Poke holes in my Social Welfare Idea

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

By that reasoning almost all government services are illegitimate. Even border security. If government spends money building a wall on the border with Mexico, that does not benefit the people of Michigan as much as those in Arizona. Money spent on extra security for the Pope’s recent visit to Washington does not benefit people in South Dakota, and arguably does not benefit anyone except the Pope. Money spent on National Parks does not benefit people who don’t care to visit them. Money spent on researching a cure for Altzheimer’s does not benefit the 20 year olds. Money spent on airports does not benefit people who are afraid to fly and always take the train. Money spent on bike trails does not benefit those who live too far from those trails to use them. I could go on and on.

Your argument is too broad. If you want to argue against social welfare programs, it is not enough to show that such programs do not immediately benefit all people exactly the same amount. For even social welfare programs can be said to benefit the rich because they might not always be rich. A rich man can fall into poverty through misfortune. Then he can benefit from those same programs. So in that sense, social welfare programs do have the potential of benefitting everyone equally.

I do not intend to argue against social welfare programs. My argument is against unauthorized expenditures by the government. If that includes welfare…so be it.

I know it is a broad argument…the government has grown VERY “broad”.

Border security is security…a major obligation of the government. Illegal aliens find their way to every state. Therefore it is a legitimate expense for the common good.

Providing security and diplomatic recognition to visiting heads of state is a simple obligation of sovereign nations. The courtesy is repaid when our officials visit foreign nations.

National Parks do not deserve government support because, as you say, not everyone can, or cares to visit them. They should be self sustaining by entrance fees.

Government grants for research (Alzheimer’s etc.) are a form of corporate welfare. In the end, a corporation will profit at the expense of a competitor who did not receive such a grant. To promote private research, companies should not be taxed on funds spent on research, development, exploration etc.

Money spent on airports is a form of common good even for those who do not fly. Airfreight and commerce are benefits derived from air transportation. The trouble is that money earmarked for airports is diverted to political “pork” projects having nothing to do with transportation.

Tax money spent on bike trails and bike lanes benefits bike riders at the expense of motorists and hikers. Not a common good.

I could go on…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Border security is security…a major obligation of the government. Illegal aliens find their way to every state. Therefore it is a legitimate expense for the common good.

Although it is true that illegal aliens can find their way into every state, the fact is they do not burden every state equally. Some states are much more burdened by them than others. It is the people of these states who benefit more from border security - a legitimate service of government.

Providing security and diplomatic recognition to visiting heads of state is a simple obligation of sovereign nations. The courtesy is repaid when our officials visit foreign nations.

Yes, it is a simple obligation of sovereign nations. But meeting that obligation benefits some people more than others. It fails your test of “benefiting everyone equally”.

National Parks do not deserve government support because, as you say, not everyone can, or cares to visit them. They should be self sustaining by entrance fees.

Even if they do become sustained by entrance fees, it was an act of government that set that land aside to be a National Park. If every act of government is supposed to benefit all people equally, then the act of setting that land aside instead of opening it up to homesteading was an illegitimate act of government, according to you, right?

Government grants for research (Alzheimer’s etc.) are a form of corporate welfare. In the end, a corporation will profit at the expense of a competitor who did not receive such a grant. To promote private research, companies should not be taxed on funds spent on research, development, exploration etc.

What about NASA and the Space Shuttle and moon landings? Were they illegitimate?

Money spent on airports is a form of common good even for those who do not fly. Airfreight and commerce are benefits derived from air transportation.

They could potentially benefit anyone, but in fact they do not benefit everyone equally, especially the smaller airports that are used mostly by private pilots who fly for recreation. And airfreight and commerce benefit business people much more than they benefit consumers. It is still legit?

Is there not a single example I gave that would cause you to admit that not every legitimate expenditure of government benefits all citizens equally?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Is there not a single example I gave that would cause you to admit that not every legitimate expenditure of government benefits all citizens equally?

It is government plunder when a government forces people to pay taxes and does not provide services for the common good EQUALLY.

It is also government plunder when a government spends the taxpayers money on anything the government is not authorized to do.

If an expenditure by the government does not benefit all citizens EQUALLY…it is not legitimate and constitutes theft.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is government plunder when a government forces people to pay taxes and does not provide services for the common good EQUALLY.

It is also government plunder when a government spends the taxpayers money on anything the government is not authorized to do.

If an expenditure by the government does not benefit all citizens EQUALLY…it is not legitimate and constitutes theft.

Then it is theft when government spends money on border security with Mexico. It is theft when government supplies air traffic control services to private pilots. It is theft when government provides education (I’m speaking of State government, not Federal government here). It is theft when government sends out search and rescue teams for a lost sailboat. It is theft when government builds roads. It is theft when government funds a public library. It seems like there is absolutely nothing government can ever do that benefits all citizens equally, so the only solution is to have no government at all. (Even a police department benefits people unequally.)

