Where does 'Deflection' fall on that pyramid you posted in the other thread?
The services she (I'm assuming she) stated would be paid for are:
Welfare
Free education
Free healthcare
Welfare includes food stamps, housing, and a monthly stipend.
'The Rich' do not need food stamps, they can afford to feed themselves.
they do not need subsidized housing, they can afford to buy houses.
they do not need a monthly stipend, they have their own sources of income.
they do not need free education, they can afford private schooling, or tutors.
they do not need free healthcare, they can afford doctors.
Simply put, they don't need charity. Since they are already paying for those services through other means, why should we force anyone to pay for services they do not need, nor use?
Topic: The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument - page 7. (Read 10625 times)
Oh, yes, My uncle moneybags couldn't wait to get his welfare check and food stamps.
Like I said, small-minded. Let me see if I can help...
Consider for a second:
What would happen if welfare and food stamps were cancelled tomorrow?
Pro-tip history lesson:
If you don't occasionally throw the poor a bone, they'll come and take yours.
Oh, yes, My uncle moneybags couldn't wait to get his welfare check and food stamps.
Your argument went bunk in the beginning. Everyone benefits from social services, this is why it is only fair to make payment manditory so that everyone pays for them. The fact that you estimated that 50% of the population is too small-minded to understand the importance of social services does not change the fact that this 50% will still benefit from them, and thus it is not a valid excuse for them to cop out of paying for them.
Very well put.
Sure.
cool argument. Can I re-post it on facebook on my notes?
Dear left-leaners of all kinds,
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:
OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.
Now let's assume you guys don't decide along with the right-wingers that you don't care about the poor, because you're better than us. Therefore, in the absence of government, you all agree to pay 'taxes' to provide essential services to those people (i.e. donate to charity). Let's say you all accept that 33% of your income is a fair amount, so we have 10% of the USA's GDP to spend on 'key' services.
Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK, and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.
You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion
This comes to £805 billion ($1.3 trillion), so not only under tax-free voluntarism could you have free health & education for 50% of the population, but you could do it to a similar standard in education and 'better' in health & welfare than the current provision in the US.
This works on the ridiculous assumptions that you'd be as inefficient as the UK government and that you'd get no support from any of us evil rich right-wingers. Whatever the state of the world, if you lefties care as much as you say you do, the poor in your country are going to be fine no matter how evil we are.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:
- 50% of the USA is left-leaning
- These people want the poor to have essential services
OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.
Now let's assume you guys don't decide along with the right-wingers that you don't care about the poor, because you're better than us. Therefore, in the absence of government, you all agree to pay 'taxes' to provide essential services to those people (i.e. donate to charity). Let's say you all accept that 33% of your income is a fair amount, so we have 10% of the USA's GDP to spend on 'key' services.
Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK, and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.
You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion
This comes to £805 billion ($1.3 trillion), so not only under tax-free voluntarism could you have free health & education for 50% of the population, but you could do it to a similar standard in education and 'better' in health & welfare than the current provision in the US.
This works on the ridiculous assumptions that you'd be as inefficient as the UK government and that you'd get no support from any of us evil rich right-wingers. Whatever the state of the world, if you lefties care as much as you say you do, the poor in your country are going to be fine no matter how evil we are.
Jump to: