2 ms·

An anecdotal perspective to bring these conclusions a little closer to home- spend some time in outer borough NYC bodegas, there is a constant stream of people

by jrcii 11y ago

An anecdotal perspective to bring these conclusions a little closer to home- spend some time in outer borough NYC bodegas, there is a constant stream of people using food stamps to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. 100% of people that I've spoken with (dozens?) who live or have lived in these areas have corroborated these observations. As far as I'm concerned, even if these programs were free from abuse, they are payments for votes and programs like SNAP should be abolished -- that's what charities are for. The /only/ difference is that charities permit the liberty of donors whom may manage the fruits of their own labor.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
NYC has a welfare problem, but it's not located in the outer bouroughs. It's in the primary downtown area, where all the banks have congregated. Entire blocks would have been wiped out and gone up for cheap rent in 2009 if everyone else wasn't forced to subsidize their bullshit lifestyles. Open your eyes and look around. Edit: FR balance sheet[0] currently records ~$4.45 trillion in made up, outstanding, welfare payments. Most of that was directly passed through the FR's dependent organizations, commercial and investment banks, and was initiated to save their system from complete implosion. [0] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm
yequalsx 11y ago
There are no instances of charity ever providing the basic needs of a nations poor since the advent of the nation state. Charities are much more ibefficient than government at curing starvation, lack of healthcare, etc. Nations that contain large percentages of hungry, homeless, and sick are almost always shitty. Making sure there aren't large numbers of extreme poverty cases makes us all better off.
- ashark 11y ago
  AFAI am concerned, libertarians are free to replace most of government with charity and other voluntary associations as soon as they find a way around the free rider problem and assorted other coordination problems that isn't 1) government (we already have that!), or 2) obviously worse than government. Good effing luck!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Bjartr 11y ago
Those are certainly interesting observations, however the skeptic (Scientist? Rationalist?) in me immediately wants to ask "What percentage of the welfare recieving population is made up by those abusers?" and "Would people take notice or be able to notice those times when these benefits are used as intended?" Without some kind of answer to those questions, and probably others, the observations of you and those you know can't (well, shouldn't IMO) be used on their own as an argument against these welfare programs.

by jrcii 11y ago

jsprogrammer 11y ago

NYC has a welfare problem, but it's not located in the outer bouroughs. It's in the primary downtown area, where all the banks have congregated. Entire blocks would have been wiped out and gone up for cheap rent in 2009 if everyone else wasn't forced to subsidize their bullshit lifestyles. Open your eyes and look around. Edit: FR balance sheet[0] currently records ~$4.45 trillion in made up, outstanding, welfare payments. Most of that was directly passed through the FR's dependent organizations, commercial and investment banks, and was initiated to save their system from complete implosion. [0] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

yequalsx 11y ago

There are no instances of charity ever providing the basic needs of a nations poor since the advent of the nation state. Charities are much more ibefficient than government at curing starvation, lack of healthcare, etc. Nations that contain large percentages of hungry, homeless, and sick are almost always shitty. Making sure there aren't large numbers of extreme poverty cases makes us all better off.

ashark 11y ago
AFAI am concerned, libertarians are free to replace most of government with charity and other voluntary associations as soon as they find a way around the free rider problem and assorted other coordination problems that isn't 1) government (we already have that!), or 2) obviously worse than government. Good effing luck!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Bjartr 11y ago

Those are certainly interesting observations, however the skeptic (Scientist? Rationalist?) in me immediately wants to ask "What percentage of the welfare recieving population is made up by those abusers?" and "Would people take notice or be able to notice those times when these benefits are used as intended?" Without some kind of answer to those questions, and probably others, the observations of you and those you know can't (well, shouldn't IMO) be used on their own as an argument against these welfare programs.