|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 28, 2014 19:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 28, 2014 21:27:07 GMT -5
:DThanks Zak. I'll get to this later. Early day tomorrow. Bedtime.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 14:50:57 GMT -5
Okay, so what does that article falsely imply? It implies that people can't raise themselves out of poverty without government help. History tell us otherwise. In the 100 years before 1929, there was little if any government welfare. Yet millions raised themselves out of poverty. There were plenty of private charities to help those who were down on their luck. Government programs are, at best, inefficient and unnecessary. Even worse, they are based on the false premise that some politician or government bureaucrat knows what is best for people, and that those with money must be compelled to give to charitable causes because they are too cheap to donate on their own. The existence of numerous private charities that survive on voluntary donations, even today, gives the lie to that claim.
Bob
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on May 29, 2014 15:50:43 GMT -5
"The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 was the first land rush into the Unassigned Lands. ... considered some of the best unoccupied public land in the United States." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889"The federal government was giving away land to people who were willing to stay and improve their property. Gold was discovered in both Colorado and California." answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090504113542AATdokP"The Homestead Act of 1862---The distribution of Government lands" www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/I could go on & on Bob, but I won't bother. The GOVERNMENT GAVE LAND AWAY, or charged very little. No one gives nuthin' away today. There were no taxes as such. Bob, you know when to ignore truth. Bob: "It implies that people can't raise themselves out of poverty without government help. History tell us otherwise." No, YOU tell us otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 19:34:01 GMT -5
Okay, so what does that article falsely imply? It implies that people can't raise themselves out of poverty without government help. History tell us otherwise. In the 100 years before 1929, there was little if any government welfare. Yet millions raised themselves out of poverty. Yes, clearly, a couple of soup kitchens and workhouses are *just as good* as a comprehensive social security and welfare system.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 21:34:25 GMT -5
"The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 was the first land rush into the Unassigned Lands. ... considered some of the best unoccupied public land in the United States." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rush_of_1889"The federal government was giving away land to people who were willing to stay and improve their property. Gold was discovered in both Colorado and California." answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090504113542AATdokP"The Homestead Act of 1862---The distribution of Government lands" www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/I could go on & on Bob, but I won't bother. The GOVERNMENT GAVE LAND AWAY, or charged very little. No one gives nuthin' away today. There were no taxes as such. Bob, you know when to ignore truth. Bob: "It implies that people can't raise themselves out of poverty without government help. History tell us otherwise." No, YOU tell us otherwise. But Joan, that was a perfect example of putting libertarian principles into action! The government got out of the land owning business and gave the land back to private enterprise.How much was that land farmed when it was owned by the government? None. How much gold was discovered when the land was in government control? None. I wish the government would get out of more businesses just like it did here. Joan, your post supports my case. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 21:38:00 GMT -5
Okay, so what does that article falsely imply? It implies that people can't raise themselves out of poverty without government help. History tell us otherwise. In the 100 years before 1929, there was little if any government welfare. Yet millions raised themselves out of poverty. Yes, clearly, a couple of soup kitchens and workhouses are *just as good* as a comprehensive social security and welfare system. But there wasn't just "a couple of soup kitchens and workhouses." The pre-1929 private charity network was large and extensive. Bob
|
|
|
Post by tricia on May 29, 2014 21:38:16 GMT -5
For me, that article is an example of how the welfare system *should* work and what it *should* be used for. It's people like that that I don't mind my taxes going toward helping. It should be there to help when you need it, a stepping stone to help you until you're able to make it on your own, or there to catch a person who was making it on their own and truly had something happen to where they just can't anymore. It should not be a way of life from the getgo.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 21:44:01 GMT -5
For me, that article is an example of how the welfare system *should* work and what it *should* be used for. It's people like that that I don't mind my taxes going toward helping. It should be there to help when you need it, a stepping stone to help you until you're able to make it on your own, or there to catch a person who was making it on their own and truly had something happen to where they just can't anymore. It should not be a way of life from the getgo. Private charities an do just as much. In fact before 1929, they did. If you would gladly pay your taxes for a successful program, then you should have no trouble giving a voluntary contribution to private charities that accomplish the same goals. Bob
|
|
|
Post by tricia on May 29, 2014 21:46:52 GMT -5
