Teunis Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Hello everyone, With the welfare state thousands of people that wouldn't get any money because they cannot work, like mental patients or people with a born disease, cancer or some kind of retardation could possibly die without welfare checks. The issue I am facing is this. 1. Using force to give to other people so they can survive is a noble goal but with sick means. 2. Would society give retarded, homeless and jobless people donations without the state? 3. Example: Two men are in one room. One is hungry and underfed. The other one is healthy and has a bread. The hungry man asks the man with the bread to give him some in order to survive. The healthy man doesnt want to give his bread. Its his afterall. The healthy man is in his right not to do anything because he is the owner of his property. But this 'not helping' is that not a kind of agression towards someone in need? Although you cant be 'unethical' for doing nothing lets see a following example: Someone from who you know he cant swim jump into a pool. He is struggling and almost drowns. When you do nothing he dies. When you help he survives. Are you obligated to help? Yes or no? And why? 4. Short: Is it an act of agression not to help when someone is in grave danger. I need this issue solved. Not only for a book I am writing but also because of libertarian views on this. Ive read some on the subjects but I don't know. I just want to hear your impunt. Thanks! What are ways to make sure homeless, retarded and so on are not left to die? Ofcourse it is my opinion they should be fed and live a life just as alot of others think it is but I no longer want to justify the use of violence against our population for this reason.
PatrickC Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 The question you have to ask yourself is, 'do I care enough about the poor, sick and infirmed?'.. If you do then it's very likely that you will contribute towards these people either by direct donations or through some organisation that has set itself up to help people in these situations. I imagine you would'nt be alone with this belief either and many more people would join you in contributing to such an organisation. The second question you want to ask yourself is 'how well are current state provided services working out now?' In the case of free, such as the NHS in the UK you have a sub standard care that barely reaches their own standards. In the case of the US you have an over regulated private market that whilst probably providing better care than the NHS, costs a small fortune to insure oneself and their family. Private charity used to work more than adequately resolving issues around peoples health and welfare. Friendly societies or mutual associations were enormously successful organisations that were able to provide cover to those invested in them the proper care when needed. They were able to get massive discounts based on their massive member base. They were basically able to barter rather efficiently with the free market, particularly in health services. These organisations were often able to meet the demands of specialised need, such as cover for serious accident to coal miners. They were often able to provide a spouse with a welfare check that had lost her husband for the rest of her life. Unfortunately when the govt decided to provide these services either for free or funded via a basic (much lower back then) tax rate taken directly from a mans wage. No one felt the need to invest in these organisations anymore and so they slowly disappeared for good. Of course since govts monopolised these services there was no longer a barter mechanism to decide on price either and so eventually costs have just escallated to where they are now.
TheRobin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 If you assume we live in a representative government, then we already know that people do care (else the govt wouldn't provide theses services anyway), so we know we wouldn't need any government to do it in the first place.Also: How can doing nothing be considered an act of aggression?The problem with that kind of thinking is also, where does it end? Do you have to help the guy you see living on the street everyday? If so, does that also include the guy who lives on the street in the village next to yours? Or the people 10km away? or 30km away? And what would be the consequences for you if you didn't want to help? would it be ok for the guy in need to take your money by force? and if so how much could he take before his need no longer justifies that force?btw the two man in a room test is quite out of place here, as it assumes there are somehow only these two people around and one guy is completely dependant on exactly one other guy. But if that were literally the case, I think the world those two guys are living in had a lot more and different problems than solving the welfare of one of them.
Teunis Posted February 12, 2013 Author Posted February 12, 2013 Thanks for your replies people. Some arguments I knew but thanks TheRobin for the: how far away are you responsibble argument.
Recommended Posts