CDZ Why can't all social services be financed voluntarily?

[gallantwarrior]

Consider though, I don't care if there is a road to your house. My house yes, your house no. So I don't want to pay for your road.

Roads will be built as long as there is a need to get between two points. Roads will be maintained as long as there is a need to get between two points. Necessity alone will ensure that infrastructure is always built upon.

There are advantages to helping people outside your home community. The advantages of which can be both pragmatic and idealistic. Human beings will always be idealistic, and I for one want a better world beyond where I dwell.

Sowwy, too many people outside my community, who would want to dictate how my community runs, have no F**KIN' clue how my community works. Their ideology ends where my reality begins.

 

[task0778]

Well, I took his title as being such. Should have known better. Thanks for setting me straight.

There is a first time for everything, I guess.

I never get a satisfying answer to this question.The US has the most waste and inefficiency in its spending, but even with this being the case, most social programs could be funded voluntarily by a proportion of the population that supports them.

I'll admit that it is a little ambitious to fund everything in America voluntarily with a proportion of the population (the calculations are way better for other countries). This is because the US government spends inefficiently in every single area, with the most notable examples being defense, healthcare, and education.

Just imagine if your government didn't waste most of your money on useless 20 billion $ walls and giving welfare to bloated corporations.

Not to be a total dick, but Onyx didn't really ask a question.

No, you're right, he did ask a question in the title thread, my bad. I believe that prior to the Great Depression in the 1930s we didn't have any gov't social services programs in this country. Different world though, now vs then. Too many people and too few jobs, and too many people taking advantage of those gov't programs whether they need them or not. There was a time when families and churches and charities like the Salvation Army pretty much took care of people, and the idea of being on the dole was abhorrent to just about everybody. Don't know that we could ever go back to those days or even should, but I am pretty sure we could do a lot better at making sure the social programs we do have are more efficiently run and the money better spent.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• Public goods and government action
• Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods
  
• Economic Evaluation Enhances Public Health Decision Making

 

[there4eyeM]

The organized religions' hypocrisy is evidenced by the necessity of government aid.

 

[Onyx]

The organized religions' hypocrisy is evidenced by the necessity of government aid.

Most non-profits are not religious, and the top non-profits are also not religious. We need to develop a culture that promotes more contributions to non-profit organizations.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I never get a satisfying answer to this question.

• What exactly does "financed voluntarily" mean to you?
  • Does it mean good samaritans volunteer to pay for them?
  • Do you mean it in the Objectivist sense, a la Ayn Rand? If so, what about the criticisms of Rand dissatisfies you?
  • Perhaps you mean in the Objectivist sense, a la Rothbard? If so, what about the criticisms of Rothbard dissatisfies you?
  • Do you mean it in the Anarcho-Capitalist sense, a la Kosanke? If so, what about the criticisms of Kosanke dissatisfies you?
  • Does it mean of those things? If so, perhaps you've developed your own legal, economic and philosophical system for what it means and have published a text explaining it?
• What answer would satisfy you?
  • Have you already read Saint-Andre's? Biddle's?
  • If you've sought answers to your question and none you've come across are sufficient, it seems to me that you probably should develop your own legal, economic and philosophical model/theory that explains how all social services can be financed voluntarily seeing as nobody else's theories appeal to you. You should focus on how it "can" be voluntarily financed because nobody is particularly interested in how a goal be not-achieved.
• You are entreating for an economic discussion, right? If so, what is up with this: "most social programs could be funded voluntarily by a proportion of the population that supports them?" That is already happening. People aren't forced to pay taxes. Yes, consequences result from not paying taxes just as consequences result from paying them, but people are free to choose between facing the consequences of not paying the taxes or pay the taxes. There's no such thing as a freely made choice that has no opportunity cost. One may find some opportunity costs more palatable than others, but the opportunity costs always exist.