Democracy in a large industrial society will never be anything more than a popularly elected oligarchy. I don’t say that as a cynic; I say that as a realist. Anarcho-capitalism is the better solution (which usually appears very unrealistic to most people). The state is negative sum.
I don’t know what the numbers are of those who fell through the cracks before the welfare state, but millions can only be rescued from poverty when society can afford it. But if society can afford it, then poverty is already ebbing away. Capitalism is the engine that rescues people from poverty, not the state. The state consumes billions in capital and generates perverse incentives. I doubt you are a left-wing radical in terms of economics, but a socialist mentality lingers even among moderates who think there are huge sums of money available to fund the welfare state from the coffers of the rich. In reality, the only money available is the small fraction of dividends/income the rich consume—not the far larger portion they invest. That’s why the welfare state causes a big tax burden to fall on the middle or lower classes—a situation where Peter is robbed to pay Peter.
Yes, the numbers are important—as are the huge numbers related to the abuse of the dole/welfare caused by perverse incentives. The implication that poverty can be solved by legislative fiat is a myth that is often based on fallacious Marxist ideas like the Labour Theory of Value, e.g., the idea that the rich have exploited the workers by paying them less than labor is worth and the state and/or unions are “clawing back” what was taken from the workers. Or if it’s not based on the LTV, it’s the idea that the rich have additional, unused, funds lying around that can be used for redistribution without any negative consequences, e.g., taxing the rich just means one less yacht for the 1% and the equivalent in funds for orphans.
and how do you force private people to create safety nets. These ideas would only work in very small communities where people could keep tabs on each other. What are the checks abd balances against inevitable human corruption?I
The current welfare states are typically corrupt and inefficient. The welfare state has led, at times, to millions on the dole that were never there before. Mass unemployment is caused by government intervention, not unfettered capitalism. One of the virtues of private charity is that it has an incentive, due to its liberal (i.e., non-coercive) nature, to be more efficient and/or avoid perverse incentives. Before the state crowded out private charity, private “friendly societies” existed to insure workers against unemployment and illness. Keep in mind that the welfare state was pushed by those, often socialists, who had an overly pessimistic view of capitalism. Ironically, welfare states slow growth, the main means of rescuing people from poverty, because welfare consume billions in capital—i.e., funds that cannot be used for investment that increases real wages and/or jobs.
Democracy in a large industrial society will never be anything more than a popularly elected oligarchy. I don’t say that as a cynic; I say that as a realist. Anarcho-capitalism is the better solution (which usually appears very unrealistic to most people). The state is negative sum.
Please define "anarcho-capitalism"/
An article about the friendly societies. I believe some books have been written about this topic too. https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/feature/friendly-societies?fbclid=IwAR2hXUMRhSVprlbhxvtaS1Ed1xI4vK3bsQVneRysGe9N7Z4R0Lg_RzZnqjo_aem_ATJuBzGCYW2OYLVyoS4eAC-Q44qju-itnSiaYv5ZQR06WJ-SQef9CEYTpJUU7KCTdR8
Clearly they were not sufficient as millions ended up in the workhouses.
I don’t know what the numbers are of those who fell through the cracks before the welfare state, but millions can only be rescued from poverty when society can afford it. But if society can afford it, then poverty is already ebbing away. Capitalism is the engine that rescues people from poverty, not the state. The state consumes billions in capital and generates perverse incentives. I doubt you are a left-wing radical in terms of economics, but a socialist mentality lingers even among moderates who think there are huge sums of money available to fund the welfare state from the coffers of the rich. In reality, the only money available is the small fraction of dividends/income the rich consume—not the far larger portion they invest. That’s why the welfare state causes a big tax burden to fall on the middle or lower classes—a situation where Peter is robbed to pay Peter.
With respect, if you're opining about solutions to such problems you should look at the numbers .
Yes, the numbers are important—as are the huge numbers related to the abuse of the dole/welfare caused by perverse incentives. The implication that poverty can be solved by legislative fiat is a myth that is often based on fallacious Marxist ideas like the Labour Theory of Value, e.g., the idea that the rich have exploited the workers by paying them less than labor is worth and the state and/or unions are “clawing back” what was taken from the workers. Or if it’s not based on the LTV, it’s the idea that the rich have additional, unused, funds lying around that can be used for redistribution without any negative consequences, e.g., taxing the rich just means one less yacht for the 1% and the equivalent in funds for orphans.
Private provision of defense, police, law, etc.
And safety nets?
Private charity
and how do you force private people to create safety nets. These ideas would only work in very small communities where people could keep tabs on each other. What are the checks abd balances against inevitable human corruption?I
The current welfare states are typically corrupt and inefficient. The welfare state has led, at times, to millions on the dole that were never there before. Mass unemployment is caused by government intervention, not unfettered capitalism. One of the virtues of private charity is that it has an incentive, due to its liberal (i.e., non-coercive) nature, to be more efficient and/or avoid perverse incentives. Before the state crowded out private charity, private “friendly societies” existed to insure workers against unemployment and illness. Keep in mind that the welfare state was pushed by those, often socialists, who had an overly pessimistic view of capitalism. Ironically, welfare states slow growth, the main means of rescuing people from poverty, because welfare consume billions in capital—i.e., funds that cannot be used for investment that increases real wages and/or jobs.
Charity used to be the purview of religion.
Sure, but it can be anyone’s purview, as we see today.