Well, of course I would Bob. And if they didn't rob me of so much of my pay I'd actually have some money to give to private charities!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 21:49:26 GMT -5
But Joan, that was a perfect example of putting libertarian principles into action! The government got out of the land owning business and gave the land back to private enterprise.So the government stole land that wasn't theirs to begin with and "gave it back" to private enterprise. How "libertarian" of them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 21:50:34 GMT -5
Yes, clearly, a couple of soup kitchens and workhouses are *just as good* as a comprehensive social security and welfare system. But there wasn't just "a couple of soup kitchens and workhouses." The pre-1929 private charity network was large and extensive. Bob Surely you have actual evidence for that claim? I sure as hell do not recollect reading about a "large and extensive" charity network in pre-20th century Europe that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 22:49:34 GMT -5
Well, of course I would Bob. And if they didn't rob me of so much of my pay I'd actually have some money to give to private charities! Exactly my point Tricia. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 23:09:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2014 23:11:30 GMT -5
But Joan, that was a perfect example of putting libertarian principles into action! The government got out of the land owning business and gave the land back to private enterprise.So the government stole land that wasn't theirs to begin with and "gave it back" to private enterprise. How "libertarian" of them! The stealing part was bad. But what else can you expect from a government? The giving it back was good. Bob
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on May 30, 2014 8:19:17 GMT -5
"Joan, your post supports my case." Bob
Dream on, I rarely support your cases. If you insist on seeing it that way, I can't stop you.
"The stealing part was bad. But what else can you expect from a government? The giving it back was good." Bob
Except it wasn't given to the victim of the theft. Or maybe you mean those lovely prisons called Reservations.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 30, 2014 10:08:16 GMT -5
"Joan, your post supports my case." Bob Dream on, I rarely support your cases. If you insist on seeing it that way, I can't stop you. Yes Joan, you rarely support my cases. This was one of those rare times. When the government gives away the things it own to private people, that's Libertarian. Yes Joan, but remember that those lovely prisons called reservations are run by the government. In a Libertarian society, that would end. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 20:44:18 GMT -5
So the government stole land that wasn't theirs to begin with and "gave it back" to private enterprise. How "libertarian" of them! The stealing part was bad. But what else can you expect from a government? The giving it back was good. Bob So tell me, when did you become a supporter of the forcible redistribution of property, Bob?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 30, 2014 21:41:09 GMT -5
The stealing part was bad. But what else can you expect from a government? The giving it back was good. Bob So tell me, when did you become a supporter of the forcible redistribution of property, Bob? But I never have. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 21:50:26 GMT -5
So tell me, when did you become a supporter of the forcible redistribution of property, Bob? But I never have. Bob You just described stealing land and giving it to somebody else as "libertarian". So you do consider forcible redistribution of property to be acceptable by the tenets of libertarianism: But Joan, that was a perfect example of putting libertarian principles into action! The government got out of the land owning business and gave the land back to private enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 30, 2014 22:15:49 GMT -5
You just described stealing land and giving it to somebody else as "libertarian". So you do consider forcible redistribution of property to be acceptable by the tenets of libertarianism: But Joan, that was a perfect example of putting libertarian principles into action! The government got out of the land owning business and gave the land back to private enterprise. No. Quite the contrary. Take a look at the quote you posted. I said nothing about stealing land. All I said was that it was good for the government to get out of the land business. Reducing the number of businesses the government is in is consistent with libertarian principles. Quite evidently, stealing land is not. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 14:07:22 GMT -5
You just described stealing land and giving it to somebody else as "libertarian". So you do consider forcible redistribution of property to be acceptable by the tenets of libertarianism: No. Quite the contrary. Take a look at the quote you posted. I said nothing about stealing land. Of course you didn't. Because then you'd draw attention to the inconvenient fact that all that land was stolen from its original occupants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 14:09:21 GMT -5
Also, how about some evidence of those millions upon millions of people who managed to raise themselves out of poverty via soup kitchens and private charity drives?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jun 2, 2014 14:25:49 GMT -5
Hey Mcans....is there a welfare system set up in Austria? Or is there a need for one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 21:07:17 GMT -5
Austria has a fairly comprehensive welfare system, yes. (I say "fairly" because Austria is actually far less "socialist" than the US in some areas. For example, we have no minimum wage, and emergency care is not free. Some people, such as foreigners or adult students with no income, are not covered by the welfare system.)
