The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument

[Reikoku]

Dear left-leaners of all kinds,

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:

• 50% of the USA is left-leaning
• These people want the poor to have essential services

OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.

Now let's assume you guys don't decide along with the right-wingers that you don't care about the poor, because you're better than us. Therefore, in the absence of government, you all agree to pay 'taxes' to provide essential services to those people (i.e. donate to charity). Let's say you all accept that 33% of your income is a fair amount, so we have 10% of the USA's GDP to spend on 'key' services.

Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK, and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.

You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion

This comes to £805 billion ($1.3 trillion), so not only under tax-free voluntarism could you have free health & education for 50% of the population, but you could do it to a similar standard in education and 'better' in health & welfare than the current provision in the US.

This works on the ridiculous assumptions that you'd be as inefficient as the UK government and that you'd get no support from any of us evil rich right-wingers. Whatever the state of the world, if you lefties care as much as you say you do, the poor in your country are going to be fine no matter how evil we are.

[GideonGono]

cool argument. Can I re-post it on facebook on my notes?

[Reikoku]

Sure.

[myrkul]

Very well put.

[AyeYo]

Your argument went bunk in the beginning.  Everyone benefits from social services, this is why it is only fair to make payment manditory so that everyone pays for them.  The fact that you estimated that 50% of the population is too small-minded to understand the importance of social services does not change the fact that this 50% will still benefit from them, and thus it is not a valid excuse for them to cop out of paying for them.

[myrkul]

Oh, yes, My uncle moneybags couldn't wait to get his welfare check and food stamps.

[AyeYo]

Oh, yes, My uncle moneybags couldn't wait to get his welfare check and food stamps.

Like I said, small-minded.  Let me see if I can help...


Consider for a second:

What would happen if welfare and food stamps were cancelled tomorrow?



Pro-tip history lesson:

If you don't occasionally throw the poor a bone, they'll come and take yours.

[myrkul]

Where does 'Deflection' fall on that pyramid you posted in the other thread?

The services she (I'm assuming she) stated would be paid for are:
Welfare
Free education
Free healthcare

Welfare includes food stamps, housing, and a monthly stipend.

'The Rich' do not need food stamps, they can afford to feed themselves.
they do not need subsidized housing, they can afford to buy houses.
they do not need a monthly stipend, they have their own sources of income.
they do not need free education, they can afford private schooling, or tutors.
they do not need free healthcare, they can afford doctors.

Simply put, they don't need charity. Since they are already paying for those services through other means, why should we force anyone to pay for services they do not need, nor use?

[AyeYo]

Where does 'Deflection' fall on that pyramid you posted in the other thread?

The services she (I'm assuming she) stated would be paid for are:
Welfare
Free education
Free healthcare

Welfare includes food stamps, housing, and a monthly stipend.

'The Rich' do not need food stamps, they can afford to feed themselves.
they do not need subsidized housing, they can afford to buy houses.
they do not need a monthly stipend, they have their own sources of income.
they do not need free education, they can afford private schooling, or tutors.
they do not need free healthcare, they can afford doctors.

Simply put, they don't need charity. Since they are already paying for those services through other means, why should we force anyone to pay for services they do not need, nor use?

Because they still benefit from those services.  Strain your brain hard and then go back and read my previous post - answer the question that was posed to you.  This isn't rocket science.  You don't need to be directly receiving welfare checks to be benefiting from welfare.

[myrkul]

Ahh... so your position here is that Welfare benefits the rich folks by keeping the poor folk from killing them.

Well, then it would be in their best interest to donate to those charities that are taking care of those poor people, yes? You wouldn't need to force them.

[AyeYo]

Ahh... so your position here is that Welfare benefits the rich folks by keeping the poor folk from killing them.

Well, then it would be in their best interest to donate to those charities that are taking care of those poor people, yes? You wouldn't need to force them.

Well that's one of an infinite number of reasons - actually one of the less obvious ones.  Again, just ask yourself what would happen if social services were eliminated tomorrow.  See all that chaos that would insue?  We're all benefiting from not having to deal with that higher crime, higher unemployment, all that good stuff.


And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

[myrkul]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

[AyeYo]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

[myrkul]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

No, I am quite aware that it happens regularly. What I am saying is that is wrong.

[billyjoeallen]

Free riders will always be a problem in any system. In a "progressive" system, you have a lot of poor free riders. In a corporatist system, you have a smaller number of rich free riders. In an anarcho-capitalist system, you would still have free riders, people who benefited from the assurance contracts others paid. The difference is that in ONLY an anarcho-capitalist system is there no systemic forced redistribution of wealth.  

Even then, one could argue that differing definitions of what constitutes legitimate property created conglict that could become violent, but hey- utopia is not an option.   The fact that AnCapistan wouldn't be perfect is no reason not to want it. It would be a heluva lot better than what we have now.

[billyjoeallen]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

[AyeYo]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

Welcome to the real world.  It's called an organized society.

So I guess we'll never lock up anyone, ever, for anything, because then we'd be claiming a right to kill someone because their morals are different than ours.  Murderers, rapists... you're free to gol!  Who am I to judge what is and isn't ok?

[Reikoku]

Murder and rape aren't the same as not paying taxes.

Don't take the ludicrous position that all crime is wrong and equal. All laws are not automatically just. All welfare is not automatically just.

[AyeYo]

Murder and rape aren't the same as not paying taxes.

Don't take the ludicrous position that all crime is wrong and equal. All laws are not automatically just. All welfare is not automatically just.

Why not?  Who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not moral? 


If I can't tell you that in my society you need to your fair share or else... then you can't tell me that in your society I can't kill people or else.  It's called being consistent.  If I can't impose my moral views on other people then neither can you.

[billyjoeallen]

And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

Welcome to the real world.  It's called an organized society.

So I guess we'll never lock up anyone, ever, for anything, because then we'd be claiming a right to kill someone because their morals are different than ours.  Murderers, rapists... you're free to gol!  Who am I to judge what is and isn't ok?

You can judge for yourself, but not for me or her. You can't use my resources to enforce your notions of responsible social behavior and expect me not to resist you- especially when My notions are so very different than yours. It's not unreasonable to conclude that people who kill stingy old ladies because they are stingy are worse than stingy old ladies.