Bitcoin Welfare System

[cryptoanarchist]

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

FAIL. It's that kind of stupidity that has created the police state we have today.

[Anon136]

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

FAIL. It's that kind of stupidity that has created the police state we have today.

be gentle. hes trying and he doesnt strike me as intellectually dishonest or dumb. he just needs to work through it all. we all had to work through years and years of programming.

[DeathAndTaxes]

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

FAIL. It's that kind of stupidity that has created the police state we have today.

be gentle. hes trying and he doesnt strike me as intellectually dishonest or dumb. he just needs to work through it all. we all had to work through years and years of programming.

This.  The concept of a state is a great "abstraction".  If your neighbor needed money (legitimately needed money say his wife had cancer) almost all people would not find it ok to use violence to convince other people in the neighborhood that they "should" help the neighbor with a sick wife.  Now if the neighbor held a meeting a voted 12 to 7 that everyone should give $10,000 to the neighbor with a sick wife under the threat of violence most people probably still not find this "ok".  The number is likely higher than the first example but still low.

However somehow when the neighborhood is expanded to be 300 million people and millions of votes the idea that violence can be used to force people to do "the right thing" is suddenly "ok" for a whole lot of people.  It is an obvious logical fallacy.  Someone who is not ok with personally using violence to force people to "do the right thing" and not comfortable with the majority of a small group deciding the same thing shouldn't be ok with the state doing it either.

However that is the power of the state.  The violence is indirect.  Most people never see the violence because most people comply with the will of the state.  This indirect threat of violence is easier to justify.

[Itcher]

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

Granted this is shitty but you would seek to remedy this problem of people needing to be liked inorder to receive aid by having peaceful people threatened with violence? You are just replacing one problem with a new and greater problem. You are replacing the problem of people needing to be liked in order to receive help with the problem of people waving guns all over the place and threatening to murder each other.

I like this argument

And I don't like this argument, because it's none:

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

FAIL. It's that kind of stupidity that has created the police state we have today.

You say: taxes are the same as: someone comes to your house with a weapon and says: Give me 46 percent of your monthly income. Like the mafia. Right? I accept this point of view, I had long discussions with a friend who is obsessed with austrian economics and at the end I proofed myself learnable. But lets walk on.

This.  The concept of a state is a great "abstraction".  If your neighbor needed money (legitimately needed money say his wife had cancer) almost all people would not find it ok to use violence to convince other people in the neighborhood that they "should" help the neighbor with a sick wife.  Now if the neighbor held a meeting a voted 12 to 7 that everyone should give $10,000 to the neighbor with a sick wife under the threat of violence most people probably still not find this "ok".  The number is likely higher than the first example but still low.

However somehow when the neighborhood is expanded to be 300 million people and millions of votes the idea that violence can be used to force people to do "the right thing" is suddenly "ok" for a whole lot of people.  It is an obvious logical fallacy.  Someone who is not ok with personally using violence to force people to "do the right thing" and not comfortable with the majority of a small group deciding the same thing shouldn't be ok with the state doing it either.

However that is the power of the state.  The violence is indirect.  Most people never see the violence because most people comply with the will of the state.  This indirect threat of violence is easier to justify.

I like this, too, and I promise to think about it. Very good explanation of the state.

There's so much I hate about the state. But there are also some things I like about the state. One of it is the welfare.

And, as I said: its against the law of humanity when people have to beg or to enslave themselves or to run a rat-race to get what they need to survive. (as long as society is wealthy enough to prevent this).

You claim the state acts like any criminal organizations. But you didn't claim how this could be prevented without the welfare state.

I am open for ideas. But I never met one which convinced me, and as a historian I did look at many societies in the past which had no welfare-state. And the result has always been the same. (except of tribal societies, but this door has been closed a long time ago)

[worldtreasurefinders]

its against the law of humanity when people have to beg or to enslave themselves or to run a rat-race to get what they need to survive. (as long as society is wealthy enough to prevent this).

What "law of humanity"?  If my neighbor is suffering and needs money for food, and I have compassion for my neighbor and want to help him, do I have the authority under the "law of humanity" to force you to give him money and/or food? 

[Itcher]

good question. Things are more brutal when you see things personal without the abstraction of the state, that's true.

But I would say: if our neighbour is out of food and money and I don't give him something, I violate against the law of humanity. If I am the only one able to spend something for him and he comes to me and asks for food and I say: Go to your knees and beg, beg beg beg - or: I don't like your face, you are too ugly to deserve food - than the law of humanity would enforce you help, even if you would have to violate my freedom.

