thoughtcrimeboss on Nostr: What to do with people who are solely dependent on welfare is one of the most ...
What to do with people who are solely dependent on welfare is one of the most interesting problems with a hypothetical Libertarian or Voluntaryist revolution. This would be a revolution in which the state is either dismantled completely or rebuilt from the ground up as a very limited night watchman style organization.
However, the very act of dismantling the welfare system could be seen as an act of aggression against those who are dependent on it for their survival, which would violate the non aggression principle (NAP) which is the entire basis of a voluntaryist society. It wouldn't violate the NAP to punish and stop the state actors who steal the money (via taxation and seizure) that funds the welfare because they themselves have already aggressed against everyone they have stolen from, but the legitimate welfare recipients haven't stolen anything, they have just been given stolen funds and were born into a system that made them dependent on welfare. Taking those funds away could mean they are going to potentially starve or die because of lack of medical care.
You can't start a voluntaryist society with an act of mass aggression against all welfare recipients, but you also can't have one in which the state is stealing money to redistribute. A potential solution to this would be to set up parallel systems first in which people can opt out into on an individual basis as we gradually try to reduce people's dependence on welfare.
If you opt out of the state's system and began to participate in a parallel economy rather than using fiat currency and paying taxes, to prevent any potential harm to welfare recipients that would result from you no longer paying taxes, you could donate the same percentage of your income that would of previously gone to welfare. If you donate it to non profits or even give it directly to people in need, you will end up helping welfare recipients more efficiently than the state ever could. People could gradually be convinced to opt out of welfare and instead accept charity from others who have opted out until which point they are self sufficient, if ever.
This would produce change from the ground up on a voluntary basis rather than a top down act of aggression.
Currently, people on disability welfare in the United States are incentivized to not find a way to earn money despite their disability even if they may want to and be capable of doing so. This is because once you make some money you are penalized in how much benefits you receive, so you would have to be earning a significant amount before it would be worth it to do so. This encourages disabled people to just give up and collect a check for the rest of their life's and is not a good system, especially in today's age of remote work in which it is easier than ever for disabled people to work. Disability is of course not the only form of welfare, all of them have their own issues. The main problem though, is it is funded with theft.
However, the very act of dismantling the welfare system could be seen as an act of aggression against those who are dependent on it for their survival, which would violate the non aggression principle (NAP) which is the entire basis of a voluntaryist society. It wouldn't violate the NAP to punish and stop the state actors who steal the money (via taxation and seizure) that funds the welfare because they themselves have already aggressed against everyone they have stolen from, but the legitimate welfare recipients haven't stolen anything, they have just been given stolen funds and were born into a system that made them dependent on welfare. Taking those funds away could mean they are going to potentially starve or die because of lack of medical care.
You can't start a voluntaryist society with an act of mass aggression against all welfare recipients, but you also can't have one in which the state is stealing money to redistribute. A potential solution to this would be to set up parallel systems first in which people can opt out into on an individual basis as we gradually try to reduce people's dependence on welfare.
If you opt out of the state's system and began to participate in a parallel economy rather than using fiat currency and paying taxes, to prevent any potential harm to welfare recipients that would result from you no longer paying taxes, you could donate the same percentage of your income that would of previously gone to welfare. If you donate it to non profits or even give it directly to people in need, you will end up helping welfare recipients more efficiently than the state ever could. People could gradually be convinced to opt out of welfare and instead accept charity from others who have opted out until which point they are self sufficient, if ever.
This would produce change from the ground up on a voluntary basis rather than a top down act of aggression.
Currently, people on disability welfare in the United States are incentivized to not find a way to earn money despite their disability even if they may want to and be capable of doing so. This is because once you make some money you are penalized in how much benefits you receive, so you would have to be earning a significant amount before it would be worth it to do so. This encourages disabled people to just give up and collect a check for the rest of their life's and is not a good system, especially in today's age of remote work in which it is easier than ever for disabled people to work. Disability is of course not the only form of welfare, all of them have their own issues. The main problem though, is it is funded with theft.