Helping the poor

[MisterSob]

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

[brucethecollie]

I think much more help would get to the poor without all the wasteful bureaucracy.  I look at what churches accomplish for themselves with their tax exempt status and wonder what it would be like if we all had that kind of freedom.  Also, the poor themselves might find a stateless society to be a less hostile climate in general and more easily lift themselves out of poverty.  

[shirgall]

Remember that even with the state $2B was donated to Haiti relief voluntarily. Never mind that it was hoovered up by the NGO operating the relief and very little of the money made it to Haiti. It it therefore easy to imagine that an untaxed stateless society would be quite willing to offer a helping hand, and might even be more careful about it.

[Wuzzums]

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.

 

I myself am struggling with the notion that the poor need support. How did you come to this conclusion? Another thing you should clarify to me, and yourself, is what the definition of "poor" is.

[Alan C.]

What does it mean to be poor? Most poor in the U.S. have cars, air-conditioning, TVs, refrigerators, and mobile phones.

 

Also, how does one differentiate between deserving and undeserving poor?

[markovcd]

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:

 

...

 

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

How poor are being helped right now? We have huge government overhead which eats large portion of the money. Also, as others pointed out there are what we call deserving poor and undeserving poor. It is obvious that shovelling money at alcoholics will only harm them. Big central institution have no way to distinguish between the two.

 

Also, how how did you arrived at the conclusion that minority of people who won't help the poor will be enough that poor won't be helped?

 

Lastly, helping the poor isn't restricted to giving money. You can also create jobs which is even more helpful because it creates sustainable money source. In current economy with all the restrictions less amount of jobs are created.

[WorBlux]

At the very least the poor would have more options and the level of aid needed should decrease.

 

http://fee.org/freeman/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it

[jughead]

The op's concern is that in a stateless society there may be insufficient charity to adequately support the poor. Leaving aside the difficulties mentioned in this thread as to defining the poor and what is adequate, the point of Molyneux's argument is that if the op's concern is valid, then we must conclude that current state based poverty programs are in excess of what the population feels is appropriate, and thus democracy is a sham. Is it ethical to force people to find these programs against their will just because the ruling class decides it should be so? This is the argument for a benevolent dictatorship based on paternalism and is not compatible with western liberal ideas usually trotted out to justify state action.

[Alan C.]

Americans gave more than $350B to charity in 2014

 

Americans gave more than $100B to churches in 2014

 

Is that enough?

[Agalloch]

"May choose not to" isn't an argument, it's just an admission that you care enough to increased the amount you'd give to cover the difference.

 

I wouldn't "give" money to "the poor" in a free society, because I genuinely believe it's the worst way to help people. The point of getting rid of violence is to allow my freedom of conscience, not to find new ways to deny everyone it.

 

Let me not give and try to help to poor that way, and I won't stop you from giving your hard earned cash to them. Hopefully we can see which works best and modify our behaviour voluntarily so people are actually helped, because...

 

The state doesn't help the poor! It might consistently manage to make sure everyone is robbed, but the vast majority of that money does not go to help the poor, and what does, doesn't help, at all. The alternative to a minority not funding your scheme, is not for the state to solve the problem, it's to have no solution at all.

 

And even though you think this is a special argument because "helping people", modify your position a bit and look at what you're really saying. "We need to force people to give money to my business, otherwise they might give it to a competitor, and I want the money".

[MisterSob]

Food for thought.  The figures for charitable donations are of particular significance, I think.

 

Thanks all!

[brucethecollie]

I think "help the poor" is indeed an ambiguous statement.  In my own experience helping the poor has been anything from taking clothes to a family whose house burned down to buying a homeless man a sandwich to volunteer teaching people with diabetes how to manage it. One is temporarily poor, one is completely out, and the others are in need of life saving information.  The state definitely makes it harder for people do help others in the way they might want to.

[Alan C.]

The best and most effective way to help the poor is to offer them a job. Unfortunately, the State has not only made that process onerous, but highly risky.