I'm confused.
We can agree on that.
Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."
You dont understand what Im talking about when I say that altruistic people have conditions concerning altruism, and its mind blowing to me that this isnt self-evident
If someone is going to be altruistic there are MANY conditions;
1.) The altruistic person actually has to have the means to be helpful to other people.
2.) Other people need to exist that need help, AND arent currently getting help.
3.) Other people that need help should be cooperative with getting help.
4.) Those people that need help, and are cooperative, actually need to be able to be helped.
Altruism exists in *reality* its not some kind of metaphysical state of mind that pre-exists any kind of rationality.
Taxation conflicts with 1. The welfare state conflicts with 2.
Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.
Because the federal welfare state didnt go anywhere in the meantime and because people cant adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords.
You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years.
And who was pushing Americans to put money into housing? What agencies made it affordable? Do you think that maybe there was a tie to government somewhere in there?
And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.
YOU believe people are already altruistic. If democracy does ANYTHING its with a 51% majority. You already believe that most people in the United States are very altruistic people. Theyre willing to be raped up the ass by Uncle Sam just so the poor and helpless can be saved.
I dont have to make that point, youve already accepted that its true. Again, you seem very confused about which side of the fence youre on with this issue.
I'm confused again. Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.
This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We cant see how many Rockefellers dont exist today. I cant rewind history and play it back like Id like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition.
Rockefellers rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that hed have given more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but thats a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money.
You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed
Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be second the largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
A good rule of thumb is the closer you get to 0% as GDP of taxation, the closer you get to anarchy and the more prosperous the underlying society given its previous condition.
http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somaliaAfter trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?
Hitler was elected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8You're bringing capitalism into this now. Huh.
Ive been talking about anarcho-capitalism since the beginning. Try to keep up.
Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?
Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest.
And how do you know this? This is just speculation. Who will fund and managed these charities? More of your phantom altruistic people?
We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?
If you havent noticed, private charities do exist.
Again, I dont have to prove that enormous amounts of altruistic people exist. Thats your position.
you have the temerity to ask me to read it?
Yes, I have the temerity to ask you to read relevant subject matter. I know, Im a bad person, but maybe one day I can get past these weaknesses of mine.
"--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --..." Emphasis, Thomas Jefferson's
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.
None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible arent actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it collateral damage?
I guess thats just altruism existing outside of reality again.
The government is you, me and other people like us.
Haha! Thats rich.
Don't mind me asking - what is your age?
Lets go with 225 years old.