Our healthcare system is a mixture of the German Bismarck system (where there are different insurance models for different groups of people) and the Western European single-payer system (where a national healthcare organization sets rates and conditions for doctors and hospitals) with the option to pay for healthcare out of pocket for those who can afford it.
Our welfare system is a social security system, i.e. unemployment and welfare are paid from a common fund that all employees and employers have to pay into.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2014 21:14:06 GMT -5
Austria has a fairly comprehensive welfare system, yes. (I say "fairly" because Austria is actually far less "socialist" than the US in some areas. For example, we have no minimum wage, and emergency care is not free. Some people, such as foreigners or adult students with no income, are not covered by the welfare system.) Our healthcare system is a mixture of the German Bismarck system (where there are different insurance models for different groups of people) and the Western European single-payer system (where a national healthcare organization sets rates and conditions for doctors and hospitals) with the option to pay for healthcare out of pocket for those who can afford it. Our welfare system is a social security system, i.e. unemployment and welfare are paid from a common fund that all employees and employers have to pay into. That actually doesn't sound bad. The only thing I might object to is that contribution to the common fund is mandatory. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 5, 2014 2:04:50 GMT -5
But is it? If a majority of the people of a country vote for a party that advocates a welfare system in its manifesto, aren't they giving that party - when it is in government - a democratic mandate to run a welfare system?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 7:09:16 GMT -5
I think it goes beyond even that. I would argue that a comprehensive system of social security is an objective good that everyone in the country benefits from, even if they do not get a whole lot out of it directly. A functioning welfare state helps maintain not only a large middle class and a stable consumer market, but also a political environment that's relatively free of dangerous extremism and violent political conflict.
I don't think it's a coincidence that those European countries with the most violent political climate and the strongest support for extremist parties are also countries where the welfare state has been disintegrating (Greece, Spain) or was never there to begin with (Ukraine, Hungary).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2014 17:14:27 GMT -5
I think it goes beyond even that. I would argue that a comprehensive system of social security is an objective good that everyone in the country benefits from, even if they do not get a whole lot out of it directly. A functioning welfare state helps maintain not only a large middle class and a stable consumer market, but also a political environment that's relatively free of dangerous extremism and violent political conflict. In America before 1929, there was a large middle class, a stable consumer market, and a political environment relatively free of dangerous extremism and violent political conflict. And there was no welfare state. And the welfare state didn't work out too well for Wiemar Germany: There is a reason the welfare states in Greece and Spain have been disintegrating. Welfare states are inherently unstable. Once a bureaucracy is in place, it tends to expand. Eventually, programs increase, budgets expand, and the whole system becomes a bloated, inefficient mess. Sometimes this happens sooner, as in Greece and Spain. Italy should be included as well. They have a social welfare program too, but they are in terrible financial shape. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_welfare_stateItaly is "balancing the budget" by not paying most of its bills. France seems to be following as well. The French economy is slowly shrinking. As for extremist parties, they seem to be increasing their share of the vote in Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, and Germany, as well as in France. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 1:20:05 GMT -5
In America before 1929, there was a large middle class, a stable consumer market, and a political environment relatively free of dangerous extremism and violent political conflict. That doesn't seem to be born out by what I've read on that period of history, Bob. First of all, the income gap between rich and poor people was larger in the 1920s than it was in the 1950s-1970s. Second of all, there appears to have been some considerable politically motivated violence. Example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Coal_Warsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
|
|