Reddit reviews From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967

I'm with you on helping the poor and there are many reasons why poverty in a free society wouldn't be a real problem. Lets take a look:

WHAT KEEPS POOR PEOPLE OUT OF WORK?
____
State Regulation -- leads to favoritism, bribery and destroys jobs for the lower classes.

How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy(short)

The State Is Not Great: Legal Plunder (short)

Economic Freedom & Income Equality(short)

The Reality of the State | Stefan Molyneux (short)
_
Minimum Wage Laws -- destroys job opportunities for the least skilled workers in society.
___
Myth: The Government and Labor Unions Saved Us From Low Wages and Poverty(short)

Edgar the Exploiter (short)

Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers? (short)
__
IP law -- monopoly privileges granted by government over the use of ideas and information.

Against Intellectual Monopoly

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."

free ebook:http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

Kinsella on Protecting Value and Harry Potter (short)

Full Kinsella interview on IP laws vs. free market methods

Intellectual Freedom, Kinsella

Kinsella on third-parties and no contract obligations (short)

"Capitalism = zero profit game" - Jeffrey A. Tucker (Free Market, Technology, Innovation, Intellectual Property)

_

THREADS
____
Thread: ELIMINATING IMMORAL WEALTH CONCENTRATION

Thread: Free market or consumer regulation
_____

Social Safety Programs are fine, but they need to be funded voluntarily:

MUTUAL AIDE SOCIETIES
__

Article: MUTUAL AIDE SOCIETIES: Origins of the Welfare State in America
__
Book: From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State
___

Article: Welfare before the Welfare State

__

"Mutual aid was particularly popular among the poor and the working class. For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the "living wage," had members who were in mutual-aid societies.[2] Ethnicity, however, was an even greater predictor of mutual-aid membership than income. The "new immigrants," such as the Germans, Bohemians, and Russians, many of whom were Jews, participated in mutual-aid societies at approximately twice the rate of native whites and six times the rate of the Irish.[3] This may have been due to new immigrants' need for an enhanced social safety net."

By the 1920s, at least one out of every three males was a member of a mutual-aid society.[4] Members of societies carried over $9 billion worth of life insurance by 1920. During the same period, "lodges dominated the field of health insurance."[5] Numerous lodges offered unemployment benefits. Some black fraternal lodges, taking note of the sporadic nature of African-American employment at the time, allowed members to receive unemployment benefits even if they were up to six months behind in dues"
____

80%, or more, of all welfare money spent goes to the bureaucrats and less than 20% will go to recipients.


Mother Jones Report 2012: How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

More Sources on Government Welfare

People have no concept anymore just how well private organizations had the societal issues of welfare, healthcare, insurance and more, well handled through voluntary organizations, mutual aid societies, and fraternal organizations until the big government proponents started to expand their power and push those organizations out of the way. Libertarians are often accused of "hating the poor" because of our opposition to welfare, but the fact is those things were done better before the government got involved.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/mutual-aid-welfare-state-how-fraternal-societies-fought-poverty-and-taught


https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXyFmmGBQ

Before the government took care of the poor, we took care of the poor ourselves. When the government started taking care of the poor, we figured we didn't need to anymore. Now, it's strange to imagine a world where the government doesn't take care of the poor.

This is true in the healthcare industry. Back before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor received treatment at hospitals for free or reduced cost through various private programs or through physicians donating their services.

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967

Disclaimer: I haven't read this book, but it's on my list.

I'm referencing Tocqueville's most popular work, Democracy in America. In it he examines how American life works compared to what he has experienced in Europe and is amazed at the vibrant civil society in America. To be honest, I have not read it through, but American civil society is something that has been shrinking more and more over time as reliance on the state grows. For example, if you are interested to see how things such as unemployment insurance and aid to the poor worked before the state gave itself a monopoly on it, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 is the definitive work on that.

