Hi
I am currently reading Molyneux's Everyday Anarchy and am having trouble with the idea of Anarchy versus Democracy when it comes to helping the poor. In the book, Stef says:
If a democratic government must force a selfish and unwilling populace to help the poor, then government programs do not reflect the will of the people, and democracy is a lie, and we must get rid of it – or at least stop pretending to vote. If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a stateless society – and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity than government programs.
I'm struggling because, in a stateless society, although the majority would choose to help the poor, the minority may choose not to - and the minority may be a significant enough amount to ensure that the poor receive inadequate support; in a state society, there is no such choice as the whole populace MUST contribute, willingly or otherwise.
Is the argument, in effect, that in a stateless society, adequate levels of support could be provided to the poor because private charity is more resourceful and thus less wasteful than government with its bureaucracy? Or would the concern still hold, that in a stateless society inadequate levels of support could be provided to the poor, even if a majority endeavored to help?
Thanks
