I believe that the plight of the poorest x percentile is nowhere near as desperate in a social democracy. (Indeed, many of the very poorest Europeans is actually better off in real terms than the working poor in the US.)
That may be, and I’m sure neither of us would relish the ensuing debate about what constitutes wellness and what constitutes a need should I press the issue. I noticed that in your list of basic needs, you said nothing about companions for old lonely people or corrective plastic surgery for ghastly deformed people, both of which might well be claimed as critically basic needs by those so afflicted. Nor did you mention any church for people of faith or any mode of transportation for people without cars. As Von Mises observed, when people speak of reasonable central planning, what they really mean is planning that conveniences them. And since you’ve already relegated individuals to the obscurity of myopism, there is little point in asking what recourse those on the extreme bottom of your socialized democracies have when the very force that is coercing them downward is their own government. So I guess I’ll just say that I disagree with you but would add that, given who you are, I do so with the utmost respect.
Most certainly.
In a system truly free from coercion, poverty is a personal choice. In such a system, a man’s heights are limited only by his imagination. Therefore, there is no plight.
Face it, hard-core libs: Sometimes folks fall on hard times. Through no fault of their own, they get the shitty end of the stick. It doesn’t mean they’re bums, it means they’re unfortunate. Sure there are freeloaders out there, and I tend to agree that there need to be limits placed on their abuse of aid, be it from public or private sources. But for those who fall on hard times, I simply cannot see the good in not lending them a helping hand. This idea that the poor simply choose to be poor is fatuous. At the very least, it doesn’t hold true most cases.
The consequences of being unfortunate can be dire, and if someone is left to fall too low, the negative impact on that individual, and society as a whole, can be extremely significant. Malnutrition, sub-standard education, crime, these all go hand-in-hand with extreme poverty, and whether or not we feel some individuals are deserving of “handouts”, its actually in the common interest to make sure no one lives in squalor and starvation. The social ills bred by such desperate straits have demonstrated their impact in Western industrialized nations since time immemorable. It’s not a perfect arrangement, a certain level of socialization, but it seems to beat the alternatives handily.
One idea I do think the Libs espouse, and may be viable, is the dollar-for-dollar tax deduction for charitable giving. A rather obvious basis for the idea of the need for some form of social net is the assumption that private citizens or organizations, left completely to their own devices, will not adequately meet the needs of alleviating poverty on a national scale. The hard-core libertarian philosophers reject this notion absolutely. Seems to me the dollar-for-dollar deduction scheme is a good way to at least experiment with the idea of large-scale non-government assistance. If people want to give to a certain charitable organization or organizations, and we see these organizations do as good or better of a job than public assistance, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that; but at least there’s a safety mechanism, as the needed money gets collected (and hopefully used properly) somehow. If individuals can make good choices about how to allocate money for the common good, that’s great. If they can’t, the consequences should be easy enough to recognize. Dollar-for-dollar deduction schemes appear to have some potential for providing a means of testing the Libertarian hypothesis vis. socialization.
I completely agree that people can fall on hard times, even though they are hard working and no one has coerced them. People can take well-calculated risks — and fail. I know this because I are one. 
But I make no claim that libertarianism solves any problems. It does nothing more than provide a context of peace and honesty so that the most people have the best possible chance of solving their own.
This seems to invite quantification.
Would you care to get into a pissing match about which one of us has had a tougher row to hoe in life? Like to hear about the salaries I’ve lived on working as a teacher and in homeless shelters? The image you suggest, of Libertarians as wealthy fat cats with no understanding of how life really is for the underclass would be insulting if it wasn’t so clueless.
The premise of nearly every thread on the subject on these boards is that Libertarianism is best approached by taking every idea uttered by the most extreme adherents to the philosophy and ascribing it to the whole. It is the equivalent of refusing to acknowledge to existence of any Democrats except Barbara Lee or any Republicans but John Ashcroft.
Look, I personally (IRL) know two other registered Libertarians. All of us support highways, railroads, a military, and law enforcement. All of us support some sort of education standards (in my case, tax vouchers for all students, and mandatory schooling through junior high or so). If “basic health care standards” means we don’t let people bleed to death in the streets, we all support that too. Other than the fringe, nobody seriously thinks suddenly and immediately imposing “Libertopia” is a good idea.
Where did I say that? Don’t be an asshole. I’m not interested in getting into a pissing fight about who is more unfortunate or deserving of help. I just took exception to the idea that poverty is necessarily a “choice”, and that since the poor are poor because they lack will or are content to be so, they should be denied any kind of public assistance. I’m highly skeptical about the notion of the perpetual presence of a poverty class as a justification for complete inaction on their behalf.
