Can Libertarianism take care of the involuntarily poor and vulnerable?

[susano]

Likewise, I too have had conflicting ethical arguements as to how far should we assist or not. Over the years through personal experience I really think people would be much better off without a government handout. Somebodys situation regardless of how it happened to manifest does not give the government the authority to stomp on others by reducing thier income or freedoms. The extra money saved by eliminating welfare could be given to charities of individuals own choosing rather than what the government decides for you. I think of it like this, people would be free to decide where to give money too and people needing help can decide which charity to get help from. Through welfare nobody has a choice. Not only that but the welfare state breeds resentment and divides people because those paying taxes for it can be resentful to those receiving while those receiving can be resentful to those paying for not giving enough. Through charity and personal donations and personal receipt people have a clearer picture of what needs people desire. Thus, someone out there in a free market will fill that need in the form of a business.

On that last part, I wouldn't confuse business with charity. Business is about filling (or creating) a need for profit. Charity is non profit and costs money.

 

[Sola_Fide]

On that last part, I wouldn't confuse business with charity. Business is about filling (or creating) a need for profit. Charity is non profit and costs money.

Not all profit is monetary or tangebile.

 

[susano]

Not all profit is monetary or tangebile.

Oh, I agree but I'm speaking of money.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

On that last part, I wouldn't confuse business with charity. Business is about filling (or creating) a need for profit. Charity is non profit and costs money.

Good point, thanks. Perhaps business/charity/amorphic entity.

 

[jtstellar]

i personally wouldn't insult my principled fellow libertarians by posting something and immediately leaving it for 3 days just so "they can think about things".

on the "do good" part, are you saying a national tax channeled through a third party then channeled back to a party that this third party deems worthy and needy is what should be supported, or what.

if you're done arguing about the mission statement, perhaps we can get to the adult conversation of "what works, what doesn't". don't you wish you could be judged by your new year's resolution, not the actual achievement over the next 365 days.

 

[MelissaWV]

On that last part, I wouldn't confuse business with charity. Business is about filling (or creating) a need for profit. Charity is non profit and costs money.

Charity in and of itself is "non-profit," yes, but many companies benefit from their philanthropic image. I know many businesses that participate quite loudly in the United Way and Red Cross efforts, just to name a couple. Non-profits can still pay salaries, too; they just aren't the same as a profit-driven business model. The market still has a place for things which provide a benefit.

When it becomes too costly, though, and the benefit is reduced... when there's another game in town more popular and always undercutting you anyhow... there's no real point.