Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:42:56 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
 <92346.095057DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <PA146008.556.724089241@utkvm1.utk.edu>

In article <PA146008.556.724089241@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) says:
>
>In article <92346.095057DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <PA146008.548.724013719@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
>>(David Veal) says:
>>>       Taxation is a Bad Thing.  Government is a Bad Thing.  Real, real,
>>>real bad.  Taxation and the government should be the absolute, total, last
>>>option considered.  And even then we should probably wait and see whether
>>>civilization collapses without it.
>>>       It is a practical possibility for welfare to be done by private
>>>individuals.  If it's a practical possibility that the military should be
>>>run by private individuals, then we should probably do it.  Unfortunately,
>>>I've not seen any real practical alternatives.  Practical alternatives exist
>>>for welfare.
>>
>>People keep claiming that private charity could get the job done, but they
>>offer no evidence for this claim.  I wish someone would try and post this.
>
>       Please note the phrasing "practical alternative."  It is possible for
>voluntary charity to not "get the job done," depending on how you define
>"get the job done," because it's (get this) voluntary.
>       Private charity is not a perfect option.  But because it is a
>practical option, we should make it word rather than constantly bleat that
>somebody, somewhere isn't suffering their fair share for the poor.

Is that "make it work??"  Maybe if you could explain what you mean
by "practical alternative" it would help.  I took it to mean that
private charity could replace the social service operations of
government in a reasonable fashion, without the detrimental effects
of big government and coercion, at the same or lower costs.
If that's a reasonable interpretation,
I'd like to see some proof of it.  Most of the private charities I know about
spend 25-40 percent of the monies collected on advertising and administration.
Medicare spends less than 5 percent of total monies collected on admin. costs.


>
>>I will note that I saw an interview on the news last night with a director
>>from CARE (I think).  He was talking about a recent campaign they have
>>been conducting for Somalia.  While he did not provide total expenses
>>he did note that they had spent $100,000 on advertising.  He said this
>>would be one of the most efficient and successful fund-raising efforts
>>thay have had.  The total amount they expected to raise.....
>>
>>                     $400,000
>>
>>
>>(less than $300,000 of which will go to Africa).
>
>       Private charity out of the United States isn't going to feed, clothe,
>house, and educate the world.  We'll be doing great if and when we manage to
>feed, clothe, house, and educate our country.  But very few of anybody's
>government social programs feed, et al. people outside the country.

You miss the point.  Twenty-five percent of monies collected going to
administration and advertising stinks.  Prove to me that private charities
could replace many of government's social services.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
"I believe that there is social and psychological justification
for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth....But it
is not necessary....that the game should be played for such
high stakes as at present."  John Maynard Keynes
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64263 alt.conspiracy:13173