Whither public libraries, in a libertarian society? Will book-lending be on a fee-for-service basis? Perhaps an annual membership card can be purchased to the local private collection. Or are we to rely on the charity of generous individuals to finance a library for their particular community? It seems to me that the privatization of libraries can only exacerbate the divisions in education between rich and poor, or between different regions of the country.
So what’ll happen to the one truly socialist institution in this country, once we’re weaned from the teat of Nanny Government? I know you libertarians like to respond to requests for specifics by saying, “We’ve never claimed to know all the details of a libertarian society; it would be up to each peaceful, honest person to decide for themselves.” But c’mon…give it a shot.
Such things remind of yesterday’s Comedy Central commentary on the Republican convention.
Something along the lines of:
“Ah. But under a Bush administration, you will be allowed to give to private charities.”
“Um. You can already give to charities…”
“But these charities will the be allowed to help people”
“Charities can already help people…”
“But it will be under a Bush administration!”
“…”
Ok, I realise the standard Libertarian argument is that, aside from the government not having the right to levy such taxes, the reason private charities (which they say are more efficiently run) don’t get as much money from people is because people are being taxed.
Dunno. Not only to I have more limited faith in people’s ability to grasp altruism on a national (rather then communal) level, but I kinda like the idea that unlike private charities, government services aren’t allowed to discriminate.
I have shown, without debate, that nations that have NO individual taxes, have no more charity than those that do. Also, the middle class, in America, with much less disposable income, still gives a higher % of its income to charity than the rich. So- “that dog don’t hunt”.
The IRS posts info on charitable deductions. AGI #15K>20K, average contibutions =$1,449, AGI 100K> 200K = 3962., ie about one fifth of what the lower AGI gives, per of AGI.
As to the nations, I went to various sites re those who have no taxes for citizens, such as Kuwait. There are reports of the poor in Kuwait hurting bad as the Kuwaitees are not as generous as their income would allow them to be.
The second is not as solid as the 1st, however, the Libt would need to show ME that the contributions in non-tax countries are way higher than those in tax countries. They were unable to. Since I am assuming the “norm”, (and have a tiny bit of info to back me up), it is up to THEM to show the “not-norm”.
It seems that a rich man is more likely to give than a poor man, but a poor man who does give is more likely to give more of what he has.
Even with this said, the results might be misleading as they are based upon the nation. It seems that some poorer states such as Mississippi [that doesn’t look right… spelling wise to me for some reason… huh…] are more likely to give what they have. But if mississippi is looked at in isolation, it’s not the rich who are giving, it’s the average person.
(same way with South Dakota and Arkansas)
So giving more of what you have may just be a regional aspect trend, more than an ecnomical class system.
George McCulley (who seems to have done the primary work on this) might have just been interperting the data in a fashion that would further his own postions. He is after all executive director at The Catalogue for Philanthropy in Boston. I’m not saying that he is wrong. But I am saying that he might have missed the larger picture (well actually the smaller) when he interperted the data.
To make the claim that the poor give more really valid, he would have to take the mean AGI of a person in state, offset who’s rich and poor from that number, then see if the trend of the poor who give, giveing more, still holds up.
If I get bored, maybe I’ll go try doing it myself… unless you can point me to a study that’s allready done this?
(sorry if I seem to be being asinine about this, it’s just that I like to explore all possiblities as far as statistics are concerned. =)
1998 1993
Percent Percent of | Percent Percent of
of HHs HH income | of HHs HH income
donated | donated
under $10k 48.2% 5.2% | 47.9% 2.7%
$10K-$20K 56.1% 3.3% | 66.9% 2.3%
$20K-$30K 61.4% 2.2% | 68.1% 2.7%
$30K-$40K 71.8% 2.1% | 81.4% 2.0%
$40K-$50K 78.8% 2.1% | 83.5% 1.3%
$50K-$75K 78.4% 2.2% | 94.0% 1.7%
75K-$100K 83.1% 1.6% | 86.8% 2.0%
$100K+ 89.1% 2.2% | 92.3% 3.2%
Yes, but his data is mostly backed up by IRS data. The data does seem to show that increasing a persons income does not increase the contributions in a direct ratio.
