[net.politics.theory] Charity in Libertaria vs. a good welfare state

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/18/85)

In article <28200051@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>
>(Tony Wuersch)
>>/* ---------- "Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Educatio" ---------- */
>>
>>But is it true that the poor
>>and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern
>>welfare state?  Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people
>>any more generous?  Why should the absence of any health standards,
>>for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right
>>quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these
>>standards?
>
>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>Murray's "Losing Ground".  In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>it wished to help, and so far (a social-worker friend tells me) the best
>that any liberal publication has been able to do is grumble that maybe
>things would have been even worse if the welfare state hadn't been around.
>A pretty weak argument from those who have stolen billions of dollars
>ostensibly to help.

I'm glad you say "evidence" and not "good evidence".  The best the New
Republic did (and it's not entirely a liberal publication) was to smash
the data used in "Losing Ground" to pieces.  Its data was selective at its
worst -- the worst cities in the worst years, and the worst groups.

>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to 
>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>$5.  A private agency need take in only about $1.10.  Remember, we're
>talking about a society in which anybody could take people on 
>taxi rides, cut their hair, or do social work without certification
>from the state or fear that the state might shut them down without
>certification from a union, so some proportion of the poor who don't
>have jobs now would have jobs in libertaria.

A private agency need take in only about $1.10 because it has no
obligation to help everybody.  It only has to help people who make it
easy to be helped.  People who make it hard to be helped get dumped
on the government.  In Libertaria, people who make it hard to be
helped, schizophrenics being the most notable case (and there are
MILLIONS of them around, some of whom I know), still would be turned
away by private agencies.  Remember, the criteria for success for
private agencies tends to be the number of bodies they end up helping.
Any body that makes life hard on them would reduce the "success" rate.

>Of course, if you REALLY think that people a libertarian society would
>be less generous, you should bear in mind that you are saying that
>people tend to give less than a fifth voluntarily than they do under
>coercion, and that the poor have not been denied reasonable jobs
>by such things as minimum wage laws and licensure.  Not a tenable
>position.  You're also assuming that a large number of people will
>need charity -- remember Daniel Mck.'s very well-defended discussion
>of unemployment in libertaria.

Again, there are millions of schizophrenics who don't have to live in
institutions.  I don't remember Daniel's discussion.  And I really
think people in a libertarian society would be as generous as other
people with similar after-tax incomes today.  That sounds reasonable
to me.  And I don't think most people I know are very generous.

>The reason that the absence of health standards would help the poor to
>meet those the real standards of health is that the existence of a
>standard in law merely imposes a penalty for not meeting the standard
>("we arrest you because these houses you built are too small, or because
>the food you provide is too meager") but doesn't accomplish any increase
>in the amount of housing or food provided.  In other words, making it
>illegal to serve inferior food doesn't make it a requirement to serve
>good food.

Not true at the federal level.  Courts can look at the intent of
legislation, and frequently do, to guarantee that compliance with the
law does not mean violation of the intent of a law.  Also often not
true at the state level.  Often true at the local level.

>An example?  Why sure!  Just take a look at the abandonment rate of 
>buildings under rent control in New York city.  If you'd rather not
>look it up, just take a cab through Harlem sometime.  Those buildings
>with the metal sheets blocking the windows are examples.

Local problem -- the problem with housing policy is that it's defined
as a local problem, so people who want to cheat on a local law can
just move out or transfer their investment assets.  Landlords should
be forced to keep reserves for maintenance of buildings at all times
as national policy, enforced by the FBI.  Otherwise their buildings
go up for sale IMMEDIATELY.

>Another example?  Certainly.  Kidney machines are rationed and
>subsidized by the government.  There has been relatively little research
>on improving these machines because the whole thing is pretty closely
>regulated, there have also been pretty severe limits placed on access to
>those machines.  For details, see Reason Magazine, August 1984.

Boy, you're in a mess on this one.  Government pays for kidney maintenance
because most kidney disease sufferers can't afford dialysis.  So the
government created the market for kidney machines in the first place,
by making current technology affordable.

The technology is there; would you have thousands die while private
market analysts judge if investing in dialysis research is potentially
profitable?  What if they decide that it isn't?  I for one am not sure
it would be profitable on an unsubsidized basis.

And besides, government's not a bad market, either, if it operates a
proper bidding process.  Then the lowest price competitors get to sell
to government, and if there's competition, prices will go down.

>>I agree with Piotr.  I'd rather believe in people than believe in
>>libertaria anytime.
>>
>
>That's quite a statment for someone who seems to be advocating the
>welfare state.....  Do you believe in people, or do you believe in
>people with the right chains on them?

In the absence of decent moral education, I believe in people with the
right chains on them.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw