It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Call Me A Socialist And I Won't Get Mad

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:37 AM

Free rider problem

This is only a 'problem' (and an unsolvable one absent massive coercion) in a Statist paradigm wherein everyone is *forced* to participate in the collective system...under such circumstances, anyone who 'opts out' and still receives the 'benefits' normally accrued to coerced parties is essentially gaining all the benefits of massive violence without being forced to pay into it. Someone who rides the bus without paying into the transit system is essentially riding on everyone elses toonie.

But since the Statist system relies *fundamentally* on negative sum participants, who the ruling class bribe, at the expense of the producers. Every person who gains his livelihood via government largess (stolen funds) is in effect a 'free rider', and is more accurately worse, they are indeed parasites. They dont just consume without producing, they consume *at the expense of production*. Thus the Statist system cannot and will not deal with the 'free rider' problem, as the Statist system fundamentally *relies* on those that do worse than 'free ride'.

The 'free rider' problem is solved simply by Voluntaryism - under true freedom, no one is forced, at gunpoint, to pay for, or associate with, any person who they do not wish to subsidize, or give alms to.

when one pays into it, there is a certainty all other people pay (thus also lowering the price for an individual payer).

Not really concerned with your immoral argument from effect, as effects (pro or con) of your proposed violence are basically irrelevant to me.

I dont care how many starving kids you can feed with the loot youve stolen. Your claim of virtue (feeding the needy) is *destroyed* by the act of *stealing itself*. (as youve destroyed the concept of virtue in the act itself.)

I dont care what worthy cause the mafia promotes after it takes its 'protection money' from me. No moral justification can justify the initial moral violation.

This is not certain with voluntary charity, leading to sub-optimal Nash-equilibrium for all (when one does not pay, he will receive almost the same service than one that pays, but with zero loss - thus for a rational actor, it is more advanageous to not pay, and in the end noone from rational actors will pay). It is also far more predictable and thus more efficient than voluntary charity with variable income and not universal rules for applicants.

Frankly dont care. How many charts and graphs do you think it would take to prove to me that you would be justified in robbing me via force?

I seriously dont give a sh*t about how you justify your thuggery.

Maybe more later.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:54 AM

Thus your assumption that all those who vote for welfare state would pay into voluntary charity in the absence of it is unfounded.

So it is your opinion that people would rather be forced at gunpoint to pay into charity for the poor (if what you support could even be called that, with 80c on the $ going not to the needy, but instead to the bureaucracy...) instead of doing of their own free will?

Would you rather have a gun to your stomach when purchasing a new car, instead of deciding on your preference without coercion?

So to you, coercion against all for all services is optimal?

Is my behavior sub optimal for not wanting my money to be stolen?

Am I sick, in your eyes?

This is not true. For some welfare systems (like the US or current our one), it may be partially true, but for others (like scandinavian, or negative income tax based ones, it is not. NIT based system was proposed by libertarian, actually).

Im not sure how a massive welfare state could be reasonably advocated by one who holds the Non Aggression Principle as inviolable. I wonder if you would be willing to list the national debts of the systems you hold up to be exemplary?

Probably not, as to do so would be to admit that all of these parasitic systems are catastrophically and necessarily and predictably in massive, unsustainable default.

Even if your ponzi scheme could show benefits over a couple generations, it simply must eventually collapse under its own indebted weight, as is happening right now.

And then what happens to the poor and disadvantaged, when the feeding trough of stolen government funds runs dry?

Bad utility, to steal from the future to pacify the present.

Again, perhaps more later.

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in