In order for the Libertarian Gov’t to equal, by private contributions, what is currently spent on aid, even assuming better efficiancy, the citizen of a Libt Gov’t would have to give some 50% of what he was saved in taxes. The hypothesis is that folks will be much more generous when they have more disposable income. But that is not born out by reality. Increasing the disposable income by some 30-40%, would, to all indication, only increase giving by some 10%- not enuf. Citizens of tax-free countries are not known to give any more than citizens of heavily taxed countries. So, the mathematical model, based upon the data we have, does not support the hypothesis.
I wasn’t arguing his data, I was questioning his conclusions.
Oh, I totatly agree! I wasn’t saying any of the sort about that.
The data does however, that the richer you are, the more likely you are to give somthing to charity. But that should be no suprise, because the richer you are the more likely you are to give somthing to anyone.
The data certianly does not support that the richer a person is, the more that person will give.
I was merely saying that it doesn’t nesscessarly support that the poor who do give, give a greater precentage than the rich.
I wasn’t disagring with that though =] Just the claim that,
“Also, the middle class, in America, with much less disposable income, still gives a higher % of its income to charity than the rich.”
Well, Lib, my Data source is the IRS, based on claimed charitable contibutions, so- no, for the large part.
Are you saying that the “giving” that is not to a “charity” DOES increase, proportionaly with the amount of disposable income*? Well, if you “give” enough, you can claim that person as a dependent, and the claiming of dependents is in INVERSE ratio to AGI. At the very high end of the income level, those folks almost NEVER give to non-“charities”, as they will set up a foundation that doles out the bucks to the indigent family, etc.
So, if that is your claim, I would sure like to see some cites for it.
I am saying that, given a set, S, of 1000 elements, removing 350 elements from set S leaves a set, S[sub]1[/sub], consisting of 650 elements. Do I need to provide a cite to back me up on that?
Gadarene, you made a few points toward the end of the other recent lib thread which I agree with; you said that the vast majority of people in this country like the existing social structure and don’t mind paying for it. This doesn’t seem to fit in with your OP here. If people like public libraries and don’t mind paying for them, why would they disappear if this country’s gov’t operated in a libertarian context? They wouldn’t be outlawed.
Err… are you saying that the Carnegie library is not an example of the unequal distribution of librarys?
Doesn’t that example fall a little short considering: "The Library’’s 18.91 million budget is now funded 74% by the Regional Asset District, 3.7% by Allegheny County, 16% from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a little under 1% by the City of Pittsburgh. " which are all goverment institutions.
(and of course we haven’t even touched on the fact that even if it was completly privatly funded, don’t you think you’re going to see a locus of libraries in all the large wealthy cities and not the so called “boondykes” where they’re more likely to need em anyways?)
Like you don’t now? Government naturally always favors its partnering clients (read: biggest contributors). Look at the difference between sidewalks and streetlights in poor communities versus rich ones (the former are unkept sidewalks, if any at all and poles bent from the tuggings of ugly wires; the latter are well kept sidewalks and cute little lights with underground wiring). Libraries in small towns are much different from libraries in large cities.
People will do whatever people will do. Did anybody see 60 minutes last night about the HIPP schools?
I am saying no such thing, Ted. I was merely questioning Gad’s initial implicit assertion that mean, selfish rich people aren’t going to open libraries for poor people. Andrew Carnegie opened more than 1,500 libraries in 1,400 communites across the country, all the way to California. I doubt all 1,400 of those were “wealthy cities.”
And I never said any such thing, Phil. I was questioning the apparent libertarian assumption that there will be enough rich, beneficient altruists to go around. There are a lot of libraries out there.