 

[You]

It is government plunder when a government forces people to pay taxes and does not provide services for the common good EQUALLY.

It is also government plunder when a government spends the taxpayers money on anything the government is not authorized to do.

If an expenditure by the government does not benefit all citizens EQUALLY…it is not legitimate and constitutes theft.

I think the alternative to taxes is to pay for everything yourself to private companies, which to me sounds a lot more expensive. By spreading the burden of cost equally among everyone the cost to the individual is a lot less.

e.g. if your village wanted a state of the art hospital but there are only 500 people in your village it will be less expensive for you to spread the cost among 300 million people than among 500 people…

 

[stinkcat_14]

If an expenditure by the government does not benefit all citizens EQUALLY…it is not legitimate and constitutes theft.

According to whom? This may be your opinion, but you claim no special expertise in this area.

 

[57classic]

When is stewardship going to enter this conversation?

I live outside a small, and I do mean small, town in a rural area. I think there is maybe 1500 people in town, maybe 2500 in the entire 30 square mile county. In the last 5 years, the people of the town have out voted the rest of the county and installed a 3 million dollar swimming pool calling it economic development. They claimed the taxes on a $100,000 house would only go up $25 dollars. They didn’t care that the brunt would be carried by farmers whose children are grown and gone and not coming back. These landowners are paying many times more than $25 a year. Then the town annexed parcel of land, laid out streets, sewers, and a power grid but in 3 years, not one house has been built and the bond is not being paid as the city commissioners claimed it would be, who is going to pay for that? Now they want to improve the courthouse at a cost of 2.5 million. That was voted down in a straw poll, and the county commissioners reminded the populace that is was only a straw poll. Next will be the 7 bed hospital/ 12 bed long term care facility. It should only be a trauma center because we cannot keep a doctor in such a small town, we currently have only PA’s who are supervised by doctors who travel 40 miles each way.

In the mean time, we support a food pantry, back packs for school program not to mention supplies for the school rooms not provided by the school, a winter coat program, a “swap shop” where everything such as clothing and other dry goods are used but free, just please leave a donation for utilities and maintenance.

My point is, there are only so many dollars to go around whether the “rich” are farmers, manufacturers, or have inherited their wealth. If society kills the goose that lays the golden eggs, how on earth are we to feed the truly hungry when we have fed countless leaches and programs instead of being discerning in our charity?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Then it is theft when government spends money on border security with Mexico. It is theft when government supplies air traffic control services to private pilots. It is theft when government provides education (I’m speaking of State government, not Federal government here). It is theft when government sends out search and rescue teams for a lost sailboat. It is theft when government builds roads. It is theft when government funds a public library. It seems like there is absolutely nothing government can ever do that benefits all citizens equally, so the only solution is to have no government at all. (Even a police department benefits people unequally.)

We have discussed this before.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect our rights.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

To put it simply…

You cannot walk down the street and rob a person…then give that victim’s money to a beggar. That is theft. Yet that is exactly what a government does when it forcibly collects taxes and provides welfare.

Now since the act of robbing a person is immoral (even if the intention was to support a beggar)…how can we (the governed) consent to authorize our government to act in a criminally immoral way?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think the alternative to taxes is to pay for everything yourself to private companies, which to me sounds a lot more expensive. By spreading the burden of cost equally among everyone the cost to the individual is a lot less.

Actually other than military, fire/police protection and the courts, the private sector can do a better and more efficient job than the government.

The real alternative to taxes is contribution…or voluntary taxation. Sounds a little utopian, but it could work.

e.g. if your village wanted a state of the art hospital but there are only 500 people in your village it will be less expensive for you to spread the cost among 300 million people than among 500 people…

Does the village want a state of the art hospital to serve 500 people or 300 million? If the 300 million fund the hospital, I think the lines would be so long that the 500 villagers would be waiting a year to see a doctor.

A better solution would be for the villagers to approach a large private hospital chain with the idea of building a state-of-the-art CLINIC in the village. The village could provide a building site, tax relief, and a willing workforce for construction and staffing. That would work.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

According to whom? This may be your opinion, but you claim no special expertise in this area.

When a reasonable and logical person is right…they need no special expertise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We have discussed this before.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect our rights.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

To put it simply…

You cannot walk down the street and rob a person…then give that victim’s money to a beggar. That is theft. Yet that is exactly what a government does when it forcibly collects taxes and provides welfare.

Now since the act of robbing a person is immoral (even if the intention was to support a beggar)…how can we (the governed) consent to authorize our government to act in a criminally immoral way?

