Welfare

===Welfare, charities, poor, and the social umbrella===
We all want the opportunity to be part of the middle and upper class. 
The poor deserve better than welfare. 
== ==
* Planks that address the poor and welfare from Mark Rauterkus
==Background==
With productive work, we earn wages or in the case of a small business, we create new equity and pay with business transactions. But sadly, many hurdles make it more difficult to find work and make money. 
There are many laws that make it hard to find work. These laws keep out competition. Taxes and regulations drive the poor out of the job market. Let's repeal laws that make it a crime for the poor to work. Many people on welfare right now could be self-supporting without governmental interference.
:Example: If you baby-sit in your home to earn money, government wants you to pay a fee and register as a business. Also your apartment would have to be in compliance with safety standards. Only someone with startup money can legally do child care in this county.
:A person makes curtains at home. The city has been known to put her out of business because she didn't have money to get an office. 
: Hair Braiders need to have a beautician's license. 
: Jitneys are not allowed, yet PAT is always out of money and making threats to end night and weekend services.
: Food vendors and push-carts merchants in Oakland are always getting a hassled from the city.
: Ticket scalpers and resale agents around stadiums and concert venues face many laws and restrictions.
== Democrats ignore the poor yet count on their votes == 
A real conversation with depth about the needy, the abused, or other causes which are currently grouped under the umbrella term of "social services" does not happen with today's leaders.
When the conventional wisdom crowd dabbles in these topics the coverage usually seeks to discover the fastest, most efficient way to dismantle the existing set of services with little to no worry or concern about the people reliant upon them.
The city has given plenty of headaches to push-cart vendors and sidewalk sales operations.
== ==
Government can not ignore the suffering, nor the struggling. Serious debate is needed. Let's stretch the conversations beyond the comfort zones of the rich and established.
== ==
==It's doubtful that charity will care for all when we pull the safety net.==
Those in the charity sector are well suited to make serious contributions in these matters, but they have been dragged away from their missions with our dysfunctional abiss known as Pittsburgh's City Hall. Consider the strange bedfellows and mixed roles in recent times. Pittsburgh's organizational system is a quagmire with musical chairs. 
===Crossed wires: Pittsburgh has the roles and priorities messed up.===
* The mayor wants to tax the non-profits.
* The mayor wants to give the non-profits more and more land at cheap prices.
* The URA expandes its land grab, downtown and in other places.
* The URA won't sell its land and properties, rather it lets it decline at rapid pace.
* The Pittsburgh Foundation has been concerned with swim pools with "Save Our Summer" in 2004. I don't want Elsie Hillman to tell us where we get to swim and play with our children.
* I don't want the non-profits to be the riches people in town.
* I don't want the non-profits to be working on a $6-million package to bail out the city.
* Governmental leaders have been doing development deals.
* Private industry has been seeking corporate welfare.
* The foundation sector needs to care for our specialized challenges and not rush in to fix the budget and run the swim pools. Developers don't need to pick the new mayor.
Expecting potential voters to accept such a theory is an extraordinarily tough sell without any facts or systems to support it. Mr. Badnarik commonly stated during his campaign that, "Americans are the most generous people on Earth." That may be true, but without any specific plans for what would be done for people seriously in need, we will remain on the fringes of politics. Saying that "charity will provide for everyone in need" is at best naive and at worst downright foolish and dangerous.
It saddens me to think the voters might just be right in their opinion this time. I found a list of "charities" which are listed as libertarian here, along with their respective missions. Not one has a purpose that deals with feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, or caring for the needy. None provides shelter for mentally handicapped or otherwise incapacitated individuals. They're all about protecting rights or educating the public about libertarian ideas and ideals. Do a Google search for libertarian charity yourself and see what I mean. A Charity Navigator search for the keyword "libertarian" drew a blank too. I couldn't find any which provide social services- I wish I could have. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.
I don't doubt that many of us give money and labor to help others. Last weekend I volunteered to help the needy, and I know that others are interested in social causes too. But why haven't we taken a bigger role? Why aren't there libertarian branded charities? When will we walk the walk in a more substantial way?
In the spirit of free markets and competition, I would like to see libertarian charities springing up nationwide to perform social services. A dream of mine is for people like us to provide enough of a secondary support structure that we can back up our claims with action. The public will never believe our controversial statements and ideas without facts. Even better would be if the people who needed the services opted to use OUR charities instead of government welfare. We all know just how inefficient and insufficient publicly funded programs are. This is our chance to prove it.
Let's kill off government welfare the libertarian way- with competition from the private sector. We can and must do better. Not only is it in our best interest because it promotes our agenda, but also importantly (or even more importantly?), it will improve the lives of those currently suffering with shoddy government support.
The only way to bring about a libertarian world is to make it happen ourselves. We claim that private charity is the way of the future; let's make it the way of today.
Posted by The Modern American at November 17, 2004 11:35 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.TheModernAmerican.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16
Comments
This is one of the best points I've heard any Libertarian make in a long time. While I don't think the fact that there are no charities labeled "Libertarian" necessarily means that much (are there any labeled "Republican" or "Democrat"?) I DO think Libertarians lag behind the rest of the population in charitable giving of their money and time, when they should be taking a conspicuous lead. Moreover, I'd like to make a prediction: every hour of time that LP members put into charitable work will do twice the good for the LP of an hour of campaigning or proselytizing.
Posted by: David Beers at November 18, 2004 09:45 AM
Hmmm... good point. I wasn't able to find any labeled "Democrat" or "Republican" either. However, it's easy to find MANY prominent Democrats and Republicans who give to social causes. I cannot say the same for libertarians, unfortunately.
I confess that right now, I give more time than money. When I get older and have more money and less leisure time, that will probably switch. I hope I never entirely stop giving labor though- getting my hands dirty helps me keep perspective. It's too easy to forget WHY you're sending donations if you don't personally see the benefit.
Posted by: The Modern American at November 18, 2004 10:36 AM
You've inspired me, Jonathan! I think I'm going to try to start my own libertarian charity. See my post on the Get Out the Libertarian Message forum thread.
Posted by: David Beers at November 18, 2004 11:12 AM
The Liberty Scholarship Fund is a charitable organization set up by some participants of the Free State Project. The LSF awards $1000 scholarships to families in New Hampshire who homeschool or enroll their children in private schools rather than public schools. They awarded three scholarships in 2004, their first year of operation.
Posted by: Posterity at November 18, 2004 12:32 PM
Thank you for bringing up this topic. For me, libertarianism provides a view of charities that is rather different than what most Americans have. First, direct social action is a much higher priority than electoral politics. Not only is the state incapable of solving social problems, but the electoral process is wasteful and divisive. Even when state activity is creating a problem, the best way of addressing that problem is often to focus on the problem directly, and only focus on the state secondarily.
Finally, I realize that libertarians as a whole have a reputation of being cold-hearted. Perhaps we could take some lessons from those anarchists for whom establishing alternative social institutions is integral to opposing the state.
==Links:==
* Corporate welfare
* WIC
* Panhandlers
category: finance