Why can't Libertarians have social programs?

Why can't Libertarians have social programs?

Why do the left authoritarians(democrats)have a monopoly on social welfare? What is to stop the us from implementing our own social programs?
Just add a voluntary state social services tax and remove all income taxes and corporate taxes. Abortion would be legal but voluntarily funded(if your against abortion you don't have to fund it with your tax money).Food stamps,Medicare(probably removed and replaced with a medical services marketplace of competing private providers. Which ever company provides the best quality services and best price gets selected by the customer) and SS are also voluntary taxes.

What is to stop us from implementing a local voluntary version of federal social services programs?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Because leftists believe charity is meant to be forced on all, at all times.

You know, like " but these poor refugees" , to which we ask, then why do we all have to pay for it, why don't you pay for it.

The answer is simple, they want to force their beliefs and views on others, then force them to participate in it by paying for it.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Because those federal social programs have become bloated bureaucracies that are difficult to dismantle.

Charity groups are often targeted in the press because they have insanely high "administrative" costs, leaving very little money for the cause that they support. CEOs of these charities become wealthy on donated money... tax free.

Imagine if we were to examine the overhead costs for any federal social program... I am willing to bet that those would be astronomical. They would decry any effort to downsize or decentralize, citing just how many government employees would suddenly become unemployed... based on the performance of most government agencies they probably deserve to be unemployed...

Isn't that basically charity with a posher name?

The problem with taxes being voluntary is that someone has to sort out where your taxes get sent and it requires more administration thus soaking up some of the good that could be done as you have to pay for all the admin staff so its probably better to have pretty much zero/low basic taxes and you feel as generous as you want with your money after that?

It does remind me a bit of the parish system that did exist here in the UK where the poor basically would rely on the generosity of the local bigwigs to even have a crust to eat or a roof to sleep under.

Because it would have to an all or nothing with taxes. You couldn't just pick and choose which ones are voluntary, if you wanted to do something like this then you would to make any and every tax voluntary. Which IMO would just never work.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I think that's the premise behind Libertarianism, isn't it? I thought their main premise was to return the power to the states and the states can be as despotic or liberal as they want to be.

Honestly, I think an even better way would be to keep our taxes as they are but allow people to allocate them however they please at the end of each year. So if you don't support our war, put 0% under that section. Don't support women's issues? Put 0% on it.

That would eliminate complaints of their taxes going towards things they don't believe in while causing all of the recipients to compete by improving their services or actions. This would be a true representation of the public will.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The whole idea of personal liberty is making your own choices. The rights of the individual SHOULD trump those of society or the state. No one is stopping you from giving whatever you like to whomever you want. I give money to things that matter to me. You give things to what matters to you. You know, that whole freedom thing you guys like to ignore.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Isn't that basically charity with a posher name?

The problem with taxes being voluntary is that someone has to sort out where your taxes get sent and it requires more administration thus soaking up some of the good that could be done as you have to pay for all the admin staff so its probably better to have pretty much zero/low basic taxes and you feel as generous as you want with your money after that?
Or you can request online the taxes you don't want to or want to pay. It is handled by advanced AI's on a private network.You don't have to pay a machine. Every payroll check they take out for the local social services.But they are optional

It does remind me a bit of the parish system that did exist here in the UK where the poor basically would rely on the generosity of the local bigwigs to even have a crust to eat or a roof to sleep under.

a reply to: Metallicus

That could be very controversial if you considered that you had the right to rape a 5 year old etc (not that you would) but society has certain values it see's fit to consider as the base line of normal behaviour as it tries and brings both sides of individual freedoms under some sort of rules.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The whole idea of personal liberty is making your own choices. The rights of the individual SHOULD trump those of society or the state. No one is stopping you from giving whatever you like to whomever you want. I give money to things that matter to me. You give things to what matters to you. You know, that whole freedom thing you guys like to ignore.

Who's "you guys"?

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: Metallicus

That could be very controversial if you considered that you had the right to rape a 5 year old etc (not that you would) but society has certain values it see's fit to consider as the base line of normal behaviour as it tries and brings both sides of individual freedoms under some sort of rules.

