[futuristic]

Supply and demand. An education per se doesn't guarantee a high wage.

Right, but it guarantees a HIGHER wage on average because educated people will be more productive. Plus, economic growth will be faster.

It's the scarcity of the skill or qualification. You can't have a nation of surgeons and stockbrokers. Someone still has to flip burgers and a burger flipper with a degree in sociology will still only get paid to flip burgers - as half of Britain's burger flippers could tell you.

This is a shortsighted view. Now, I would say, no more than 30% of people advance the progress of this civilization. Others perform simple tasks which don’t affect the progress and vote for destructive politicians which slows down the progress. If more people get educated they would first be able to make a more deliberate political choice, which would force politicians to make more business friendly policies. New business opportunities, new industries, and new white collar jobs will be created. For example, besides surgeons and stockbrokers new occupations will emerge related to the manufacturing of automatic burger flippers while burger flippers themselves would no longer be needed.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Your ability to go off topic astounds me, Mr. Dorf. Although I am getting used to it.

Heh, I'm just doing what you people do all the time. It was you you raised my libertarian beliefs in a discussion about republics, wasn't it?

The administration of foreign aid could largely be left to private organisations, although the funding for such would suffer dramatically if governments didn't take part.

I don't think it would. Who is to stop charities or private individuals giving aid?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Who is to stop charities or private individuals giving aid?

The question should be - what is to make people give enough extra aid privately to replace state aid if state aid is abolished?

The answer comes down to speculation over what people would give in such a society, but my speculation is that a society which is less accepting to the concepts of government aid and welfare is often one that is not all that accepting of the idea of charity and helping the less fortunate anyhow.

[Ombrageux]

"Would private charity be sufficient to feed the poor and protect them from the elements?"
Helloooo? Is Africa starving? Is 10% + of America below the poverty line? Does anyone remember the Great Depression?

OF COURSE private charity is NOT going to be enough. This is so blatantly obvious.

The real question is: "Is eliminating poverty by government-enforced mandatory charity good, in the long run, given that it allegedly damages our economy?"

[Paradigm]

"Would private charity be sufficient to feed the poor and protect them from the elements?"
Helloooo? Is Africa starving? Is 10% + of America below the poverty line? Does anyone remember the Great Depression?

OF COURSE private charity is NOT going to be enough. This is so blatantly obvious.

The real question is: "Is eliminating poverty by government-enforced mandatory charity good, in the long run, given that it allegedly damages our economy?"

I have to wonder if maybe throwing money at the problem isn't the best way to go about it. I don't think it's so much a matter of there not being enough money so much as it's not addressing the issues that create poverty in the first place.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

If 10% of the American population is under the poverty line (whilst welfare still exists) then that makes a mockery of the concept of welfare.

The answer comes down to speculation over what people would give in such a society, but my speculation is that a society which is less accepting to the concepts of government aid and welfare is often one that is not all that accepting of the idea of charity and helping the less fortunate anyhow.

Without welfare, the voluntary/community sector would be far larger. This would adequately 'help the poor'.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Without welfare, the voluntary/community sector would be far larger. This would adequately 'help the poor'.

Again, this is pure guesswork, that is based less on sound judgment than wishful thinking. But you will forgive me if I don't accept your definition of 'adequately helping the poor' as adequate.

[Attila The Nun]

Again, this is pure guesswork, that is based less on sound judgment than wishful thinking. But you will forgive me if I don't accept your definition of 'adequately helping the poor' as adequate.

Does government intervention even help the poor? If it wasn't for government intervention in the economy making it harder for jobs to hire, would they even need welfare?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Yes, they would. Libertarians on this very thread don't disagree with me on that point it seems. If you want to read why the answer is yes, you need look no further than SueDeNîmes' posts in this thread.

Not to mention we're not talking about the domestic poor so much as foreign aid at the moment.

[SoopaX]

I think that some people on welfare are abusing the system. I don't have any concrete numbers as to what percent do this, but I'm sure that "some" are doing it. With no safety net, all of these people would have to go out and get a job.

[Paradigm]

Maxim: I understand your concerns about Libertarians and their wishful thinking about society without certain social programs. I think that if you put aside speculation, it comes down to an argument over what society owes to the poor. I believe society owes the poor sufficient opportunity to better their situations, but it does not owe them handouts. The welfare state does a great job of providing the latter, but I believe a free market economy does better job at providing the former.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Again, this is pure guesswork, that is based less on sound judgment than wishful thinking.

Is it? It's only logical that the voluntary sector would be larger without the existence of state welfare.

I believe society owes the poor sufficient opportunity to better their situations,

Why?

[Maxim Litvinov]

It is perhaps logical that the voluntary sector will be slightly larger. But that's not what the onus is on you to show. You need to show that the voluntary sector will increase enough to make up for the drop off in state welfare.

And simply believing that, when that is not logical, is wishful thinking.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It's elementary.

Who else would be available to 'help the poor' if there were no welfare?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, the state wouldn't, just leaving the individual. And the individual would have to more than double the rate at which they gave to charity to offset the loss of welfare - not likely.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I don't believe the individual would pay 'double'.

With the community sector fitting the bill for welfare, the 'individual' wouldn't necessarily have to pay more of his money. Note that community sector organisations aren't solely funded by the average private citizen. The private sector is a major source of funding for these groups.

[Maxim Litvinov]

A fairly generic example would be:

X earns $100 a year.

* He pays $1.60 to charity (let's ignore the tax deduction and the fact that less than $1 may more than possibly go to 'the poor')
* He pays $40 in income and property taxes. About $5 of this goes into the welfare sector - for everything from pensions to single parent allowances. About 20c of this goes to foreign aid.

So, if X stops paying it in taxes, then he has to start paying not $1.60 to charity, but $6.80 to charity individually, notwithstanding other changes. Which even doubling his income after tax requires a doubling of his rate of charitable donations...

Of course, you could argue that most of this money would be met by the private sector, but that's just an example of passing the theoretical buck through more wishful thinking. There are all sorts of other reasons that the situation doesn't 'magically resolve' itself, but mere speculation that the public and private sectors just will make up the shortfall doesn't get us anywhere.