I also would say: if my neighbour is starving and I don't help him without conditions, but let him beg or clean my shoes or make him to underthrow himself under my normative preference - I act against his freedom. And I would also say: This is a deeper violation of freedom than if you would force me to help. But I know, this is not the libertarian conception of freedom ... 

[worldtreasurefinders]

You have to accept that there are differences between you yourself as an individual helping the less fortunate, and compelling someone else under threat of law to help the less fortunate.  Whatever moral obligations you have to help the poor, those obligations do not grant you the right to take and distribute other peoples' property as you see fit.

if my neighbour is starving and I don't help him without conditions, but let him beg or clean my shoes or make him to underthrow himself under my normative preference - I act against his freedom

So can I conclude from your thoughts here that the poor have the freedom to obtain help by relieving you of your property?  If they have a claim to your property because they need help, I have to ask, who has the higher claim?  Do you have the ultimate claim to your own property, or do the poor have a higher claim to your property, because if you don't allow them to have it, by your own admission you're violating their freedom?

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

I agree with everyone who feels it should be down to the individual where the money they earn goes, in my opinion welfare is just a way for government to exert control over the populace.

[Anon136]

good question. Things are more brutal when you see things personal without the abstraction of the state, that's true.

But I would say: if our neighbour is out of food and money and I don't give him something, I violate against the law of humanity. If I am the only one able to spend something for him and he comes to me and asks for food and I say: Go to your knees and beg, beg beg beg - or: I don't like your face, you are too ugly to deserve food - than the law of humanity would enforce you help, even if you would have to violate my freedom.

I also would say: if my neighbour is starving and I don't help him without conditions, but let him beg or clean my shoes or make him to underthrow himself under my normative preference - I act against his freedom. And I would also say: This is a deeper violation of freedom than if you would force me to help. But I know, this is not the libertarian conception of freedom ...  

check out post number 13. I think it is a blue print for solving every one of the problems you outlined in this comment with out any need for the violence of the state. tell me what you think.

not all libertarians are hard line denotological rights advocates. some of us recognize the need for trade offs between conflicting freedoms (the freedom to own the products of your labor and the freedom to not starve to death as a result of unfortunate circumstances, as an example) but do not see it as a good argument in favor of the state.

[Cameltoemcgee]

I think this sums it up nicely, the same principles of charity can be applied to general welfare as i think healthcare and welfare should go hand in hand, its from the book Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux.

We certainly want to help the unfortunate, but we do not wish to enable and subsidize bad
decisions – this is only part of the complexity involved in helping others – which a statist society
cannot distinguish or deal with at all.
If society gave everything that a poor person could possibly require in order to live comfortably,
that would scarcely reduce the numbers of poor people, but would rather increase them
considerably. On the other hand, the children of poor people are scarcely responsible for any bad
decisions their parents may have made – however, if charities give a lot of money to poor people
with children, more poor people will tend to have more children, which will only increase poverty.
This balancing act is one of the enormous and complex challenges of true charity – and yet another
reason why a violent monopoly will never end up helping the poor in any substantive or permanent
manner.
When it comes to health care, there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of people care about
the provision of health care for those who cannot afford it. At a hospital I visited recently, I saw a
placard on the wall thanking the five thousand volunteers who helped run the place.
Doctors as a whole will always treat someone who comes with an immediate injury, whether they
can pay or not. If we assume that medical treatments for the genuinely deserving and needy poor
would consume about ten percent of general health care spending, then we can be completely
certain that this amount of money would be donated by concerned individuals, either in time or
money. We can be certain of this because we know of a large number of religious organizations that
require ten percent of people’s total income – twenty percent in fact, since this is pretax income –
and people are quite happy to pay that.
Thus the medical needs of the poor would be entirely taken care of in a free society through charity
and pro bono work. Charities would also compete to provide the most effective care for the poor, in
order to gain the most donations. I would certainly prefer to give my money to an organization that
was best able to create and provide sustainable health practices and medical treatments for the
poor.
In this way, not only would the self-interest of doctors, insurance companies and customers be
aligned – but also the self-interest of donators, charities and the poor they serve.
In a stateless society, the poor will be genuinely served by a far better system, composed of those
whose self-interest is directly aligned with the health of the poor.
As has been shown over and over again, throughout history and across the world, benevolent
selfinterest, enhanced by free association and voluntary competition, is the only way to create
sustainable compassion within society.
I am aware that I have not answered all possible objections to the question of how health care is
provided in a free society. I am also aware that the possibility always exists that people can “fall
through the cracks,” or that charities could conceivably make mistakes, and either fund the wrong
people, or fail to fund the right people.
Once more, this possibility of corruption and/or error is often considered to be an airtight
argument against anarchy, when in fact it is an airtight argument for anarchy, and against statism.

Competition and voluntarism are the only known methodologies for repairing and opposing the
inevitable errors and corruptions that constantly creep into human relations. The fact that human
beings can make mistakes – and are always susceptible to corruption – is exactly why they should
never be given a monopoly power of violence over others.
When an entrepreneur – whether charitable or for-profit – makes a mistake by failing to provide
value – others will immediately rush in to provide the missing benefit. It is this constant process of
challenge and competition that allows the best solutions to be consistently discovered and
reinvented in an ever-changing world.

[Itcher]

I don't want to promote the state. Really. I don't feel good to defense it against your arguments. Also I have to repeat, that these are very good and that you make me hating it a bit more to spend about 25 percent of my income to the state (I am lucky, artistic freelance, good conditions, my parents spend about 50 percent)

But the welfare is one of the reasons reconsiling me with it and I did never understand why the libertarians with their wise perspective to freedom and the state always argument against it. When I see a problem with it it is bureaucracy (I want to spend for the poor, not for the clerks in the office) and controll (financial controll and also the controll of the poor when receiving the welfare).

In the past we had strong family ties. Welfare was mostly a family thing. Most people help their family when they have problems, but not a stranger. While the family option was the only option to receive welfare, anybody had to subdue under the authority of the family. I for myself welcome it that we did free ourselves from tight family boundaries. But with this freedom come problems. I think a anonymous and unconditional right to receive some basic welfare is a good solution. This is what the welfare state does. It frees people from dependencies.

If there would be, as the OP proposed, an idea, how bitcoin could help to this welfare in a better and freeer way, it would give me one more reason to love Bitcoin. If the internet is information and Bitcoin is transaction, we really would have great possibilities to overcome this rotten system of sharing.

but let me continue my role as the welfare-states-supporter:

a better way to correct the problems that welfare is supposedly intended to correct is for society at large to recognize that a person who is literally about to die of starvation through no fault of his own has a better claim on the food in is proximity than the person who grew it assuming the person who grew it is not in a similar predicament.

this would force grocery stores and restaurants to provide some form of local starvation safety net, probably in the form of a soup kitchen, inorder for them to be able to apprehend shop lifters with out fear of litigation. the cost of these soup kitchens would then be built into the prices at the grocery store. all without invoking the violence of the state.

replace a few words to apply the same argument to shelter, water and MAYBE some cheaper forms of antibiotics

I like the approach. But I want to consider some possible problems: economical: food prizes will rise in poor town, stimulating poeple to use the soup-kittchen, even if they are not poor. Volume of spended food increases - prizes rise again - more people use it ... controll: how to proof someone's starving? When he's meagered to the bones? That's a high price to pay.

Another fundamental argument about soup-kittchen: in one of my favorite german magazines, telepolis (one of very less not mainstream-polluted media) there was a discussion about soup-kittchens. A social scientist complaint about their increasing number. My first thought was: Why does he complain? Soup-Kittchens do good, they help. But then, after some discussion, I had to accept this principle argument: The poor have the right by constitution to eat. They should not need eleemosynary. They should not need to beg. Not in societies as wealthy as germany or the USA.

btw: if someone forces the shop-owners by violence to spend some account of his food to the poor and by this he forces indirectly the consumer to pay a higher price for the food - where the difference to the tax-based-welfare-state?

I think this sums it up nicely

I don't think. This peace has some lacks in logic.

If society gave everything that a poor person could possibly require in order to live comfortably,
that would scarcely reduce the numbers of poor people, but would rather increase them
considerably.

Never confuse an overstatement with an argument. Nobody talks about "giving them everything the require to live comfortably.

On the other hand, the children of poor people are scarcely responsible for any bad
decisions their parents may have made – however, if charities give a lot of money to poor people
with children, more poor people will tend to have more children, which will only increase poverty.

Huuuu ... The "Sarrazin"-Thesis. The Zombie-Invasion of the poor. Even if there's a clue - for me it is too close to eugenetics. Nobody has the right to dictate what's liveworth. Maybe cause I am german and in the past my glorious nation made the attempt to eradicate groups of people considered as harmfull or useless. Everyone has the right to life. In the same account.

When it comes to health care, there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of people care about
the provision of health care for those who cannot afford it.

Thus we have the welfare state. No majority of the people think we need PRISM, no majority think we have to prohibit smoking in bars, no majority thinks politicans need a very high pension, no majority thinks we need war, no majority thinks we need a "Meldepflicht", no majority thinks we need the "Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk", no majority thinks we need - and so on. Even no majority thinks we need historians or the CERN. Welfare is one of very less institutions of the state with has a majority in his back.

As has been shown over and over again, throughout history and across the world, benevolent
selfinterest, enhanced by free association and voluntary competition, is the only way to create
sustainable compassion within society.

As a historian it makes me always weary when someone says: history shows. It never happend that no counter-example instantly popped up in my mind. Who says so wants mostly take one little part of history to promote his ideology. This author even don't needs to make an example. He just says: history proofs ...

Now ... I could go on and go on. But it's morning and I have to work ...







 

[Anon136]

I like the approach. But I want to consider some possible problems: economical: food prizes will rise in poor town, stimulating poeple to use the soup-kittchen, even if they are not poor. Volume of spended food increases - prizes rise again - more people use it ... controll: how to proof someone's starving? When he's meagered to the bones? That's a high price to pay.

Another fundamental argument about soup-kittchen: in one of my favorite german magazines, telepolis (one of very less not mainstream-polluted media) there was a discussion about soup-kittchens. A social scientist complaint about their increasing number. My first thought was: Why does he complain? Soup-Kittchens do good, they help. But then, after some discussion, I had to accept this principle argument: The poor have the right by constitution to eat. They should not need eleemosynary. They should not need to beg. Not in societies as wealthy as germany or the USA.

Yes this is exactly the problem we have with welfare. the state offers free money to people for being poor so they either are less likely to take steps that would prevent them from becoming poor or less likely to take steps that would elevate them out of poverty. this is why welfare actually creates poverty rather than solving it.

with the soup kitchens its different though because you can make food that is healthy and nutritionally well balanced but tastes like shit . infact the providers of these soup kitchens would have incentive to make sure that it tasted bad enough to prevent this influx of people but not so bad as to reflect poorly on their business. they would wrestle with the correct trade off.

btw: if someone forces the shop-owners by violence to spend some account of his food to the poor and by this he forces indirectly the consumer to pay a higher price for the food - where the difference to the tax-based-welfare-state?

if we idealize both situations the effect is the same. the difference is the means. with the situation i described it would be difficult for the transfer mechanism to be used as a justification to collect revenue that will actually be used to build bombs to drop on brown people. This is what the state does: it says look we need you to chip in and help pay for this welfare. then when they get your money they say oops we mant to spend it on welfare but we accidentally spent it on bombs.... next time well get it right! then guess what happens next time.

in a couple of word the difference is one of a centralized redistribution mechanism vs a de-centralized redistribution mechanism.

[J603]

Anyone who can afford the Internet (and thus bitcoins) does not need charity. Anyone who supports a bitcoin "charity" system clearly just wants some extra money for themselves. I wouldn't complain about a "welfare" system existing, but I won't pretend that I want one because of some noble purpose. Not to mention, who's to say that people who receive these donations aren't going to go straight to the Silk Road or somewhere similar? There aren't very many legitimate uses for bitcoins right now.

[Cameltoemcgee]

I think this sums it up nicely

I don't think. This peace has some lacks in logic.

Logic is precisely what its not lacking... its a very small excerpt from the book, the book itself is all about pointing out the logical fallacies in our feelings toward government and the ambivalence toward anarchy in general. - ie: its the most highly cherished thing in your personal life but the biggest evil and most feared of things by most people when applied on a grander scale...

If society gave everything that a poor person could possibly require in order to live comfortably,
that would scarcely reduce the numbers of poor people, but would rather increase them
considerably.

Never confuse an overstatement with an argument. Nobody talks about "giving them everything the require to live comfortably.

comfort is a subjective thing, and if you have even payed attention to whats happening around the world, you'd find that this is precisely what is happening... so what you're saying is that even if welfare is barely giving people the barest of essentials required to live, under a welfare state the numbers of people on welfare will increase considerably... well, i must say i wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.

On the other hand, the children of poor people are scarcely responsible for any bad
decisions their parents may have made – however, if charities give a lot of money to poor people
with children, more poor people will tend to have more children, which will only increase poverty.

Huuuu ... The "Sarrazin"-Thesis. The Zombie-Invasion of the poor. Even if there's a clue - for me it is too close to eugenetics. Nobody has the right to dictate what's liveworth. Maybe cause I am german and in the past my glorious nation made the attempt to eradicate groups of people considered as harmfull or useless. Everyone has the right to life. In the same account.

I think all but the most bigoted of people will agree everyone definitely has the right to life. Everyone will also agree that people do NOT have the right to steal from the next guy with impunity...  The Sarrazin thesis is happening all over the world at the moment mate, the next line is "This balancing act is one of the enormous and complex challenges of true charity – and yet another reason why a violent  monopoly will never end up helping the poor in any substantive or permanent manner." the guy is not opposed to people having a right to life...

When it comes to health care, there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of people care about
the provision of health care for those who cannot afford it.

Thus we have the welfare state. No majority of the people think we need PRISM, no majority think we have to prohibit smoking in bars, no majority thinks politicans need a very high pension, no majority thinks we need war, no majority thinks we need a "Meldepflicht", no majority thinks we need the "Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk", no majority thinks we need - and so on. Even no majority thinks we need historians or the CERN. Welfare is one of very less institutions of the state with has a majority in his back.

So, because most people are in favour of this and would voluntarily give some money to charity to help unfortunate people if there was no state to do it... why do you need the state to forcefully take it from people again? talk about illogical reasoning!

As has been shown over and over again, throughout history and across the world, benevolent
selfinterest, enhanced by free association and voluntary competition, is the only way to create
sustainable compassion within society.

As a historian it makes me always weary when someone says: history shows. It never happend that no counter-example instantly popped up in my mind. Who says so wants mostly take one little part of history to promote his ideology. This author even don't needs to make an example. He just says: history proofs ...

Now ... I could go on and go on. But it's morning and I have to work ...

I also have to work so i'll leave you with this homework Mr Historian, look up the swiss conferacy... and icelandic history... 2 of the most prominent examples of anarchistic societies working... interesting tidbit for you to look forward to, the swiss had a stable society for a good 800 years right through the middle ages... if you're a historian then you'll know what the rest of europe was like...

[Cameltoemcgee]

I'll leave you with another quote from that book...

Another point that I would like to make up front is that there always seems to be a strange disconnect or isolation in people’s concerns about the helpless and dependent in society. For instance, whenever I talk about getting rid of public schools, the response inevitably comes
back – automatically, it would seem, just like any other good propaganda – that it would be terrible, because poor children would not be educated.

There is a strange kind of unthinking narcissism in this response, which always irritates me, much though I understand it. First of all, it is rather insulting to be told that you are trying to design a system which would deny education to poor children. To be placed into the general category of “yuppie capitalist scum” is never particularly ennobling. A person will raise this objection with an absolutely straight face, as if he is the only person in the world who cares about the education of poor children. I know that this is the result of pure indoctrination, because it is so illogical.

If we accept the premise that very few people care about the education of the poor, then we should be utterly opposed to majority-rule democracy, for the obvious reason that if only a tiny minority of people care about the education of the poor, then there will never be enough of them to influence a democracy, and thus the poor will never be educated.

However, those who approve of democracy and accept that democracy will provide the poor with education inevitably accept that a significant majority of people care enough about the poor to agitate for a political solution, and pay the taxes that fund public education.

Thus, any democrat who cares about the poor automatically accepts the reality that a significant majority of people are both willing and able to help and fund the education of the poor.

If people are willing to agitate for and pay the taxes to support a State-run solution to the problem of education, then the State solution is a mere reflection of their desires and willingness to sacrifice their own self-interest for the sake of educating the poor.

If I pay for a cure for an ailment that I have, and I find out that that cure actually makes me worse, do I give up on trying to find a cure? Of course not. It was my desire to find a cure that drove me to the false solution in the first place – when I accept that that solution is false, I am then free to pursue another solution. (In fact, until I accept that my first “cure” actually makes me worse, I will continue to waste my time and resources.)

The democratic “solution” to the problem of educating the poor is the existence of public schools – if we get rid of that solution, then the majority’s desire to help educate the poor will simply take on another form – and a far more effective form, that much is guaranteed.

“Ah,” say the democrats, “but without being forced to pay for public schools, no one will surrender the money to voluntarily fund the education of poor children.”

Well, this is only an admission that democracy is a complete and total lie – that public schools do not represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority. Thus votes do not matter at all, and are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, and thus we should get rid of this ridiculous overhead of democracy and get right back to a good old Platonic system of minority dictatorship.

This proposal, of course, is greeted with outright horror, and protestations that democracy must be kept because it is the best system, because public policy does reflect the will of the majority. In which case we need have no fear that the poor will not be educated in a free society, since the majority of people very much want that to happen anyway.

Exactly the same argument applies to a large number of other statist “solutions” to existing problems, such as:
• Old-age pensions;
• Unemployment insurance;
• Health care for the impoverished;
• Welfare, etc.
If these State programs represent the desires and will of the majority, then removing the government will not remove the reality of this kind of charity, since government policies reflect the majority’s existing desire to help these people.

If these programs do not represent the desires and will of the majority, then democracy is a complete lie, and we should stop interfering with our leader’s universal benevolence with our distracting and wasteful “voting.”

We will get into this in more detail as we go forward, but I wanted to put the argument out up front, just to address the ridiculous objection that removing a democratic State also removes the benevolence that drives its policies.

A fundamental anarchic argument is that a democratic State uses the genuine benevolence of the majority to expand its own power, and exacerbates poverty, ignorance and sickness in order to justify and continue the expansion of that power.

This is not the first time that the benevolence of good people has been used to control them. We only need to think of the example of organized religion to understand that…

[OverallGreatGuy]

To the OP, That sounds like you're talking about charity, and not welfare.  There is a key distinction.  One is funded voluntarily, the other through taxation.

[Itcher]

Sorry for the last answer, hope, your are still on, Anon and Cameltoemcgee - I run out of time, and I need time, to answer, issue is interesting but complicated.

Short ... As I see, you're ok with welfare, but not with the state resp. the unfree way it's done. I think soon I will tell some arguments for this kind of organization of welfare, which imo are right at this time ... One question: do you comply the same way when taxes are used for building sreets, searching dark matter or educating people?

And I would like to continue op's issue: Bitcoin welfare system. Though I am not only a historian but also are holding a M.A. in sociology, I am qualified for it 

Bitcoin is a good way for charity. I take part of the offline welfare system, and I have no problem with it, but I don't want a welfare / tax system to rise in Bitcoin-World. But charity - great ... reason will come!


uuh, can't resist:

Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on July 17, 2013, 12:33:07 AM
If society gave everything that a poor person could possibly require in order to live comfortably,
that would scarcely reduce the numbers of poor people, but would rather increase them
considerably.
Quote from: Itcher on July 17, 2013, 08:45:48 AM
Never confuse an overstatement with an argument. Nobody talks about "giving them everything the require to live comfortably.

comfort is a subjective thing, and if you have even payed attention to whats happening around the world, you'd find that this is precisely what is happening... so what you're saying is that even if welfare is barely giving people the barest of essentials required to live, under a welfare state the numbers of people on welfare will increase considerably... well, i must say i wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.

I don't understand. What is happening? That we give them everything for a comfortable life? Depends on definition. We here in germany as a highly competitive export nation have the problem, that actually many low-educated job are payed worse than the minimum welfare. But the problem are the deep loan, not the high welfare. I have friends (ye, everybody know someone who ...) which work - and want to work - but can't pay their rooms; other, well-educated and in Jobs, have problems to feed their cat. And so on. So - what was the reason the welfare increases the number of poor people?

Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on July 17, 2013, 12:33:07 AM
On the other hand, the children of poor people are scarcely responsible for any bad
decisions their parents may have made – however, if charities give a lot of money to poor people
with children, more poor people will tend to have more children, which will only increase poverty.

Quote from: Itcher on July 17, 2013, 08:45:48 AM
Huuuu ... The "Sarrazin"-Thesis. The Zombie-Invasion of the poor. Even if there's a clue - for me it is too close to eugenetics. Nobody has the right to dictate what's liveworth. Maybe cause I am german and in the past my glorious nation made the attempt to eradicate groups of people considered as harmfull or useless. Everyone has the right to life. In the same account.

I think all but the most bigoted of people will agree everyone definitely has the right to life. Everyone will also agree that people do NOT have the right to steal from the next guy with impunity...  The Sarrazin thesis is happening all over the world at the moment mate, the next line is "This balancing act is one of the enormous and complex challenges of true charity – and yet another reason why a violent  monopoly will never end up helping the poor in any substantive or permanent manner." the guy is not opposed to people having a right to life...

Again, logic: you didn't made a claim, why the Sarrazin-Thesis is not opposed to the righ of some people to live. You just claimed that people do not have the right to steal. One failure legitimate another? And, let me assure you: Sarrazin is a hate-spreading, short-minded Racist. He has experienced  a part of the reality of the arabian immigrants in the most fucked up quarter of berlin - say: a very little part of arabian-immigration-reality in germany - and he uses this tiny peace of reality to cover the whole szene with a large prejudice against everything what is "muslim" ... also he propagates a concept of men which is bound to nothing than people's economical use, which is imo short-minded again. He discredits a whole ethnicity cause he thinks they don't participate enough in powering up our Champion-Economy ...

Ok, sorry, have to go, cu

[Itcher]

Yes this is exactly the problem we have with welfare. the state offers free money to people for being poor so they either are less likely to take steps that would prevent them from becoming poor or less likely to take steps that would elevate them out of poverty. this is why welfare actually creates poverty rather than solving it.

with the soup kitchens its different though because you can make food that is healthy and nutritionally well balanced but tastes like shit . infact the providers of these soup kitchens would have incentive to make sure that it tasted bad enough to prevent this influx of people but not so bad as to reflect poorly on their business. they would wrestle with the correct trade off.

Funny idea to make food-kitchens food less tasty ... as it is healthy I imagine the poor in the US would have better health than the less-poor

But to consider your first block: We are again in the conception of mankind. You think the poor wouldn't try to make their own income, if there's a welfare state. I dont think so. As I maybe said: The most unemployed want to work (exzept of the famous "Florida-Rolf" who caused an strom of outcry under german low-loan-worker), but, as official statistics tell, we have more applications than jobs and most companys have no use for longterm-unemployed. You can't tell the youth of spain, which suffers under an unemployment-rate from nearly 40 percent (it's not as easy to meassure than newspapers say), they don't try to earn their own money. They try. Go to some fish-market in Norway - most marketenders are from spain. They want to work. And work doesn't popp up cause the spain government cuts down welfare.

Also, back to my good old "Right of humanity" (which, as I know, has to been trafficked against other concepts of freedom, no way to avoid it): We are living in the 21th century, looking back on a long and successfull road to enhancen our livestyle. I don't think we need to make people to do everything they could do to make their living on their own feeds. I think this goes against freedom. Did I mention I am historian? As one, I consider it as a step backward if we recreate jobs we know from 19th century - very uncomfortable, maybe humiliating, very bad paid ... 

btw: if someone forces the shop-owners by violence to spend some account of his food to the poor and by this he forces indirectly the consumer to pay a higher price for the food - where the difference to the tax-based-welfare-state?

if we idealize both situations the effect is the same. the difference is the means. with the situation i described it would be difficult for the transfer mechanism to be used as a justification to collect revenue that will actually be used to build bombs to drop on brown people. This is what the state does: it says look we need you to chip in and help pay for this welfare. then when they get your money they say oops we mant to spend it on welfare but we accidentally spent it on bombs.... next time well get it right! then guess what happens next time.

in a couple of word the difference is one of a centralized redistribution mechanism vs a de-centralized redistribution mechanism.
[/quote]

  "Sorry, it happened we bought bombs and the fall down to some innocent afghans. But next time we'll use it to help some poor people." Hehe. Yep, point for you.

But the economical problem I rised would be harder to avoid if the welfare is decentraliced. For example in our rich cities (say: Eichstätt) there will be no need to install a soup-kittchen. So food-prices stay low. In our poor cities (say: Oberhausen) there will be a high interest in soup kitchens. So: food-prices rise. Welcome in a world, where the poor people have to pay more for tasty food than the rich people. I for myself have no interest that my food-prices will rise cause the unemployment in my city is too high.

[Anon136]

if the state offers free money to people for being poor so they either are less likely to take steps that would prevent them from becoming poor or less likely to take steps that would elevate them out of poverty.

is not at all the same thing as

You think the poor wouldn't try to make their own income, if there's a welfare state

I'm not claiming that it eliminates all employment for every person who has ever taken welfare, simply that it effects the decisions of people on the margin.

I don't think we need to make people to do everything they could do to make their living on their own feeds. I think this goes against freedom.

im all for creating some sort of system where those who are doing everything they can to make a living but are failing to make a living still have a way to eat and get shelter. i dont think someone should simply be left out in the cold to die because they were born with some form of mental retardation. BUT what you are saying here is radical even for a leftist. you are saying that its ok for someone who is not doing everything in their power to first help themselves to then entitle themselves to the fruits of other peoples labor. Ignore the morality of the situation just think about the consequences, think about the incentives that would create. it would be the aforementioned problem from the first quotation, except on crack.

For example in our rich cities (say: Eichstätt) there will be no need to install a soup-kittchen. So food-prices stay low. In our poor cities (say: Oberhausen) there will be a high interest in soup kitchens. So: food-prices rise.

but this is precisely the sort of problem that a market it tailor made to address. typically we talk about markets moving resources around to their highest value utility but it also moves people around (rather causes people to chose to move based on rational calculation). At first the prices would be higher in Eichstätt than in Oberhausen but people would see this as a signal, it would cause the poor to move there. not only the people who are using the soup kitchen but the poor who buy their own food. the people using the soup kitchens would move there because its simply a nicer environment. the poor who are not so poor as to need soup kitchens would move there for lower food prices. this migration would continue untill there was no longer any significant advantage to be gained from moving there, which would mean until food prices were no longer cheaper, and until Eichstätt was no longer a nicer place to live than Oberhausen. it would pull Oberhausen up and Eichstätt down. i for one say good, its about time the wealthy came face to face with the effects of the sorts of policies that granted them their wealth. its time for the king to come down from his castle and come face to face with the sort of shit and squalor he has wrought.  

[Itcher]

im all for creating some sort of system where those who are doing everything they can to make a living but are failing to make a living still have a way to eat and get shelter. i dont think someone should simply be left out in the cold to die because they were born with some form of mental retardation.

here we meet

BUT what you are saying here is radical even for a leftist.

Here we don't.  If I were a leftist I would prefere to collectivate all Industrie, transform them to non-innovative, non-profitable stateown industrie and force everyone, regardless what he did before, to work in it, even if his workforce isn't needed. But I don't mind sharing some ideas with leftists, e. g. that a society has to be measured what she does for her weekest members, or, that if we have the ability we should offer the highest possible number of people the best possible living

you are saying that its ok for someone who is not doing everything in their power to first help themselves to then entitle themselves to the fruits of other peoples labor.

Yea! I do! We talked about trafficking: Some of our first real liberal party in germany, the "Alternative", asked some time ago: Why don't they sell a kidney, if they have no money? I heard about some russian homeless, which where casted for porno-movies, in which girls hit them bloody. Just for example. Would you say to a girl: go, prostitute yourself, if you are out of money, or play in hardcore-pornogafy?

Ignore the morality of the situation just think about the consequences, think about the incentives that would create. it would be the aforementioned problem from the first quotation, except on crack.

Incentives depend on the degree. Surely you can't just say: If you think this job is against your dignity, you don't have to do it. But I think there are a lot of incentives to work instead of receiving the minimal living fee: more money, the chance, to get even more money, social contacts, the self-conficence to earn your own money and so on.

Also, as today, I read a discussion about Hartz IV, and someone complaint, that the tipp, to trink water from the main instead of water from bottles violates his dignity. That's absurd (Our main water is better than most bottle-water).

For example in our rich cities (say: Eichstätt) there will be no need to install a soup-kittchen. So food-prices stay low. In our poor cities (say: Oberhausen) there will be a high interest in soup kitchens. So: food-prices rise.

but this is precisely the sort of problem that a market it tailor made to address. typically we talk about markets moving resources around to their highest value utility but it also moves people around (rather causes people to chose to move based on rational calculation). At first the prices would be higher in Eichstätt than in Oberhausen but people would see this as a signal, it would cause the poor to move there. not only the people who are using the soup kitchen but the poor who buy their own food. the people using the soup kitchens would move there because its simply a nicer environment. the poor who are not so poor as to need soup kitchens would move there for lower food prices. this migration would continue untill there was no longer any significant advantage to be gained from moving there, which would mean until food prices were no longer cheaper, and until Eichstätt was no longer a nicer place to live than Oberhausen. it would pull Oberhausen up and Eichstätt down. i for one say good, its about time the wealthy came face to face with the effects of the sorts of policies that granted them their wealth. its time for the king to come down from his castle and come face to face with the sort of shit and squalor he has wrought.  

you confused eichstätt and oberhausen in your second sentence. Eichstätt is rich, Oberhausen poor   But your thesis sounds logical. I would welcome it if the poor would settle down in the perfect world of Eichstätt. But the Eichstätter are not stupid - the homelords would never ever give some poor unemployed from Oberhausen a flat ...