And who gets to decide who’s deserving?
Never mind for now that the whole concept ignores the fact that only a small portion of taxes go to things like welfare, most of it goes to things that directly benefit the wealthy and middle class.
The concept of “deserving” is precisely the problem. A lot of people aren’t. So how about we stick to the “GENERAL” welfare? Free vaccines for kids, absolutely. Herd immunity. We’re not doing it for their good, we’re doing it for all of us.
Same for food. If the kids don’t eat, they don’t grow up right and tend to have social problems. Feed them all. And since they aren’t going to eat unless their parents eat, give the food stamps away. There’s no reason not to. The expense would be well justified by the social good that’s done. Take away the agriculture subsidies on the front end and you could buy enough food stamps for everybody who needs them. No big deal.
But housing? Medical care? Seriously, if you can’t keep yourself housed and enrolled in Medicaid or on Obamacare, then we’re probably all better off the sooner you win a Darwin award.
So another “let the homeless die in the streets” conservative. PLEASE keep shouting your message for all to hear, ugly has been doing so well for you guys.
Sure, a conservative who wants to expand the food stamp program. Which makes me a Marxist, according to conservatives.
I don’t believe people are going to just live without homes if you take away the subsidies. What they’ll actually do, is they’ll find cheaper places to live.
If people get sick, they can’t work, resulting in a loss of productivity, they run up medical bills they’re unlikely to ever be able to pay, leading to bankruptcys, and may die, leaving more children as wards of the state.
National health care seems like pretty much the epitome of providing for the general welfare.
Do you write soap operas? Anyway, how do you even know how much protection services would cost in a free society?
Name some examples of monopolies that have formed without the aid of government
The Mafia…
Do tell.
What would prevent monopolies from forming in a stateless society?
10,000 years of human history?
In your “free” society, people would be subject to the rule of whoever could afford to hire the largest private security force. Basically what we describe as “fuedalism”. I’m not sure why you think that is better.
11% of Federal spending is a small portion? Never mind education, Social Security, health care and other entitlements.
Yes I would consider a 1:9 ratio of “things that directly benefit the poor” to “things that directly benefit everyone” to be small, especially when you consider the indirect benefits to everyone of helping the poor.
Corporations can’t even exist without a government. You might as well ask me for an example of bad poetry that doesn’t use language.
Monopoly doesn’t require corporations. It requires a circumstance in which a specific individual or enterprise is the only supplier of a given commodity.
They could easily arise without a government, though, through force (the tinsmith conglomerate burns down rival tinsmiths’ shops), technical issues (someone invents a product that no one knows how to duplicate), or capital requirements (only one firm on earth is well-funded enough to make and sell spaceships).
Government provides another way: legal barriers to entry into the market, such as patents, licenses, or subsidies.
There are no monopolies unless a government outlaws competition. If there’s a market, it’s a given that at least two people will want to make money off it. Unless prevented by government mandate.
Do you consider the Microsoft and Intel of say 15 years ago monopolies?
Intel then did not have 100% of the market - but if they had suddenly vanished, AMD did not have the capacity to satisfy the existing market.
Intel management was very, very sensitive about acting like a monopoly also, and of people speaking as if they were a monopoly.
Or force, or technical issues, or capitalization issues. Government is just one source of monopolies, though it is a major one.
Those can create very temporary monopolies, but there’s always someone getting ready to challenge the kings. And they often succeed, which generally brings about government bailouts, which are the worst kind of anticompetitive practice the government can engage in.
Government-created ones are often temporary too. The Motion Picture Patents company failed to successfully monopolize the film industry because competitors simply moved west and violated the laws there. The government monopoly on alcohol failed when gangsters illegally brewed or imported alcohol.
I don’t think we disagree in principle, just particulars, though.
There are other things besides government that can prevent competition- if one family or company is able to acquire all the diamond mines (for example), then only one family or company will sell diamonds.
And often, government action is necessary to prevent monopolies- one company cannot acquire all the newspapers and news stations in most localities, because they are prevented by law.
Are you saying with a straight face that Standard Oil’s monopoly was created because govenment outlawed competition?