@xX_NotVergil_Xx Ancap's believe that the role of government is purely defense

The free market doesn't even have interest in sustaining these things. What interest does the free market have in social benefits?

piss off ancaps, you only want to seek capitalist monarchy not democracy.

@Ruggwain Okay, but is the gov't better at negotiating lower construction costs, bidding out contractors, etc?

I've been saying it for years. Anarcho-Fascism is the way to go.

anarcho-fascism

> The free market doesn't even have interest in sustaining these things. What interest does the free market have in social benefits?

You can say this for any existing non profit right now. Yet, they still exist.

Also, as the taxation for welfare increases, the amount of money donated to non profits and churches decreases, yet they still exist. Imagine the work they could do with more income?

the liberals created benefits, because they realized that men that are conscripted into war want a little kick back from society

thats pretty much how it got started

Do private companies have nothing to gain from virtue signalling to customers about their good will?

(like the Ronald Mcdonald house?)

To my knowledge they do fine in regards to social housing but I don't have any information at hand regarding the rest of welfare infrastructure since that's admittedly insider info neither of us is likely to know unless we've been there ourselves 🤔

And these non-profits exist because of the as you say voluntary kindness of certain individuals. I don't see the number of generous people suddenly spiking when welfare is abolished. I don't see why we should essentially punish people for their generosity. Forcing people to help each other can be seen as as much of a intrusion into personal freedoms if not more than taxation.

> Forcing people to help each other can be seen as as much of a intrusion into personal freedoms if not more than taxation.

Yes

That's what welfare is

No

Welfare isn't forcing you to nurse your neighboir and shelter the downtown homeless does it?

Doesn't it?

No that's a silly thing to suggest

Wait no its not

wait.... your welfare doesn't do that?

The money that goes into welfare comes from taxation

You are giving your money to institutions that priviledge the good people in society by relieving them of the conscience while punishing the greedy. This is a largely moral fabric. If you do not care about morals but you do about principle and pragmatism, welfare levels the playing field. The free market as per Ricardo is designed to foster a healthy market environment. But as Ricardo also wrote 'Beware of Capitalists'. It's not good to have the state in control of your health, else you'll end up with the nhs killing babies. It's not good to have private companies in control of your health, else you'll have the American pill-mania or for example the purchase of the rights to a certain drug and spiking of prices as we have seen in the past few years. That is why a hybrid system of private insurance companies and basic stage welfare ensures the moral and pragmatic standpoints. There is little you can do about principle, as you sacrifice part of your rights, to obtain different rights, not priviledges as the state cannot revoke them as per constitutions of most social market welfare states.

Hmm.....

holy gish gallop, ok
So you said *You are giving your money to institutions that privilege the good people in society by relieving them of the conscience while punishing the greedy.*
Who are you referring to when you say good people and greedy people, do you mean the rich and the poor or am I missing something?

I'll have to think on that. But as to your previous statement...

My tax dollars *literally* go to nursing my neighbor and housing the homeless.

I meant more as in 'you don't have to personally go over and nurse them back to health you have someone professional do it for you'

Oh, yeah gotcha

Which can be ngos of course but if I may say so sometimes these aren't guaranteed to be capable

Okay, so the US has that hybrid system in place, which is what causes our high insurance costs in the first place.

@Kscope I'm talking about the moral reasoning behind egalitarian tratment of your citizens over voluntarism because the people you would consider good citizens are more likely to contribute whereas people you would typically consider bad citizens do not. This essentially punishes good citizens as the good cotizens do not gain anything in return other than perhaps the sympathy of other good citizens. A universal safety net takes this weight off of good citizens(massive airquotes on good and bad) and stops encouraging selfish behaviour.

The US system is badly managed

It can hardly be considered universal or a safety net

How can you say it 'punishes' good people?

Because it punishes you for helping others

How?

I dont follow your argument

If you help someone you will have less money whatever resource measurement than the person who didn't help

Ergo it is in the person's self-interest not to help

@Ruggwain is a great example of why we shouldn't hand out citizen all willy nilly