Since a free man only considers crime to be crimes against person or property your 'example' would be a clear example of violation of person. I am not sure what your 'example' has to do with the OP.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The whole idea of personal liberty is making your own choices. The rights of the individual SHOULD trump those of society or the state. No one is stopping you from giving whatever you like to whomever you want. I give money to things that matter to me. You give things to what matters to you. You know, that whole freedom thing you guys like to ignore.

Who's "you guys"?

People that want to inflict 'social programs' on the rest of us.

Isn't that what YOU are suggesting?

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: Metallicus

That could be very controversial if you considered that you had the right to rape a 5 year old etc (not that you would) but society has certain values it see's fit to consider as the base line of normal behaviour as it tries and brings both sides of individual freedoms under some sort of rules.

Libertarians are not against rules.

What are you talking about?

a reply to: Metallicus

The social programs are totally optional. You don't have to fund them if you don't want to.

That is what I am suggesting.

I believe social programs would be best administered at a local level. The larger the government entity involved, the larger the fraud and waste associated.

I also believe that our high tax rates make it harder for people to be charitable since so much of our money is being siphoned off by the government.

Liberals often assume that because we don't support government handouts and social programs that we want people to die in the streets. I just believe that the federal government should be as small as possible and that these programs should be done at the state and city level.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The whole idea of personal liberty is making your own choices. The rights of the individual SHOULD trump those of society or the state. No one is stopping you from giving whatever you like to whomever you want. I give money to things that matter to me. You give things to what matters to you. You know, that whole freedom thing you guys like to ignore.

Depending on how you read it it does mean that your views are better than everyone elses around you and even more important than those of the state government, but you expect those rights at the same time to be supported by the system while almost denying the system its power to grant such rights in the first place.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Metallicus

The social programs are totally optional. You don't have to fund them if you don't want to.

That is what I am suggesting.

If you make the choice to fund something then I have no problem with what you do, but ultimately this will lead us down a road that will make it mandatory and cede our power to some 'public entity'. If it were a private venture then we already have these things through our Churches, Schools and local organizations.

I don't know any Libertarian that wants to tell the private sector what to do so I am not sure what this OP is now. Are you suggesting that Government have optional programs? That won't work. If you want to have private organizations do charity work then we have that already.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: Metallicus

That could be very controversial if you considered that you had the right to rape a 5 year old etc (not that you would) but society has certain values it see's fit to consider as the base line of normal behaviour as it tries and brings both sides of individual freedoms under some sort of rules.

In that circumstance, however, you're dealing with one person negatively impacting the rights of another. That's the antithesis of Libertarianism.

The real crux of this is in the fact that the Left and Right can't even agree with what our actual rights are. The Left would say that reception of redistributed wealth dependent upon the recipients needs are a right, I say that's a ridiculous concept. Nobody has a right to demand goods, services, or products free of charge... The Right would argue that an industrious man has a right to amass as much wealth as they can, unfettered by scaled taxation and artificially created wealth caps. I don't believe anyone who is sane would argue that people have a right to directly endanger others, mainly because others have rights of their own. (and if you REALLY want to delve deeply down the rabbit hole, when do rights begin, conception or birth? When do they end, brain failure? Physical death? Randomly chosen milestones picked by a courtroom?)

originally posted by: Maxatoria

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The whole idea of personal liberty is making your own choices. The rights of the individual SHOULD trump those of society or the state. No one is stopping you from giving whatever you like to whomever you want. I give money to things that matter to me. You give things to what matters to you. You know, that whole freedom thing you guys like to ignore.

Depending on how you read it it does mean that your views are better than everyone elses around you and even more important than those of the state government, but you expect those rights at the same time to be supported by the system while almost denying the system its power to grant such rights in the first place.

What is a "right"?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Metallicus

The social programs are totally optional. You don't have to fund them if you don't want to.

That is what I am suggesting.

If you make the choice to fund something then I have no problem with what you do, but ultimately this will lead us down a road that will make it mandatory and cede our power to some 'public entity'. No it will remain optional and voluntary If it were a private venture then we already have these things through our Churches, Schools and local organizations.

I don't know any Libertarian that wants to tell the private sector what to doIt is not telling the private sector to do anything. All we do is have a optional funding source for social programs so I am not sure what this OP is now. Are you suggesting that Government have optional programs?No the government is not involved. I am talking about optional taxes for the individual to be taxed for local social programs That won't work. If you want to have private organizations do charity work then we have that already.