I agree with Spencer's view up until the point of "unworthy" people procreating; it's their choice. However, if they are horrible people -- who think they are entitled to what you have, and will take it by force via stealing or killing, or are just generally despicable -- they will be less likely to receive handouts, since charity wouldn't be coerced by those participating in government. Although, people are generally good, and these misguided folks would probably receive the help they need, anyway. People can change, and according to a recent Brain Games episode, happiness and forgiveness are contagious.

"Survival of the Fittest"/"Social Darwinism" remain even with governmental intervention, regardless of if you acknowledge it. Adaptations still occur, albeit mentally through learning. When everything is illegal, staying out of prison becomes a new survival trait. Lying, deception, and manipulation of the system are pursued, rather than bettering yourself and helping others around you.

tldr; It's unavoidable.

Fascinating stuff. I especially liked the part about how Spencer's "Survival of the Fittest" exists today in modern America. As a heads up: It doesn't. At all. Not even in the stretchiest definition of the term. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you readily admit to never having heard of it/him prior to my post.

BTW, any evidence - any, whatsoever - to support your beliefs that charities and the private sector could step in and "give handouts" to needy Americans, and that said Americans wouldn't go without and die in droves due directly or indirectly to not receiving assistance? Would be particularly interested in what would happen to foster children in Prophtopia...

Not everyone who likes NASCAR is a bigot......... Well maybe.....

So, governments make people more charitable, how? You seem to disagree with enough points to handwave my entire post. Please, explain.

One example I've already used -- which contradicted your dystopian depiction of past societies -- you consistently ignore:

If unintended consequences can have negative reprecussions to this extreme when done by a single person trying to do good, what makes you think a group of people with a monopoly on force -- consisting of some that don't necessarily have your best interests at heart -- will do better? This also assumes government is intent on helping, instead of starting wars and enacting laws that solely demand obedience, which is closer to the reality, except it is done under the guise of "safety." (How much more money could people spend on charity, if they didn't have money automatically taken from their paycheck to put towards these wrongdoings?)

Sure, and I'll speak in your emphasized manner to ensure I get through.

I'm not arguing that govts make people more charitable. I'm explaining to you how social programs were birthed out of necessity; that individuals with the means to do so aren't charitable enough to care for the destitute.

I'm explaining to you, yet again, the reality of human nature.

What happened during the Great Depression? Did charitable giving cover the needs of Americans? What happens during recessions, even as recently as the most recent one? Do the already insufficient charitable acts increase with need, or decrease due to there being less discretionary funds for those able to give? (Pssssst: The latter is the correct answer)

Private charities are responsible for giving about $2 billion to food assistance programs. Big number, right? This is a tiny fraction of what the govt spends on food stamps. Unless you're about to tell me Americans would be at least 20x more charitable without safety nets in place like SNAP (...lol), then you have to capitulate on this fact.

I read your frame job of past events, but have not read a realistic pitch for how best to manage 500,000 foster children by the private sector in contemporary America.

The non blue is derp, but the blue and bold? LOL, well, you best believe removing a 30% tax wouldn't increase charitable giving by 2,000% (see SNAP example).

In response to the Depression, and before the New Deal came to be, Hoover said recovery efforts should, "...maintain the spirit of charity and mutual self-help through voluntary giving." Rings pretty true to Conservatives and Libertarians of today, eh?

Too bad the private sector couldn't manage (unless by "manage" you accept Social Darwinistic outcomes), and the public had to pick up the slack.

Oh dear! You picked a complicated one! (Especially when you consider this happened after the Federal Reserve was created.)

I'll elaborate tomorrow, if I have time.

Conflict versus cooperation, what adaptation strategy has a better outcome for the mutual benefit of individuals? Which one is fittest and why?

Conflict breeds conflict of supremacy. Cooperation recognizes mutual supremacy even when a competitive process is used to decide outcomes.

The fittest humans still cooperate, even when they think they are competing. Cooperation works. Conflict inhibits cooperation as much as cooperation contains conflict. Praxeologically speaking, cooperation to extremes such as unconditional giving and setting no conditions on any person in the manner of equality is the superior adaptation strategy. With no conflict to create more conflict, disagreements are resolved practically and cooperatively. Just look at unchained to see how much simple conflict distorts information to the point of absurdity and pure contention.

