, from what little know of their temple system, had some concept of centralized planning and welfare and education systems that were related to government. The library and scribe system under the Sumerians and the successor empires were also very big on government education system and libraries. So it seems that mankind has a long socialistic tradition when population becomes so diverse that clan and tribal arrangements become morally problematic.
So it seems when government decentralizes, you see an increase in tribe/gangs and clans or at least powerful families like the Medici and other wealthy powerful families.
So what are we offered if the choice is between dynastic familial control of an area or a centralized welfare state? Even then, when we consider the rise of the Adams family, Bush family, Kennedy family, Roosevelts, and others. Even under a war torn confederacy has strong families as well as a strong welfare state. Can we really "escape" big government and big family?
Within the private sector, nepotism is strong. Networking and mentoring are strongly encouraged in the private sector. Family businesses are set up as a dynasty with the sole purpose of maintaining control over the business.
When does merit matter? Where should forced welfarism take place? Where should charity be associated with? When is nepotism okay?
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Welfare should exist because the amount you earn is not directly proportional to merit. Not is everyone born in level playing field, nor is everyone given the same opportunities. Sometimes, ***** happens and you find yourself at the bottom of the barrel due to no fault of your own, even if you are far more skilled or far more industrious.
Yes, there will be people who will abuse the welfare system. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't exist.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
Now for my opinion.
Charity should exist over welfare. For two reasons, it's voluntary, and it's compassionate.
If it's not voluntary, it's not compassionate.
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There's a bigger argument to be had on welfare before even worrying about the individual scale.
The society that created the conditions in which you were able to profit is entitled to demand you contribute to its maintenance and upkeep.
Is this a lead in to a big Randroid third act reveal?
I also do not approve of corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Businesses should succeed or fail based on the merits of their product, and their ability to both meet supply & demand, and manage their money. They should not be sheltered from decisions that cause their business to suffer, maybe even become insolvent, by the government.
@Owl
Nice try, but no.
You have it backwards. Society did not create the conditions in which someone is able to profit.
Supply & demand is the ONLY thing that creates a profitable condition. If you had no supply of labor, no one would demand it of you. Likewise, if there was no demand for the fruit of your labor, you would not supply it.
It is government itself that has created a society that requires more taxation. It is the very circular nature of vampirism that exists in every Republic ever, and 99% of all societies ever attempted.
If there were no programs funded by the state, the state wouldn't need to tax you (well, other than pure greed).
When programs are created, funded by taxation, people who become dependent on those programs then perpetuate the need to have them, thus perpetuating the need to tax.
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
If people want milkshakes, a Restaurateur will supply them.
If the state supplies milkshakes, it will have to tax people in order to supply them.
If people depend on the state for their milkshakes, the taxation becomes necessary.
However, if they believe ONLY the State can provide milkshakes, and therefore the taxation is inherently necessary, they are incorrect.
All that being said - NO, I am NOT a Randroid.
I am NOT an anarchist. I do not even oppose taxation.
I certainly do not want private Soldiers, Police, Fire, or Prisons (which we do actually have and I find greatly harmful to prosperity).
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Especially when the viability of fixing the other (or it's need) could certainly flux when you fix the bigger bleed. It could be fixing that tightens up purse strings on those that could do voluntary welfare for example.
Corporate subsidies and government favoritism could be another thread altogether wouldn't you agree?
The issue I was getting at with Owl though morphs into this.
In a mechanism of supply & demand, what IS it that Government can supply?
Money, and only money. Namely, other peoples money, and money leveraged against future generations of people.
So if that is the only thing the government has a supply of, what then is the DEMAND?
The demand, from corporations, and individuals is this, they demand other peoples money.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You ignore scale in the modern world. The concept works fine in tiny communities where enormous sums of capital isn't necessary. It doesn't work nearly as well when the scale becomes unimaginably large.
I don't think it's possible for any private entity to create the national highway system.
Maybe you're right that the National Hwy system would be privately impossible, but it's not a given. You're assuming it's impossible, and therefore guilty of making the same mistake.
There are enough successful toll roads in the world for me to believe "impossible" is too strong of a word.
EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I was rather talking about the proposition you wrote "If there is a demand for something, someone will supply,"
And I said that scale of the endeavor attempted matters quite a bit. Suppose the Panama Canal never got created. There would be significant demand for the Panama Canal, but it seems virtually impossible for a singular private company to achieve such an endeavor.
Or the U.S. transcontinental railroad. Another endeavor that received a tremendous amount of government assistance to complete.
These are the things that I'm talking about here. Enormously large endeavors that a single private entity cannot accomplish. It would need a number of private companies joining hands to provide the capital, material, and manpower required.[/quote]
Can you give me examples of any privately created roads that match the same and complexity of any long stretch of the U.S. highway system?
How in any way is this false?
Other than the demand for fictional items, the demand for things is always met by someone. The government being that someone often enough.
Again, difficult, or complicated =/= impossible.
Obviously I can't give you one that matches say, I-5.
However, a multitude of interconnected, yet separately private roads, can potentially function as well as one looong stretch of government road.
http://www.cbbt.com/schedule.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_and_Lancaster_Turnpike
http://www.equinoxmountain.com/skylinedrive_index.php
http://www.landlinemag.com/Magazine/2006/July/News/toll-hogs.aspx
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/toll_rds.htm
***EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It's not even the only one I posted, smdh
Are we going to nitpick one of the several links of information related to toll roads I linked, or get back to the subject?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
And Skyline, while small, and limited, is still successful for it's intended purpose, which is a scenic byway.
Then, after you read and comprehend the above quote from my previous posts, and use critical thinking skills, you would make the choice to not purposefully be a sarcastic, petty, nit-pick, forcing me to do any more link dumping than I already did.
http://www.kapsch.net/us/ktc/downloads/reference/Kapsch-KTC-SS-AU_Toll_Road_Network?lang=en-US
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/indiana-toll-road-model-privatization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_Atlas_Roads
http://arvada.org/transportation/facts-about-toll-roads
And before you jump to any conclusions,
http://www.texasturf.org/2012-06-01-03-09-30/latest-news/86-public-private-partnerships/188-cintra-gets-its-claws-on-i-35-in-dfw
http://www.examiner.com/article/cintra-s-credit-woes-speed-limit-hike-adjacent-to-toll-road-spell-trouble
NO, I am not sugar coating anything. These systems can have major issues, but my POINT is that it is not IMPOSSIBLE, even if it's hard to do.
Hell, the government roads fall apart and waste money too. It's not like the state managed roads and highways are awesome. Have you driven through Fresno?
Now, one more time, and hopefully you don't screw this up again Tiax,
**********EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?**********
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Private investors BOUGHT (with private money) the bonds from the CBC, then built the CBBT, and the tolls were pledged to the PRIVATE investors to recoup the money they spent BUYING the bonds from the CBC.
Do your homework.
"The Commission was
authorized to acquire the private ferry corporation through bond financing, improve existing ferry service and implement a new service between Virginia's Eastern Shore and the Hampton/Newport News area.
In 1956, the General Assembly authorized the Ferry Commission to explore the construction of a fixed crossing. Results of the study indicated a crossing was feasible and recommended a series of bridges and tunnels. In the summer of 1960, the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission sold $200 million in revenue bonds to private investors. Monies collected by future tolls were pledged to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. Construction contracts were awarded to Tidewater Construction Corporation; Merritt Chapman, Scott; Raymond International; Peter Kiewitt & Sons, Inc. and American Bridge Co. No local, state or federal tax money was used in the construction of the project. In April 1964 - just 42 months after construction began - the Bridge-Tunnel opened to traffic and ferry service was discontinued."
