Possible Video Topic: Disability and Social Assistence

[Soulfire]

This is for Mr. Molyneux to decide, whether he would like to address this, but I have a few questions for him regarding disability and social assistance. I realize that times are busy with politics and the potential for nuclear Holocaust likely taking up much of his time in terms of video content, but I've always wondered why he's never addressed this at all.

 

1. Stefan, my salutations to you as well as my appreciation, for though we differ on many points in terms of politics, I am an avid viewer of your content on YouTube and I can at least acknowledge the fact that you're an extremely intelligent man who has a great capacity for free speech. That's what it's there for, so please do continue to exercise your right to it. Firstly, though, I would like to ask whether you could consider addressing the topic of disability and social assistance, as I have literally never seen you do so and I would like to know your opinions.

 

2. I am not a Libertarian and I am perfectly willing to submit that I am ignorant regarding many points thereon, but from what I've heard from you regarding it, I have to wonder: if taxation were eliminated under a Libertarian regime, what of such programs as ODSP? Those are put in place for people who literally cannot work due to their physical or mental differences, and therefore, it seems to me that Libertarianism puts the disabled in a rather tight position. I may be missing a big point here, though, so if you could set me straight, I'd appreciate it. What I want to know is how such a program would be implemented, if at all, if taxation were ever to be eliminated?

 

3. With the population aging, you have addressed the fact that we, the young, will be responsible for supporting the elderly on the demographic chart, which is, in Canada, becoming increasingly top-heavy, with the Baby Boomers growing old and needing more help. However, I argue that age is not anyone's fault, per se. With age comes increasing levels of age-related disability, however, and so a thing like ODSP is, now more than ever, needful. What is your take on this? Are people "entitled" to social assistance by virtue of being disabled and unable to work? If not, what do you suggest be done for them? How does Libertarianism address this issue? So far as I see it, and I am sure you can correct me as I urge you to if I am wrong, Libertarianism appears to be a system under which the able-bodied and wealthy are more highly favoured, as these have much less to worry about in regard to the dispersion of money than the disabled or those born into poverty. As I say, I am ignorant of Libertarian philosophy in regard to this particular issue and don't know how it would be handled. Help me out?

 

As I said above, thank you for your work and your continual efforts to make sense of things in the world. I'm happy to say that you're one of many: philosophy is in my blood like air is in my lungs, and I want to spread it too. I hope to be able to do some good on this website, actually, as I am a brand new member here despite being a long-time listener of yours. Cheers, Stef.  

 

PS: And if anyone else here has opinions or information regarding this, help a sister out, eh? Thanks all. ♥

[Tyler H]

Hi Soulfire, welcome to the community!  The curiosity you exhibit approaching this subject is admirable.  I see that you really care what happens to people who are truly unable to provide for themselves and need the assistance of their fellow man; I assure you most advocates for a free society do as well.  

I have to tell you that I laughed when you reinforced your confession of ignorance in libertarian principles with the use of the term "libertarian regime". You seem curious enough that in time you'll see the humor in it as well. But anyway let's see if I can at all assuage your concerns with regards to the less fortunate members of society. 

Did you know that 84% of Canadians donate to charity to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year? In the US it is a lower percentage, at about 67%, but the donations are nearly 375 billion dollars a year! That puts the average donation at nearly 3 thousand dollars per annual household contribution. Also, the percentage of American high net worth households (1 million dollars+) who donate is at an impressive 98%. On top of that 65 million Americans volunteered 8 billion hours of their time amounting to an estimated 175 billion dollars. Add that to the monetary donations and it's nearly hitting 550 billion dollars. I outline these facts to show that a significant majority of people really care about the poor - and not just enough to tell the government to make everyone else donate, but to put their own time and money where their mouth is and help out. How much more would be given if people had twice their income? How much less would be needed? Take into account also that an increase in empathy will be needed for society to reject the initiation of force in all its forms as an allowable interaction in civilization so it is unlikely more freedom will result in less charity.  

It is, I think, a result of the vast compassion so many people have for the indigent this topic is so often raised when questioning libertarian principles, and the very reason why we do not need the government to handle it.  It is an enormous overhead (not to mention it is immoral) to apply force to a situation that would come to fruition without it.  Also due to the fact that this objection is so often raised, there is a plethora of libertarian works addressing the subject far better than I can here.  Stef has done podcasts on the subject before (you can do a search at FDRPodcasts.com, but shame on you for not listening to all 3500!) and The Mises Institute has mountains of material that has really helped me explore the questions that naturally arise when discovering these new ideas.  The Foundation for Economic Education is another great resource as well.

I mentioned the immorality of the process by which the state handles welfare; this is the main objection I and many others have. It doesn't matter how charity is handled in a free society as long as force is not used.  It's not right to rob someone at the point of a gun, whether you use the money for drugs or public school, whether it's for personal enrichment or for the needy.  The action itself is immoral.  We don't care how the cotton is picked without slavery - we declare slavery is immoral and so insist on another way of getting it picked.  In every case I can think of when you remove the "short-cut" of violence, and are therefore required to think of peaceful means, the result is far better.  

I hope my comments help.  Here is one of the first videos I saw of Stef's that was A kind of broad introduction to libertarianism. It's still one of my favorites.  Let me know what you think!