Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
7 comments:
Provided this was in fact funded by the state, one would assume that Darwin would be against it since he supports developing infrastructure for the poor instead of simply paying them.
Actually I was going to say it's ironic that you (he) would like this since it involves way more technocratic social planning than simply giving the poor money (since it rewards specific actions only, it takes those decisions away from the individual and away from the free market).
But anyway, I think this sounds like a really good idea; this is the type of thing I'm thinking about when I say that reforming the way social welfare programs work can make them more efficient and less expensive without opening them up to the private sector.
But it's true that this is an extremely technocratic system; it just happens to be technocratic in a way that (I think) agrees with your ideas about poor people and what's wrong with them, so Sophist, I wonder what your take on the matter is.
But anyway, I think this sounds like a really good idea; this is the type of thing I'm thinking about when I say that reforming the way social welfare programs work can make them more efficient and less expensive without opening them up to the private sector.
Uhmm The funding is going to be acquired through private sources. Its not even clear why this has to be associated with the city. Most likley to makes the mayor look good both to the liberal and the conservatives and also will draw in larger donations. Everyone wins.
However the fact that you think this example of the state doing good is quite baffling. Its an independent commission privately funded. Its not even close to a state program. This like saying the state has done good job hiring people through wal mart since they granted the coporation its charter.
"His deputy mayor for health and human services, Linda Gibbs, served on the anti-poverty commission and will help guide its recommendations into policy. She said the reward details - such as amounts and qualifications - are still being studied. But she said the city is encouraged by the success of similar programs in other countries, where the benefits endure for years because they create behavior patterns"
I dunno man that sounds to me like this was a result of government planning. That's why it has to be associated with the city- private charity didn't have the idea and try to implement it, the govenrment did (as far as I can tell from the article; let me know if you read it differently).
I guess I'm assuming that the prgoram itself will be run equally well by the government or by am private charity (I assume you would disagree there), so since the government cae up with the system, this can be counted as a successful government program.
I still want to know how you feel about this type of program.
If giving money to the poor is your deal then this would probably be a better system then others. Provided of course this is private.
I can see using incentives to get people out of poverty as a good idea. I woudlnt have a problem donating to a a well run private institute that uses these kind of method provided they can prove their effectiveness.
Whats interesting is how you are able to discern this program to be differnt in a way that makes you more interestrested in the program. Its almost like you can make rough distincitons between differing charities without extensive knowledge and investigation about the charity.
LOL, you're using the fact that I think this is a good program becuase I read a 2-paragraph summary of it on someone's blog as an example that people won't make poorly-informed decisions about what charities to donate too. That's incredibly funny to me.
So you didnt?
Post a Comment