Survival of the fittest cooperative humans is the better adaptation strategy.

**** flows better with out friction but true progress cant be had with out it.

You think the foster system would disappear without government, even though it existed before government became involved? Or is the key word "contemporary"? You think this would be harder, now?

Also, $2 billion is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to trillions. It's nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about this without involving monetary policy and the devaluation of the dollar. I'm trying to figure out the best place to start.

I already introduced you to the Orphan Train, which was the private solution you speak of prior to our public foster care system. Are you advocating for a modern version of this?

Best place to start? How about by admitting that relying on charitable acts will come nowhere near meeting the needs of needy Americans. This can be readily noted with even a superficial glance at our nation's history.
Unless you embrace the social outcomes of laissez faire capitalism / social darwinism, relying on the private sector to exclusively cover the services provided by public safety nets is NOT a viable option.

So, you see the recent (current?) Great Recession as a failure of charity, instead of a continuation of problems due to monetary meddling? Printing even more money for government's "charitable" causes is necessary? Is it really charity if you're using other people's money and incorporating the implication of violence? Inflation is a tax on everyone that uses said currency, after all. Why is America exempt from inflation's effects? (Hint: It's not.)

Do you understand that throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically fix it, and can even make the the situation worse? So far, you obviously don't. (Pssssst: Of course charitable giving will increase as charitable need rises, because the problems will become more prominent and affect people more directly.)

How is the private sector supposed to fix these problems, when governments are toying with their money, directly influencing profit motive? Also, you assume the current system isn't subject to fraud.

"The public" doesn't consist of free people? Or, have you perverted "the public" to mean "only those who participate in or support government"? You contradict yourself in the very same sentence.

The problem is that you look superficially at everything, rather than the actual, underlying problems.

Often, governments simply hire people in the private sector to do the work for them, with your money.

Let's make an "ass" out of 'u' and "me" and assume the Federal Reserve is the greatest, most wonderful thing ever created, and it actually serves its intended purpose. I only say this, to temporarily concede a point, so we don't get bogged down in the evils.

Do you even believe in boom and bust cycles?

youtoobzdidntwatch.gif

This is:

A) Epic reading fail.

or

B) Deliberate/desperate attempt at redirection.

I can't think of another option, but please let me know if I'm missing something.

This makes me think B.

Feel free to let me know how the private sector would go about covering the public safety nets that are currently in place...as this is, you know, the topic.

Of COURSE charitable giving will increase as charitable need rises?! No boss, just no. Do you have data to prove this? Because I can show you how charitable giving decreased substantially during our recent recession; about a 7% drop in 2008 and 2009.

Mind you, charitable giving is NOWHERE NEAR - not even in the same planet - of where it would need to be to cover the needs of Americans, but even still the ridiculous theory of "increased need = increased giving" is baseless and counter-intuitive.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/recess...fact_sheet.pdf

Boss...there is no way you can show me the private sector can adequately cover Americans in the way our safety nets do currently. This is impossible not because it's never been tried, but because it's never worked.

And fraud is a reality that has been ever present, and will plague every system to some degree. I think it's better mitigated when there necessarily are checks and balances in place as well as federal laws prohibiting it. But feel free to try and prove me wrong on this with data of some kind.

This is derp.

+1

if this thread was only allowed 1 post, i would elect this one

this fits considering what I've seen of right wing chain mail. I'm glad you both agree.

thats not true

i dont like nascar

Yeah you lile anime apparently.

i dont

only anime ive ever watched is dragon ball

want me to do an ama ?

What happened to the daily does of liberal liars we were supposed to be learning about in this thread? Got stuck at 1?

What explains the booms and busts before the fed? I hate that music video because it puts Hayek and Keynes on pedistals. Economics imho should not be degrees the two greatest economists imho are Rand and George and they both went to the school of hard knocks. Keynesianism is just an excuse for larcency.

Most poverty and homelessness are not caused by the fed printing money or controlling interest rates, but by private ownership in land and taxes. The feds sole purpose is to loot the working class for the elite.