Yes, I know what you think is the proper purpose of government. However that does not answer the question we were discussing, which is whether the other criterion you mentioned was valid. That criterion, if I could remind you, was that legitimate government functions must benefit all citizens equally. I showed you several things that I know you consider valid government functions, that do not benefit all citizens equally. So perhaps you would like to take back that criterion?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Then it is theft when government spends money on border security with Mexico. It is theft when government supplies air traffic control services to private pilots. It is theft when government provides education (I’m speaking of State government, not Federal government here). It is theft when government sends out search and rescue teams for a lost sailboat. It is theft when government builds roads. It is theft when government funds a public library. It seems like there is absolutely nothing government can ever do that benefits all citizens equally, so the only solution is to have no government at all. (Even a police department benefits people unequally.)

The Catholic Church has not opposed government spending on any of those things, and it’s rather convenient that examples like carbon taxes and so-called gay “marriage” were left out, huh?

Once again, anyone who criticizes government must mean they want NO government.

So I guess we should just be silent let the beast grow and keep on taking away rights and freedom from people.

No thanks.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, I know what you think is the proper purpose of government. However that does not answer the question we were discussing, which is whether the other criterion you mentioned was valid. That criterion, if I could remind you, was that legitimate government functions must benefit all citizens equally. I showed you several things that I know you consider valid government functions, that do not benefit all citizens equally. So perhaps you would like to take back that criterion?

Is this comment suggesting that government can’t make things equal for everyone?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is this comment suggesting that government can’t make things equal for everyone?

Not only that, government should not try to make all things equal for everyone.

 

[57classic]

Government can offer equal opportunity, government cannot guarantee equal outcomes. Government is made up of human beings who are not perfect, they make mistakes and some use their positions to enrich themselves or their cronies. For those reasons, government cannot make things equal for everyone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Catholic Church has not opposed government spending on any of those things, and it’s rather convenient that examples like carbon taxes and so-called gay “marriage” were left out, huh?

I wasn’t claiming or implying that the Catholic Church opposed those things. I was just showing that, contrary to what Zoltan said, government can legitimately provide some benefits that are not equal for everyone.

Once again, anyone who criticizes government must mean they want NO government.

First, Zoltan was not criticizing the government in the comments I was responding to, and neither one of us was advocating no government at all.

So I guess we should just be silent let the beast grow and keep on taking away rights and freedom from people.

You might understand my comment better if you trace back through the most recent exchanges between me and Zoltan in this thread.

 

[stinkcat_14]

When a reasonable and logical person is right…they need no special expertise.

It is true you could be right by dumb luck. But, there is no reason to put stock in your unsubstantiated claims. Do you believe everything that every poster claims?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, I know what you think is the proper purpose of government. However that does not answer the question we were discussing, which is whether the other criterion you mentioned was valid. That criterion, if I could remind you, was that legitimate government functions must benefit all citizens equally. I showed you several things that I know you consider valid government functions, that do not benefit all citizens equally. So perhaps you would like to take back that criterion?

No I won’t take back my criterion!

I believe my “robbery” example settles the illegitimacy of government welfare.

As to equal services or providing for the COMMON good…I refuted some of your examples and agreed with others.

The legitimacy of any government service or program can be tested in two simple ways:

1: Is it constitutionally authorized? (applies to constitutionally formed governments)

If not is is illegitimate.

1. Does it serve all citizens equally and not certain individuals or groups?

If not is is illegitimate.

I know agencies like the Dept of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency exist and in a few rare cases they may potentially do a small amount of good. But they remain illegitimate until a Constitutional amendment authorizes them.

Welfare programs are illegitimate because we are forced to pay into it while others benefit.

Again, they exist and are doing good for some. However, they remain illegitimate until a Constitutional amendment authorizes them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is true you could be right by dumb luck. But, there is no reason to put stock in your unsubstantiated claims.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if misguided. Thankfully opinions can change.

Do you believe everything that every poster claims?

I am a pretty open minded guy. I tend to give people the benefit-of-the-doubt. I believe anything by some posters like LeafByNiggle because I have found him to be scrupulously honest.

This old Earth has spun around many times since I reached the age of reason and can tell right from wrong. In that time I have added an education and a lifetime of intelligent observations and experiences. I know who to believe and who not.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You are entitled to your opinion, even if misguided. Thankfully opinions can change.

I am a pretty open minded guy. I tend to give people the benefit-of-the-doubt. I believe anything by some posters like LeafByNiggle because I have found him to be scrupulously honest.

This old Earth has spun around many times since I reached the age of reason and can tell right from wrong. In that time I have added an education and a lifetime of intelligent observations and experiences. I know who to believe and who not.

The point is, what you have is an opinion, not objective truth. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is misguided. The problem is, your opinion does really do anyone else any good.