What all of this implies to me is a direct refutation of the charge laid against libertarians that we are anti-social and just care about ourselves. I think it is the exact opposite. In the absence of the state, we are forced to see the care of our neighbor as our own responsibility, not just some thing that we cast a vote for and feel good about ourselves and call it a day. We are forced to work together to solve problems more frequently instead of the society reliant on the state so much today that people now call the police to tell their neighbors to be quiet. What happens when we rely on government to take care of these things is it becomes much more impersonal. We somehow think that the money taken automatically out of our taxes is all that needs to be done.

While that article is great, also check out http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417

Furthermore, remember that you would need a lot less charity when all the large corporations aren't distorting the market with subsidies and favoritism and the Fed doesn't cause major business cycles and government doesn't distort the market by both taxing and spending.

Not strictly ancap, but Albert Jay Nock's Our Enemy, the State is a fantastic take-down of the state's "monopoly of crime." He's also a revisionist when it comes to the Articles of Confederation.

In addition, David Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State is a history of mutual aid societies, which are a very potent alternative to the welfare state. Great intellectual ammunition for debating statists about how an ancap society would treat poor people.

These are good questions, and there are good answers for them. I recommend a book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967. If a book is more than you want to read, there are two good articles based off that book that fill in a lot of the general picture: Welfare before the Welfare State and From Mutual Aid to Welfare State: How Fraternal Societies Fought Poverty and Taught Character.

>but I think there's a limit to how much out-of-pocket most people will pay before they start cutting corners on preventive care and on treatment for chronic illnesses.

Do you think that people will voluntarily diminish their own utility? Sometimes there are higher priorities than preventative care (food, shelter etc.)

> I challenge you to show evidence of any time or place in history before modern welfare where poor people had reliable access to anything even remotely approaching adequate care.

Have a look at http://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State/dp/0807848417 . Its thesis is summarized here - http://mises.org/daily/5388

The guy you're replying to probably doesn't know a ton about this area, but his answer is generally correct (though inexact). At the turn of the 20th Century approximately half of the population (predominantly lower and middle class, and weighted heavily towards blacks and new immigrants - the very people who could not afford direct-paid service) was covered through mutual aid societies, which hired "lodge doctors" (new doctors who could handle most things, and would send you to a specialist if it was more serious) to provide medical services - including basic surgery and medication - to lodge members and their families. This system was extremely efficient, but it dominated the field of provision of medical services. The typical yearly cost for members was $2 (an average day's wage for those in lower income brackets), while non-members could pay $2 per doctor's visit.

Then the AMA began to control the licensing of medical schools. There's a long literature of all the politics of this, but extremely well-educated and well-to-do doctors basically used the system to destroy less elite medical schools, halving the number of degree-granting institutions (and nearly doubling the cost of medical care). This put some lodges out of business.

Then came regulation of the reserves of lodges. Lodges had to show a gradual increase in reserve cash year over year to avoid being shut down (which, as anyone who has studied the economics of insurance can tell you, is incredibly stupid). Predictably, this reduction of supply also caused increases in medical costs.

Then came the clincher for lodges; every member was required to have a full doctor's examination annually. Predictably, this raised the cost of the service enough that many individuals were priced out of it, which (as is the nature of insurance) raised the costs even further.

Source: The respected historian David Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967


There's also the fraternal hospitals which functioned on a similar model (though I know less about those), and were driven out through some of the same regulations and then the initial regulations of the Medicare program (which actually hurt health care outcomes for low-income individuals by limiting their access to care).

book available on amazon: From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967

>During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, more Americans belonged to fraternal societies than to any other kind of voluntary association, with the possible exception of churches.


>Much more than a means of addressing deep-seated cultural, psychological, and gender needs, fraternal societies gave Americans a way to provide themselves with social-welfare services that would otherwise have been inaccessible, Beito argues. In addition to creating vast social and mutual aid networks among the poor and in the working class, they made affordable life and health insurance available to their members and established hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the elderly. Fraternal societies continued their commitment to mutual aid even into the early years of the Great Depression, Beito says, but changing cultural attitudes and the expanding welfare state eventually propelled their decline.

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State written by David Beito

An article directly attempting to refute it is: The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity


> But there were a few major problems with these societies. The first was that they were regionally segregated and isolated.

^ This really isn't a problem. What works in Albuquerque, NM may not work for Providence, RI. (and any argument for consolidation is purely an argument for government control, and socialism in general)

> These forms of insurance didn't exist in places without dense cities, industry, or deep ethnic and immigrant communities. Even in states with large cities and thriving industries like California and New York, only 30 percent of workers had some sort of health-care coverage through fraternal methods. Moreover, the programs were fragmented and provided only partial insurance.

^ People had savings, a stronger family structure, and obviously didn't feel that complete medical coverage was economically feasible. Also, we don't know if this "30%" includes children, women, or immigrants - each has different reasons for not being a member of any aid society.

> Also, these were programs designed for working men—for the most part, they did not cover women. Health insurance contracts, for example, were explicit in not providing for coverage of pregnancy, childbirth, or child care (seen as women’s responsibilities at the time).

^ That was the medical standard at the time. I don't see how we cold expect different standards when everyone had children in their own homes with semi-professional midwives.

> The doctors the lodges hired were often seen as providing substandard care. And most of these societies had age limits.

^ Citation?

> Those over 45 were generally ruled out, and those that weren’t were charged higher rates. Those already in poor health were excluded through medical examinations. There were maximum and minimum limits on benefits, and as a result, long-term disability wasn't covered. As late as 1930, old-age benefits represented just 2.3 percent of social benefits given out by fraternal organizations.

^ It is very expensive to exceed these limits. I contend that basically none of the goods or services we interact with today has a price not affected by subsidy, tax, or regulatory burden. Also, consider the lives of people who lived past their mutual aid society's age limit. These people would have either a family with working children or a pension.

Then the Progressives came and forced workers to pay into programs that were set up to benefit them by people who would profit from the programs and politicians who would reap in the votes to keep the programs running. "...forcing employers to participate was fair because they would directly benefit from such coverage."

>You are allowed to buy insurance across state lines, they just have to adhere to your states regulations.

When there are 50 different state regulations good luck and if you're an international company it's even worse.

>Yes, they should be able to buy medicine that is cheap because of government imposed price controls.

The point is the government should not be able to tell anyone where to buy medicine. It doesn't matter if it's because the Canadian people subsidize the industry or if in the case of cars the Japanese are more efficient. Government has no right to tell me where to buy products.

>No, they are priced out or straight out denied because of preexisting conditions and recision.

I address preexisting conditions in the next comment where I will provide citations. People are priced out because government intervention through tax code. The only reason people have insurance through their employer is because of government intervention.
No other insurance works like this, auto, flood, rental etc.

>Citation?

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/

>Socialists have lots of strategies in mind. What he’s arguing against is the idea that socialists must have 100% concrete and foolproof plans before they do anything, and the idea that what might work in one time and place would also work in another. It’s just not a realistic expectation.

That is fine as far as it goes and since Robinson is a Libertarian (and so I would assume Market) Socialist then iterating as you go might work. If you are a 'non-market we need a revolution' type Socialist that doesn't work as well.

> But if you have solid principles, you can cross bridges when you get to them. If you’re too rigid, you run the risk of not being able to take criticism or advice or sticking to plans that aren’t panning out. That’s what I got from this piece.

I think a big issue I have is I don't really see "principles" in his piece, or at least not the kind I am looking for when someone is talking about making significant changes to our economy.

I think he is using the definition of principles that is: "morally correct behavior and attitudes" but what I am looking for (and I think most people are thinking of when they here the term in this context) is: "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."

This is a major difference and I don't see anything in that article that points me to something I can use as a foundation for actual applied Socialism.

> I’m for what “works” too, but your morals factor into what your assessment of “working” is...

I don't actually disagree with anything you said in this paragraph. I would only caution against assuming that because something addresses the obvious symptom that it is in fact dealing with the real problem. But I think picking that apart would be too much of a tangent here.

> That actually isn’t necessarily incompatible with pacifism...

I get that but my point was more what I cautioned you against above.

> I don’t detect any insincerity when Robinson says something like: ...

The problem is that quote you gave doesn't say anything. Authoritarianism doesn't have to be a single dude running things from the top. Democracy is often called the tyranny of the majority and for good reason. Yes, it is better than having a dictator but that doesn't mean it can not crush people.

It is the principles, actual foundational stuff, we are operating under that really define how a society plays out. I would probably have to jump into the negative vs positive rights argument to really flesh this out (and I don't want to) but basically if someone tells me they are for democracy that's fine but tell me how you are going to handle the peaceful person who is morally opposed to the majorities decision. That is how I'll judge what you mean by democracy. Way too many people, on the Left & Right, cloak themselves under "Democracy" in an effort to destroy their outgroup.

Your quote also reminded me of a wholly separate issue I had with Robinson. He calls himself a Libertarian Socialist but everything he talks about is just giving Government ever more power & scope of control.

You want co-ops, great, lets remove any artificial roadblocks to their formation.
You want better healthcare, great, lets reduce government control there and bring back the insurance alternatives that were forced out of existence.
Want a better safety net, great, then let's create real mutual aid societies and rebuild community and family bonds.

And so on.

This is more of a pet peeve of mine but again, it's another signal that what this author has in mind is just a different form of government control over society and that just means more elites, maybe different elites but elites non-the-less, running things.

Statistical evidence? That question seems a bit nonsensical. Historical and logical evidence? Sure. Also, help to feed your family need not come from churches, particularly if you get together with enough like-minded people who believe that this should not be solely left to churches.

http://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344951300&sr=8-1&keywords=mutual+aid+society

https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Prescription-Doug-McGuff-ebook/dp/B011AA2LZA

https://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Healthcare-Independent-Studies-Political-ebook/dp/B008B946EI/

https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417

I recommend the book

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807848417/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_4iIjzbFR64B5S

> When there are 50 different state regulations good luck and if you're an international company it's even worse.

You know there are companies that currently do sell insurance across state lines, right?

> The point is the government should not be able to tell anyone where to buy medicine. It doesn't matter if it's because the Canadian people subsidize the industry or if in the case of cars the Japanese are more efficient. Government has no right to tell me where to buy products.

Yes, I agree that people should be able to buy cheap medicine by government enacted price controls. I wasn't disagreeing with you.

> I address preexisting conditions in the next comment where I will provide citations. People are priced out because government intervention through tax code. The only reason people have insurance through their employer is because of government intervention. No other insurance works like this, auto, flood, rental etc.

That's how it started. Now it works because it is a good way of pooling risk and is the only way many people with preexisting conditions can even get insurance. If people just bought it individually, there would be no way for these people to get into the risk pool.

> http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/

Nice try David T. Beito. Trying to get me to buy your book. If you can find the relevant passage of that book that supports your claim, post that. Otherwise that is useless to me.

Well it's not crazy at all of course...free market socialism worked very well in the U.S. before legal monopolies created profit incentives for insurance companies. Back then one day's wages could provide for an entire year of healthcare and it was entirely voluntary. Unlike state socialism which always presupposes all kinds of economic things, like that people are always working. More info in this book.

Europe is able to have such a massive welfare state because we pay for their defense budgets. And destructive "fuck you, I'll do what I want" individualism is a result of the state. [Society is emergent, people cooperate to reach common goals without government and through the market] (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Community-Background-Essential-Conservative/dp/1935191500/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377371743&sr=1-1&keywords=the+quest+for+community). [After the welfare state was expanded in the 60's, people could engage in destructive behavior that most people disproved of (out of wedlock pregnancy, divorce, promiscousnous, addiction) because that behavior was subsidized by the government] (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377371787&sr=1-1&keywords=losing+ground). Libertarians are the greatest friends of poor minorities. Even after desegregation, [the war on drugs] (http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431), [occupational licensing laws] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Against-Blacks-Walter-Williams/dp/0070703787/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377371682&sr=1-1&keywords=state+against+blacks), and the lack of school choice are institutional barriers that have kept minorities poor. [Public institutions have always been erected to take care of the poor, whether there is government involvement or not] (http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377371988&sr=1-1&keywords=david+beito).