"On May 4, 1995, the Commission awarded a construction contract in the amount of $197,185,177 to a joint venture of PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. of Denver, CO, The Hardaway Company of Columbus, GA and Interbeton, Inc. of Rockland, MA, to build a second span parallel and adjacent to the original Bridge-Tunnel. The project, which expanded the two-lane facility into four lanes, included expansion of toll plazas, trestles, bridges and roadways, and maintenance and repair on the original span. The project did not include the expansion of the four manmade islands or additional tunnels. Tunnels will be constructed at a later date.
The project, financed by monies from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District and through the sale of additional revenue bonds, was completed in April, 1999. No local, state or federal tax monies were utilized for the construction costs."
Please tell me that you understand that the bonds are bought by Private investors. If you don't grasp how this stuff works, then it's your problem.
Now, for the last time, (since I will no longer discuss this Private Toll Road thing. I've more than adequately supported my POINT and position that private roads are not impossible. Not to mention that Private Roads was not the end-all-be-all of my greater point, which was that "the assumption that if the government doesn't do it, no one will", is indeed a false dichotomy. Someone would probably do it. - "The enemy of a good plan, is the dream of a perfect plan." ~Carl von Clausewitz), and if you'd be so kind Tiax as to stop being petty, and nit-picky, lets get BACK ON TOPIC.
**********EDIT: Somehow we need to steer this back the the OP.
Sorry if I'm derailing this a bit.
Charity is voluntary, so I would rather have charity than welfare through taxation.
"Rather" is only meant to distinguish my desire if I had to choose between the two.
I do not fully understand what the OP means by merit. An allotment of welfare/charity based on merit? Merit according to what metric?**********
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm not being petty or nit-picking, you're just simply not providing evidence for the claim that private roads could supplant public road networks. Simply noting that toll roads exist does not demonstrate that claim. Not least of all because there is much more to road construction than simple funding.
When people choose to be charitable, the *popular* forms of charity are going to be more likely to receive funds at the detriment of others, whereas welfare is generally less discriminating amongst the needy. Charity is often misdirected, and is often the target of scams.
Some of the original American thinkers on education felt that it was the point of government to pay for education as far as a person could go intellectually based on merit. That sort of thing. That's one interpretation of "meritorious welfare" we could also define that as benefits for soldiers and beyond their contractual obligations like public housing.
The metrics are often fuzzy because of temporal and socio-cultural trends and political ideology.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Even if charity didn't replace welfare, welfare may still end.
The existence or prevalence of one does not determine the existence or prevalence of the other.
Take an TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd argue that the welfare programs most certainly would end. Possibly, no one will be charitable either. However, I'd be hard pressed to believe in such a situation, some people would not take in and care for others less fortunate. With food, shelter, or defense.
In this sense, I'd argue welfare is more vulnerable to elimination than charity.
As far as charity being scams or more susceptible to waste and fraud - I'd argue both are abused to some extent. The only difference is, a private Charity exposed as a fraud can be eliminated by the consumers/market, whereas government assistance/subsidy fraud never eliminates the government programs.
A fraudulent private charity only defrauds the voluntary contributors of their resources, it did not, and can not, harm the people who did not donate. Whereas fraud in government assistance harms all people who were taxed. This is why a voluntary system is better.
If I don't want to donate to ASPCA, I don't have to. Then if ASPCA uses some of its donations for CEO trips to Vegas and snorting drugs, they didn't defraud me of anything.
However, I can't refuse to pay my taxes. Then, if the government spends some of that tax revenue on bogus expenses, or gives it to people who are defrauding the service, I have been defrauded of something.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
It is also strongly biased, easily manipulated through publicity campaigns, and tends towards radical ideologies rather than actual people in need.
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
It should be added that for most people, paying taxes is also voluntary. You most likely have the means to move to a tax paradise and apply for citizenship, after all.
We can agree here.
I can see it. "Mr Ca$h's Funhouse - Come here and suck dick for your welfare checks." "Cut & Slice Organ Bank - Offering special rate of $300 for kidneys tonight!"
Hyperbole aside, the issue here is that there are people dependent on charity/welfare to survive in any society. People with chronic diseases and birth defects are obvious examples, but it goes further than that to old people and those severely injured for whatever reason. There simply is no profit in catering to these people, even though they have a high demand for things such as food, lodging and protection. This situation will only get worse if you eradicate the government, for without subsidies for farmers the price of food will enjoy explosive growth.
By your logic there would be a profit in disassembling the slums near Indian cities, but I do not see that happening any time soon. Trades require two sides, both of which want something the other side has. These slums have nothing other than uneducated people in poor physical condition, which there isn't a great demand of.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Some Charity facts to begin with from the National Philanthropic Trust. Welfare (TANF) spending is about $6 billion, while charitable giving in the US in 2012 was $316 billion, meaning the Federal goverment only spends about .02% (rounding up) of what the American public gives freely. In that respect, it is certainly possible that charity could replace welfare. The problem is that charity is unfocused and unreliable. The funding involved is entirely dependent on donations, and that funding goes to the most popular causes. That means that the charities that succeed are the ones that can sell themselves, not the ones that are most likely to help people. It could be that saving a rare bird in South American gets all the funding while families have to live on the street*. In charity, people are 'shopping' for the program that makes them feel best, not the most efficient or effective one. Because of this, charity can never effectively take the place of welfare (or other entitlement programs) because it naturally lacks focus and consistency and the incentive for dollars skews towards the trending and popular and the charities that make the donors feel good.
I think there is definitely a value in welfare programs, or at least entitlement programs. I'd rather discuss them on a case-by-case basis than in general terms, however, because all programs are not created equal.
* Homelessness is an entirely separate issue, and I understand that it's a lot more complicated that just living on the street, but that would lead us off topic here so I'm leaving it on this.
'Never' is a big word, plenty of countries are cutting entitlements. Both kinds of programs are driven by popularity, the difference is that a government entitlements are stable. Sure, they both have waste and abuse, and they're hard to get rid of, but that also means that they're not as subject to the immediate winds of popularity. That was kind of the point when we established a legislative branch and checks and balances, we didn't want our efforts to be subject to the immediate and fickle nature of public opinion.
In addition to being 'able' to get rid of bad Charities, it also means that popularity entirely dictates how charity dollars are spent. The most efficient and effective charity in the world may have to shutter overnight because a charity for blind Pomeranians with good PR showed up and is in vogue.
By extension, then, wouldn't any fraud in any government program defraud you? Should we make taxation entirely voluntary then? Maybe the military should be a private militia funded through donations? I really don't understand the logic of this, because the extension makes all government harmful... you know, except for the alternative.
It's far more useful to take programs individually and understand that anything with a human element is going to have some fraud and abuse. The problem is there aren't any statistics on the subject that aren't heavily skewed in one direction or another.
So it's a false dichotomy because the free market will magically supply something? You know what the free market solution is to poverty? Shantytowns, starvation and a de facto underclass. That's the logical conclusion, and that is exactly how society has always worked, we've just found various ways to rationalize poor people being poor so that we can feel morally superior by not being them.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's very simply marketing as well. You see a can for donations at a checkout lane, place one with a homeless person on it saying "Please help me get treatment for <insert mental disorder here>" and the other with a cute kid that says "Help me fight cancer." The kid with cancer is going to have the lion's share, while the homeless person will be lectured about personal responsibility and the like. When libertarians who understand that issue look at rare diseases and areas that donations aren't covering, are more willing to use public money for those specific issues. It comes down to that the market cannot provide for everything, so we have experimented with thousands of years for charity and having the government.
The Sumerians had a welfare system, the Romans have a welfare system, and on and on. This far before Bismark was involved and created the modern welfare state in order to keep the socialists and communists out of power.
At this point, we've found that government is a preferred tool to solve some specific problems, the question now is how to use that tool for that place in time.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>