Libertarianism and a social safety net

[Khern]

I posed this question in the modern communism argument thread and recieved no replies. I believe it is interesting enough for it's own thread.

A quote from one of the top libertarian figures of recent times about providing a degree of social security/support:

"These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenence for all; and second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person of group enjoys compared with others.
...
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which our has obtained the first kind of security should not be garunteed to all without endangering general freedom."
F.A.Hayek, The Road to Surfdom, Ch 9.

For discussion:

1) What are basic needs? Make an economic argument for providing basic needs (including what they consist of), or an argument for this being unfeasible.

2) Give a reasonable means of funding that is not subject to vote buying.

3) Compare and contrast levels of social support found today with what is neccesary. I tend to think levels of medical care might be particularly interesting.

4) What do you do about bored people being given a sustenance living, and then having kids?

5) And finally, does this create a de facto minimum wage and is this reasonable?

Note that some of Hayek's view are said to have changed as he aged. I have no idea if he felt this way later in life.

[jt1]

Sorry for not answering each question, but my eyes are getting tired.

It's my position that the only funding that should be allowed are

1) Pediatric health care
2) Primary Education (k-12 & day care)
3) infrastructure (roads, environmental cleanup, power plants, etc)
4) National millitary
5) Law and Order
6) Government pay and maintenance including the beaucracy in all 3 branches

7)I may be forgetting one


Furthermore, I think we should have a flat tax with each category funded by a mandated % of total revenue.

[lehighguy]

This guy is a libraterian?

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy is a libraterian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Absolutely. That's why this statement shocked me a little when I read it.

a few selections from Mises:

http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=126

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for not answering each question, but my eyes are getting tired.

It's my position that the only funding that should be allowed are

1) Pediatric health care
2) Primary Education (k-12 & day care)
3) infrastructure (roads, environmental cleanup, power plants, etc)
4) National millitary
5) Law and Order
6) Government pay and maintenance including the beaucracy in all 3 branches

7)I may be forgetting one


Furthermore, I think we should have a flat tax with each category funded by a mandated % of total revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]


4-6 I'm sold on. 1&3, unsure, havn't given enough thought. I tend to think large interstate roads with few entry/exit points could be private. On 2, I tend to think education should be privitized.

Do you like the flat tax proposals more than the FairTax(consumption tax implemented as a national sales tax on new items only.), and if so, why?

[lehighguy]

Some of his statements go against typical libraterian thought.

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of his statements go against typical libraterian thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of the thread subject, which ones?

I read his book, Road to Serfdom, this summer. Milton Friedman wrote the introduction to the 50th anerversy addition, and besides the quote I started the thread with, I didn't see anything that struck me as outside of libertarianism as I know it. The book was a very good argument for how those things the left typically represents inevitably lead to dictatorship rather than egalitarian/cummunal society. The quality of the book is why I was willing to take a pause at his assertion that basic needs can be provided.

John

If you're into that kind of reading and you lean libertarian or even simply conservative, then you must read Man, Economy, and State.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466...ks&v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466323/104-7181391-8722326?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're into that kind of reading and you lean libertarian or even simply conservative, then you must read Man, Economy, and State.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466...ks&v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466323/104-7181391-8722326?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the pointer. I've read several of Rothbard's essays at Mises.org

My views are libertarian with the possible exception of Just War Theory.

John

[lehighguy]

"These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenence for all; and second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person of group enjoys compared with others.
...
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which our has obtained the first kind of security should not be garunteed to all without endangering general freedom."

It sounds like he's advocating welfare:
"the certainty of a given minimum of sustenence for all; and second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person of group enjoys compared with others."

Very unlibraterian.