i think the solution to this conundrum might be to consider that, if placed in a situation where someone has to chose to commit aggression or starve to death than they will commit aggression every time. the fact that you can predict this with 100% certainty means that there would be an economic incentive to make sure that people arnt hungry, since protecting your food against such a determined thief would almost certainly cost more than feeding him some gruel. the way this transfer mechanism might work is that insurance companies who insured people against theft of food might find that it was cheaper to provide a network of soup kitchens than a physical security apparatus capable of effectively enforcing the property rights of food owners. copy and paste to apply this argument to basic needs other than food.
anyway tell me what you think of my assessment luke.
Sounds good to me, even though it doesn't take into effect the assurance social net or the huge abundance of resources we'd have if the govs of the world weren't stealing it from us so much already.
Most everyone already wants to be or is charitable in some way, even & especially the poor who can't afford it now. Almost all soup kitchens are run by people who were homeless themselves and now work a J.O.B. to help out their friends. Take away that societal structure that government imposes on us and there would be such an abundance of wealth aimed at solving charitable problems that people in that society would have a hearty laugh at us having this conversation.
Back to the topic though; yes, like you pointed out there are market reasons for solutions to pop up, but I think those would be 3rd down on the totem pole in practice. Assurance coverage will be extended charitably to anyone who (isn't a murder) & asks for it in such a prosperous society.
yes it certainly doesn't necessarily follow from "retards are starving and dieing in the streets of starvation" to "therefor we ought to initiate violence on their behalf." even if that does follow it further doesn't necessarily follow that if "we ought to initiate violence on their behalf" that "the state is the best means for using enabling this transfer".
These are two very big leaps that are so often glossed over and taken for granted. i personally feel that maybe the first leap is justifiable (think robin hood), but the second is almost certainly not.
Absolutely, those are two huge blindspots for statists, and I would surmise that the propaganda machines we call 'schools' may have had something to do with their existence.
Don't forget, companies and corporations, especially big ones (and even "evil" ones like WalMart) donate millions to charities every year,
That's barely a drop in the bucket though! What's a few companies donating millions compared to the whole world having all of their tax money freed to donate as they please? In the US most people are paying 60%-70% of their wealth (not just income) annually in some form of tax. In France there are people paying 110%! Communist China doesn't steal that much wealth from its' people... It's just inconceivable how much wealth is taken from us as a whole.
If the average person on this planet pays $10,000 in taxes each year, (yes, number pulled out of my ass) then 7 billion ppl times 10k is clearly in the 10's of Quadrillions of dollars worth of freed-up cash that people can use for anything that they see fit... And historically people have paid quite a lot into charity, despite the government stealing all of that cash up front. 5%-10% per person certainly would not be unfathomable. I could see large segments of the population choosing to give up 50% of their income (that the government stole previously) to go directly to people who can't afford assurance.
That would be many billions, if not trillions of dollars worldwide. Surely if the government was gone, the wars were over, the schools could compete on the free market, and the welfare state was removed, along with its' creation of entitled people, then a few TRILLION dollars worth of non-bureaucratic charity could bridge the gap.