“Hey, there’s always been sick people, why bother treating them, right? If you’re sick you must be weak; and since this is the reality, why fight it? Look at all the doctors we’ve trained and medicines we’ve invented; yet we’re up to our eyeballs in sick people! It’s useless! People should make health their own personal responsibility, and not rely on the health care system to cure their ills, since it has obviously failed to eradicate sickness.”
That seems to be the weird logic espoused by some Libertarians regarding the poor and poverty. If you reject my analogy of poverty and sickness, claiming perhaps that illness is not a choice, I’d argue it can be as much a choice, given personal decisions made throughout life, as poverty. And sometimes people get sick for no discernable reason at all, despite impeccable habits; the same goes for poverty. In the final analysis, it’s pretty tough to discern those who had it coming from those who, if there were any justice in the world, ought to have done better. So, no, I absolutely do not want to get in a “pissing contest” over that question. Why fucking invite one? I’m perfectly willing to concede I lack the wisdom and the power to tell all the good from the bad, and I wouldn’t try. Why do the Libertarians think they can?
Duly obliged (part IV is most relevant). Plenty more examples upon request.
In a competitive game against people who are simply more skilful and adept than yourself, is losing really a “personal choice”? Did Maurice Greene choose a bronze medal since clearly he could have won gold if he was ‘more imaginative’?
I would endeavour to present my negative utilitarian worldview with rigour and clarity, in each case asking whether the word ‘suffering’ was genuinely appropriate, and I might well advocate the ‘home helps’ and NHS reconstructive surgery which the electorate does accept some fiscal responsibility for in the UK. But, agreed, this is perhaps not the place for it. I contend, just as respectfully, that elected governments can act in the common good and address genuine suffering which private charity would realistically leave unaddressed.
Oh, lordy. I know, I know. It would also be funny if it didn’t fly in the face of reality. I don’t know how many people — usually socialists with their wealth fetish — say that libertarianism is too appealing to the rich, that it affords them daunting advantages, both political and social. Only thing is, the wealthiest people in fact avoid libertarianism like a cat in a roomful of vacuum cleaners. The Libertarian Party has practically zero wealthy fat cats as members or contributors, and that’s because wealthy fat cats understand that what gives them every advantage, both political and social, is the present system of Government-Business partnership. Why support a system that can’t even grant you legislative favor so that you can compete unfairly against the upstarts? Instead, what you do is support a system that puts a Senator in your pocket. The insulting part of it is that wealth fetishists are under the false impression that neither good character nor resolute ambition can be found among the poor. These people are poor; therefore, they must be too lazy and/or stupid to climb out on their own accord.
I read your article, and the only mention of Europe (aside from references to castles and vacations) was that Western Europe had a longer life expectancy than the US. I’m not sure that that’s any confirmation that “many of the very poorest Europeans [are] actually better off in real terms than the working poor in the US”. I mean, rich people smoke, drink, overeat, and indulge in activities far more risky than the poor could even dream about, like skiing, skydiving, and bungee jumping. Moverover, I’m not sure that even finding a good source would help your case because of cum hoc ergo propert hoc. For example, it is a known fact that the life expectancy of women is seven years longer than men in the US. But using that as an argument that men should have more access to health care than women would be dubious.
Maybe. Like I (and Von Mises) said, so long as what the central planners conceive to be the “common good” happens to coincide with what is actually good for you individually, then it is for you a happy day. I guess the part that I (and he) do not understand is, why not just let people decide for themselves what they need? How is it that you are imbued with the mystical ability to discern my needs better than I am? Suppose we need a second car because my wife and I both work. May we count on your plan to provide it for us? Suppose I am a musician. Will you buy me a piano? And how much food do we need? I eat a lot more than my wife. Will your plan buy me two burgers to her one? Or do you in fact decide what we eat? Maybe you think it would be more good for us to eat broccoli than hot dogs.
Obviously, I’m poking fun at the notion of central planning, and I know that you don’t take this stuff personally. (At least, I hope you don’t.) But here is something personal, one friend to another. I challenge you to read Human Action. Yes, it is a daunting read, but you are up to it, and as an economic and social treatise, there is no more important book in existence. I’m not saying that it will convince you of anything one way or the other. But I AM saying that you will come away from it more enlightened even about your own position. Read it. It is good for you. 
