| SamuelRSmith said: You would need more than well-intentioned and responsible stewards. In order to replicate the kind of quality of life a capitalistic system provides, you would require agencies that were capable of measuring every individual's demands, without a price mechanism, and distribute all of the resources accordingly. Even if that grand feat was achieved, you would have serious rights infringements, through a destruction of privacy, and coerced labour. You know what, I actually agree with you on the second point. In order for liberty, you need peace and security, and for that, people do need to have the basics. Where we differ, though is that I do not believe it is the Government's role to provide these things, nor do I believe that the Government is any good at providing these things. Did you know that the poverty level in the USA was a trending decline up until the point when the Government decided to "fight poverty" - where it then flatlined as a percentage of population, and has been at that level ever since (1). It was the Government trying to "put a roof over everybody's head" that led to the 2008 financial bubble. Government gets involved in health care, health care costs sky rocket, alienating more and more people. Government gets involved in backing student loans, student debt skyrockets. The reason why the things in the second paragraph happen, is because of what I implied in the first paragraph - it is physically impossible for one person or agency to make such wide-scoping decisions, especially without the pricing mechanism. Now, even if the Government weren't involved in those things, and the costs were much lower, and taxes were much lower (ultimately leading to more jobs, greater wealth), there will still be those who cannot catch a break, and they will need the help of society. However, as I have argued in this thread, I do not think it's the Government's role to provide this help, I do not think it is morally just for Government to provide this help, and I think the Government are terrible at providing this help. This is where charity steps in, I think it is the role of charity for these issues. People would have a lot more money to donate without all this tax, and the cost of care for the charities would decrease without the Government messing up the prices. In other words, in a Libertarian society, those who still cannot provide will be at the receiving end of a far better (and morally just) charity system. |
On the bolded point, i would respond that there is a difference between the government providing minimums and the government attempting to provide too much. The incentives for home ownership were irresponsible, and i would argue more economically motivated than from a humanitarian motive (shortest way to express this point being: a privately-owned home is different from shelter).
In most of these cases i'm speaking about really treating the underclass, rather than most of the incidents you cited being attempts to mess with middle-class welfare: Medicaid serves that purpose, as does welfare (although open-ended welfare payments should be checked). The moral calling here is to treat the homeless, the hungry, the unemployed or unemployable, the truly poor. In a society with excesses like ours, such things should not exist.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
