Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes and then you have richer people getting better service and poorer people getting worse.The current model insures that everyone has the same chance not to burn alive regardless of how much money they have.
So? You have that in a government regulated society as well.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But how does that help? Right now I can go to a government run and regulated college and pay the same. If anything more government funding should go to colleges so that they can lower the tuition and make that level of education more accessible for everyone.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes it ranges from none to allot.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
What if they can't afford it? And then you have people getting better protection if they have more money.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And I showed how that privately funded system would lead to more crime.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
[B]That's a bit of a blanket statement, allot of those people do need those programs.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So? You have that in a government regulated society as well.
Not at anything close to the same extent.
Person A has a lot of money. Person B is very poor. They live in roughly the same area.
With a government they get essentially the same service. In an anarcho-capitalist system Person B can only afford ill funded or incomptent firefighters while Person A can afford the best.
If you want to be Darwinian I guess it will rapidly weed out the undeserving lower classes.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, like, should the lack of money itself be a cause for death? nonot having money usually indicates something. Mainly, that the person is doing nothing. If someone is unwilling to take whatever action is necessary to survive, then they are making the choice to die...
A person being poor is not always their fault. And in your system a lack of money would result in death.
Also, I think both Bardock and myself have illustrated ways that people might be able to receive certain social assistance through community and charity based programs.
Would you pay for schools?
right, so lets start a big huge government program to...wait, you're a Canadian. Do you not remember the gun registry? Sponsorship scandal. All these other massive money sinks that our government constantly creates?
What would you think of a system where the federal budget is voted on by the people?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Person A has a lot of money. Person B is very poor. They live in roughly the same area.
With a government they get essentially the same service. In an anarcho-capitalist system Person B can only afford ill funded or incomptent firefighters while Person A can afford the best.
this is only representative of the most strictly defined individualist anarcho-capitalist societies
apparently one where people do not even have sympathy for one another...
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosYeah, they both have an overpriced mediocre service, that also harms the economy.
Not at anything close to the same extent.Person A has a lot of money. Person B is very poor. They live in roughly the same area.
With a government they get essentially the same service. In an anarcho-capitalist system Person B can only afford ill funded or incomptent firefighters while Person A can afford the best.If you want to be Darwinian I guess it will rapidly weed out the undeserving lower classes.
Your assumption that somehow the lower classes could not afford protection from "crime" nor "fire" in an anarcho-capitalist society is entirles baseless.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think the argument goes, "Person B" should have worked harder in life.
Person B was born into a poor family and has a mild learning disability that forced him to struggle through school and take a low paying job at a young age in order to survive. Despite hard work that far outstrips that of Person A (a trustfund baby) he was never promoted due to lack of education. Now the benevolence of anarchy allows him to watch everything he worked for burn.
Originally posted by inimalist
this is only representative of the most strictly defined individualist anarcho-capitalist societiesapparently one where people do not even have sympathy for one another...
I suppose Person A could offer to save the house in return for Person B working as a unpayed servant for a period of time.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, they both have an overpriced mediocre service, that also harms the economy.Your assumption that somehow the lower classes could not afford protection from "crime" nor "fire" in an anarcho-capitalist society is entirles baseless.
People have to pay to get help in your system.
Poor people cannot pay.
Poor people cannot get help.
That's a fairly good basis.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
You still are paying the balance because of a hike in taxes. In reality, you save no money if funding is increased.
Yes you do, because in that case the cost is spread out more, so the individual amount is less.
No, you didn't. You just said less (Which isn't even true) higher education equals more crime, which is false.
Less access to higher education results in more people going in to blue collar jobs. This results in too much of the workforce consigned to blue collar level and there isn't enough jobs for them. Then the people who don't have jobs are poor and often turn to crime out of desperation. You also have added stress placed on families which adversely effect the home life of children in those families.
No, they don't. Growing up in an area where these programs were everywhere, I can definitively tell you no.
I see allot of good work being done by those programs. Maybe it's just the area you live in.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThat's a heartbreaking story cry
Person B was born into a poor family and has a mild learning disability that forced him to struggle through school and take a low paying job at a young age in order to survive. Despite hard work that far outstrips that of Person A (a trustfund baby) he was never promoted due to lack of education. Now the benevolence of anarchy allows him to watch everything he worked for burn.
How much money will you personally dedicate to charity so poor people like person b can afford protection hmm
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But not to the house of that family living off of minimum wage.
Yes the fire department comes to their house as fast as it does mine.
Yeah, but your solution is ****ing armed robbery, man.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
A person being poor is not always their fault. And in your system a lack of money would result in death.
I didn't realize you meant poor people when you said didn't have money. I took it a little to literally.
As I addressed earlier in the thread, poverty is something that would have to be addressed by government policy long before people were capable of taking personal responsibility. This will be done best by providing financial incentive for corporations to invest in small and impoverished areas and allowing poor people to work for a living wage.
and, as pointed out above, your version of anarchy is the most extreme individualistic version, one I am certainly not advocating, and unless I'm mistaken, nobody in this thread is advocating.
As stressed earlier, anarchists (at least anarcho-capitalists) do not advocate the immediate removal of government. We understand that stuff would be crazy.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But then your leaving it up to chance, that enough people will want to donate.
I talked about radical federalism earlier in the thread. Basically, I'm more pragmatic than idealistic, or I try to be. The idea would be to use to government to encourage these things until it was, at the very least, a social convention, if not something that even resembles modern taxation.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes but I know there are people out there that wouldn't.
and to force them to is stealing
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That's why I talk about responsible taxation. I think politicians should have to justify what they spend our tax money on and show us the benefits.
lol
because politicians are honest and forthcoming 🙂
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
What would you think of a system where the federal budget is voted on by the people?
representative democracy is like me sending you to the fridge when I'm thirsty, because you can decide what is best for me to drink.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I do get why you see it that way, I see it more as enforced morality. Your making sure everyone in society is protected and cared for equally, because it's too vital and important to be left up to the risk of enough people wanting to donate money to help.
No, it's really just armed robbery. Sure your justification may be moral highground or something (whatever makes you sleep at night). But you support innocent people being forced WITH GUNS to give up their hard earned money. That's what you support. No arguing about it.