Very well, Lib, I should have specified Western European social democracies, and my point was not strictly confined to life expectancies, infant mortaility and functional literacy and the like:
[quote[The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile – poorer than 90 percent of the population – have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S.[/quote]
Whether such favourable comparisons are caused by government intervention are, of course, debatable. However, the correlation is strong and the mechanism reasonable - one can ask for little more.
Again, I focus on the word suffering. Absence of healthcare, food and protection from crime or weather engender medically diagnosable suffering. Labelling absence of a second car or flat-screen TV as suffering appears to me to be an abuse of the word. We could let people ‘decide for themselves what they need’, but if I wake up freezing and hungry with a scarily painful lump somewhere and no money to address either problem, am I “deciding” that I don’t need to address them?
I’ll give Von Mises a read if I can find time. I’d suggest Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies in return if had any doubt you’d already read it!
Indeed. The people most likely to score an immediate net benefit from libertarian economics are the middle-middle and upper-middle class folks – they’re doing well enough to be net tax payers (even allowing for the value of government services received) but not well enough to game the system as it exists to their own advantage.
I’d be curious to see what would happen to charitable donations if the government didn’t provide aid to the poor and needy. I think many people would donate a lot more if they didn’t they couldn’t argue that it’s the government’s responsibility. I was a hardcore libertarian in my teens and twenties but at 35 I’ve toned it down quite a bit.
If the economic reigns are let loose, a number of institutions will form that suprisingly
take care of many social ills. The insurance industry becomes HUGE, as does consumer watchdog companies/foundations. Also, private debtor’s work prisons come to the fore.
If your interested in reading a description of how a hypothetical liberterian society might work, I suggest “The Market for Liberty” by Morris and Linda Tannahill. There are a lot of “Ooooooh yeah” moments.
I wrote a short story, Sarah’s Gold, depicting a rather bizarrely constructed family in a hypothetical libertarian society. The dirt poor family was concocted by the person who, attempting to conceive a mish-mash of conflicting interests and intertwined dispair, challenged me to write the story. “If you can make these people get along,” he had told me, “I’ll buy into your philosophy.”
You misunderstood me. I was giving you your system for the sake of argument. My question is, why not let people within the system you advocate decide for themselves what they need? You have enumerated certain needs that you consider to be important, and then when reminded of other possible needs, you conceded that they, too, might be important. So, what I’m asking you is, since your needs and my needs might conflict, and since what you say you need I might say is an abuse, and vice-versa, why is it YOUR plan that we must implement? Why can’t we implement MY plan? Or, at least, a plan into which you have no input? In other words, is it a prerequisite of whatever plan that is implemented that it meet your approval?
Well, one can only advocate what one personally considers a reasonable approach. Perhaps I could propose a workable criteria with its associated budget, and others could do the same, and we could have some kind of system whereby the most popular system was implemented? Flawed as it may be, it would surely be the least worst means of deciding policy?
Know you of such a system of government?
I sure do: Cuba comes to mind. But that still doesn’t answer my question, and if you don’t want to answer it, that’s okay. But I’d like to test out Von Mises’ theory. Is it the case that the plan YOU would prefer (this is a direct question soliciting your personal opinion — you don’t have to speak for the masses) is one that you devise as opposed to one that, say, I devise?
I was under the impression that there was no system for determining the most popular political proposal in Cuba. (At least, there wasn’t when I went - perhaps they misled me.)
ie. do you hold your opinion rather than mine?
Yes. (And note that I propose a plan which, actually, does not benefit me as much as it costs me in the long run given my current situation.)
Let us both put our proposals to the masses (say, every 4 years) and see how they fare.
Four years? Yeah, but the past four really haven’t fared very well.
Alternatively, you could implement your plan for yourself and your family — and I my plan for me and mine — today. If I run across something I can’t afford, and if I haven’t saved enough money or insured myself, I’ll ask someone of my choice for help. You do the same. After all, with so many people having so many wonderful plans, and all of them claiming that all they want to do is help, help should be as abundant as ice in the Arctic. Unless on second thought you believe that there might be actually an abundance of plans that harm people rather than do them good. But then, if that were the case, the idea of implementing the most popular one is rather cough religious fundamentalism cough scary, isn’t it?
Regarding Cuba, they have a Constitution and everything — one which, among other things — affords them individual and collective well-being:
Emphasis mine.
loopydude
[Moderator Hat ON]
DON’T call people an asshole in GD.
[Moderator Hat OFF]