5 ms·

I choose to live in a society and I want to live in a society that maintains a certain level of humanity. To run this enterprise that we call society requires

by skh 8y ago

I choose to live in a society and I want to live in a society that maintains a certain level of humanity. To run this enterprise that we call society requires a government (I do not at all agree with anarchism). That government requires money to run. Hence the need for taxes and right now taxes in the U.S. are low relative to the last 50 years. I don't know anyone who is hungry so I can't directly give food to the hungry. One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government. Besides, there is more to the proper running of a society than just feeding hungry people. We need roads, sewers, clean water, a legal system, police, teachers, etc. The umbrella organization that we give money to in order to provide these things is the government.

antidesitter 8y ago
> One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government. Empirically speaking, government is one of the least suited and efficient organizations to do this [1]. “[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split. “In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.” [1] http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf
- skh 8y ago
  Widespread undernourishment and hunger was not defeated by charity. It was defeated by government. Widespread access to clean water was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to education was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to medical care for poor children was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Thus it is safe to say that government is much more efficient at accomplishing these goals than charity. Charity is much more efficient at the margins. It’s great for the fringe cases once the majority of the problem has been addressed.

by skh 8y ago

antidesitter 8y ago

> One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government. Empirically speaking, government is one of the least suited and efficient organizations to do this [1]. “[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split. “In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.” [1] http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

skh 8y ago
Widespread undernourishment and hunger was not defeated by charity. It was defeated by government. Widespread access to clean water was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to education was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to medical care for poor children was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Thus it is safe to say that government is much more efficient at accomplishing these goals than charity. Charity is much more efficient at the margins. It’s great for the fringe cases once the majority of the problem has been addressed.